Ben Carson says, "A Muslim should not be president because that faith is inconsistent with the princ - Polidicks

[QUOTE=karlosfandango;48730278]This being a very poor argument. I am sure the constitution was loosely based on Christian beliefs at the time.[/QUOTE] As I recall, the Constitution was designed to avoid religious (specifically Christian) requirements in order to avoid disputes about what Denominations or beliefs would be acceptable, because they would make it harder to get the states (which tended to have sharp denominational differences) to ratify it. Almost all of the early state constitutions had provisions that required public officials to profess some form of Christian faith, so its not unthinkable that a similar requirement could have made it into the Constitution had the issue been pushed at the time.

[QUOTE=yumyumshisha;48728826]Being a neurosurgeon has no bearing on your beliefs. Being able to cut people open and being a religious nutjob are not mutually exclusive.[/QUOTE] On the contrary, Ben Carson has done nothing but shout out how much being a neurosurgeon makes him the most qualified candidate for the presidency. While it would be safe to say it has no bearing on his beliefs if someone else attacked him with that argument, he himself is using it as a basis for his beliefs and so it must be considered.

Oh yeah like the idea that a black person would never be president, or a Catholic would never be President Grow up Ben Carson, its Fucking 2015

It's true.

I like how this asshole deflects all criticism with "I'm a neurosurgeon" Yeah, neurosurgeons can be idiots too, you pandering bigot.

Honestly I find this fair enough.

[QUOTE=Propane Addict;48729079]Why are all the GOP candidates this time around so comically villainous? I mean, at least Romney was actually a really good Governor who introduced some aspects of socialized healthcare to his states, and McCain was actually pretty progressive on immigration issues and some energy topics. The '16 crop of candidates are nutjobs.[/QUOTE] because they're trying to relate to the lowest common denominator. i doubt this guy even believed what he said, he's just saying whatever he thinks will get him in the nomination

[QUOTE=BananaFoam;48732431]I like how this asshole deflects all criticism with "I'm a neurosurgeon" Yeah, neurosurgeons can be idiots too, you pandering bigot.[/QUOTE] He's right. Although Christians should also not hold office

Yeah man we had a Muslim representative here and all he did was try to blow up congress and implement sharia law. (Not really)

ill take "secular government" for $400 alex

[QUOTE=Kljunas;48730373]Isn't that open to interpretation though? I don't think this distinction is explicit in the Bible (though I admit I'm not very knowledgeable on this particular topic).[/QUOTE] The fact that no Christian society has ever lived by, or taught that they should live by, the Old Testament laws goes a pretty far way to showing that it's not really up for interpretation. The part where the New Testament clearly and directly says that people don't need to do very specific things from the Old Testament laws like being circumcised, eating only "clean" foods, ceremonial hand washing, etc. shows that to be the case.

[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;48728102]That phrase doesn't appear in the Constitution FYI, but I agree with the sentiment.[/QUOTE] Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; while it doesn't say anything about the people behind congress, it does imply that the government should be as free from religious dogma as possible, the founding fathers realised that people were human and couldn't simply set aside their beliefs, but my god they could not predict how thick the dogma today would be, back then the office was treated much differently in regards to personal faith

[QUOTE=Sableye;48735998]Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; while it doesn't say anything about the people behind congress, it does imply that the government should be as free from religious dogma as possible, the founding fathers realised that people were human and couldn't simply set aside their beliefs, but my god they could not predict how thick the dogma today would be, back then the office was treated much differently in regards to personal faith[/QUOTE] Many, many states had state sponsored churches at the signing of the constitution and it wasn't seen as an infringement of the first amendment at the time. So I'm not sure your claim about dogma being different would stand true.

[QUOTE=Propane Addict;48729079]Why are all the GOP candidates this time around so comically villainous? I mean, at least Romney was actually a really good Governor who introduced some aspects of socialized healthcare to his states, and McCain was actually pretty progressive on immigration issues and some energy topics. The '16 crop of candidates are nutjobs.[/QUOTE] because they represent the party that has stalled the government for the last 6 years, and wont move on anything meaningful until they have the presidency, the congress, and at least 5 supreme court justices who are clones of antony scalea, they've held the country hostage to improve their electorate response. they had their chance before last years midterms to pass meaningful immigration reform, instead boener let the bill rot on his desk, refusing to bring a bipartisan, senate approved bill up to vote because he had republicans stumping for the same thing [editline]21st September 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=sgman91;48736005]Many, many states had state sponsored churches at the signing of the constitution and it wasn't seen as an infringement of the first amendment at the time. So I'm not sure your claim about dogma being different would stand true.[/QUOTE] many states had churches that were founded by the original settlers but they were all disbanded by 1791, you have to remember that there was almost 20 years between the declaration of independence and the actual first amendment being ratified

[QUOTE=Sableye;48735998]Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; while it doesn't say anything about the people behind congress, it does imply that the government should be as free from religious dogma as possible, the founding fathers realised that people were human and couldn't simply set aside their beliefs, but my god they could not predict how thick the dogma today would be, back then the office was treated much differently in regards to personal faith[/QUOTE] On the other hand, majority of the state constitutions mention God in their preambles. Though they don't specify whose God.