jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ben Carson is still influenced by his "First Do No Harm" oath he took when becoming a physician-not such a bad thing!

What is the basis of your suggestion that a Muslim President would be harmful? Such a President would obviously have to have been elected. Do you consider democracy harmful as well?

And the President must uphold the Constitution. If a Muslim president doesn't 'rule' with his religion in mind, all's good. Same with Christian. Same with atheist. Obama is certainly 'ruling' with his activism in mind, which he has always practiced with a religious zeal.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And Carson is correct in that the Islamic faith is not consistent with the Constitution

How so? There is no "official" Islam. So, how are you able to make such a categorial statement? That is exactly what used to be said about Catholics because a Catholic would be subservient to the Pope. It was wrong about Catholics and is wrong about Muslims.

The Constitution was designed to limit the powers of Federal government in order to preserve freedom for the people. Please show me a country under Islamic rule that lives by that tenant.

Anonymous wrote:Ben Carson is still influenced by his "First Do No Harm" oath he took when becoming a physician-not such a bad thing!

What is the basis of your suggestion that a Muslim President would be harmful? Such a President would obviously have to have been elected. Do you consider democracy harmful as well?

Ben Carson is still influenced by his "First Do No Harm" oath he took when becoming a physician-not such a bad thing!

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It reminds me of the days when no one would trust a Catholic to be President.

there hasn't been one since. we've learned the lesson.

Are you opposed to future Catholic presidents?

unless they are extremely progressive, then yes I would rather not have one ceteris paribus.

Do you realize that your so-called progressive opinion provides the moral justification for carsons?

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It reminds me of the days when no one would trust a Catholic to be President.

there hasn't been one since. we've learned the lesson.

Are you opposed to future Catholic presidents?

unless they are extremely progressive, then yes I would rather not have one ceteris paribus.

It sounds like what matters to you are a candidate's positions, not the candidate's religion. Would you choose an evengelical Protestant Christian over a Catholic automatically, or would you need to know about their specific positions?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It reminds me of the days when no one would trust a Catholic to be President.

there hasn't been one since. we've learned the lesson.

Wow.i can't believe you just said that.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It reminds me of the days when no one would trust a Catholic to be President.

there hasn't been one since. we've learned the lesson.

Are you opposed to future Catholic presidents?

unless they are extremely progressive, then yes I would rather not have one ceteris paribus.

Anonymous wrote:And Carson is correct in that the Islamic faith is not consistent with the Constitution

How so? There is no "official" Islam. So, how are you able to make such a categorial statement? That is exactly what used to be said about Catholics because a Catholic would be subservient to the Pope. It was wrong about Catholics and is wrong about Muslims.

And Carson is correct in that the Islamic faith is not consistent with the Constitution

It would be unconstitutional, yes. The question is, should any president of any religion be allowed to bring his faith into the Oval office in any other way aside from private practice of such.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It reminds me of the days when no one would trust a Catholic to be President.

there hasn't been one since. we've learned the lesson.

Are you opposed to future Catholic presidents?

Anonymous wrote:It reminds me of the days when no one would trust a Catholic to be President.

there hasn't been one since. we've learned the lesson.

It reminds me of the days when no one would trust a Catholic to be President.

Ben Carson does not believe a Muslim should be President, saying:

"I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation. I absolutely would not agree with that."

Asked if "Islam is consistent with the Constitution", Carson replied:

"No, I don't, I do not."

This goes against clear language in the US Constitution. Article VI states:

"No religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

So, not only is Carson advocating a clearly bigoted position, but one that is unconstitutional.