22 September 2015

Ben Carson is right: We should not elect Christians or Muslims (unless they renounce biblical and sharia laws)

Last Sunday on Meet the Press, Ben Carson said that he "absolutely would not" support a Muslim for President.

If you haven't seen it, here it is:

Yesterday, on Fox News he tried to clarify his view by saying:

This is America and we have a constitution. And we do not put people at the leadership of our country whose faith might interfere with them carrying out the duties of the constitution. So if, for instance, you believe in a theocracy -- I don't care if you're a Christian -- if you're a Christian and you're running for president and you want to make us into a theocracy, I'm not going to support you. I'm not going to advocate you being the president.
I don't care what religion or faith someone belongs to, if they're willing to subjugate that to the American way and to our constitution, then I have no problem with that.

And I agree with Dr. Carson on that. We should not elect Christians or Muslims unless they renounce all biblical and sharia laws -- at least those that are contrary to our constitution (which is nearly all of them).


Jeremy Jones said...

I found Ben Carson’s comment shocking at first, as it was blatantly bigoted and racist, however, I was in haste and at the end of his speech I was all for what he had said, that religion has no part to play in government. Below are some quotes from the founding-fathers on the subject of state v’s religion.

“As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.” http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/bar1796t.asp -- Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli

“The civil government functions with complete success by the total separation of the Church from the State.” Founding Father James Madison, 1819, Writings, quoted from Gene Garman, Essays In Addition to America’s Real Religion.

In addition, and on the same topic Madison also said:
“And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.” James Madison — letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822

“In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own. It is error alone that needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself.” Thomas Jefferson — in a letter to Horatio Spofford, 1814

Regards Jero Jones

Stephen said...

Good quotes.
One comment: no "racism" was involved in Carson's remarks because "muslim" is not a racial identifier.

People were worried about JFK because he was a catholic. He didn't let that control his decision-making.
Steve Weeks

UberGenius said...

Nice piece of propaganda! Carson comments were focused on Muslims wanting to enforce sharia law. Bigotry has nothing to do with it. One cannot swear an oath to uphold the constitution and sharia law or a Puritan theocracy either. But the Christian comment is a ruse. We haven't had a Christian since then1600s that wanted to run government like a theocracy. Once again our host treats us to more logical fallacy. Namely Mr. Wells extends things to the rediculous and then attacks how rediculous they are.

Quick question, what happens to government when the Taliban of Al Quida take over a region? They enforce sharia law. People are murdered, Christians especially, girls are taken out of school, covered up in berkas, ad made lower-class citizens stripped of their rights. How is that NOT offensive? Ben Carson is right. These behaviors are abhorrent. But what is absurd is to equate Christians with this approach. Name one Christian leader who devalued the citizens this way.

Further the least religious of the founding fathers was arguably Ben Franklin, and yet he was responsible for modifying the preamble of the Declaration of Independence to include "endowed by a creator with certain unalienable rights!"

You can't use the establishment clause of the US Constitution to misrepresent the foundation that our constitution sits on. The least religious of the church fathers believed the God existed, was responsible for creating humans and therefore the government or culture didn't ascribe value to citizens, God did! Therefore the government was subordinate to the people. Culture, money, power, station in life, utility didn't establish one's value, being created in God's image did.

If your case against religion is so strong why are we continually treated to propaganda?

asherf said...

UberGenius: I am throughly confused by your post. It's quite mixed up. His case against religion: He has it. Religion being used as a way to forcefully enact specific ideas into law. You also have something against religion by the way, just a specific one - Islam. You appear to have bias unlike Wells it would appear.

Wells states he would like the Christians and the Muslims to renounce their religious laws that contradict the constitution. This is renouncing particular laws of practice, not the Deistic belief that a God created people so your point about the Founding Fathers is conflating issues and quite a few founding fathers were also open to doubt that a God existed, they were agnostic believers not so strongly sure. Deist does not default to the Christian God Yahweh necessarily. Deist is not Biblical necessarily, so Wells being against a President renouncing certain Biblical ways is fine and accurate.

At no point did Wells say anything about sharia law not being offensive, in fact he agrees it should be renounced. You really shouldn't betray yourself by going off on one into 'What if the Taliban take over a region'. I don't see anything about him claiming it as bigotry either. Biblical laws should be offensive as well: the Bible has some very heinous elements.

I do not know of a President being so theocratic, however I do see other politicians in various other positions in the USA use their religion as an excuse to remove liberty. How have you not noticed? I see apparent Christian morals used to defend the exclusion of and mistreatment of LGBT persons, proposed anti-abortion laws messing women around (to ridiculous levels: personhood at fertilisation). Sorry, USA, your reputation is awful with this. You realise how bonkers this seems to many people of other nationalities. Oh, and states that have those intervene in science education because it is against their religious sensibilities (Evolution, remember that old chestnut?). Of course they cherry-pick, they want it their way. Adultery isn't focussed much on but people get on their high horses about Euthanasia. Teach abstinence instead of proper sexual education? Why have certain states banned books? That's censorship and restricting education.

asherf said...

To be honest, with the USA, Wells has plenty of ammo. At least you don't have teacher lead prayer to force the ethos to one religion only, so well done at least for that but apparently people have to appreciate the flag? How is that related to constitutional value through being created in the image of a creator?

Funny you bring up the idea of money not being an influence: US Health care has been breaking the ethics of Christian charity for too long. Capitalism is a heavy feature and forms of benefits systems appear to be looked on with a great deal of suspision.

The Declaration of Independence is not the constitution although it may have influenced it. Ben Franklin...I am unsure if he was the least religious, what about Thomas Paine? Deism can be seen as not necessarily religious as it is not someone one has to practice or ritualise. It is just a belief in a creator. Wells is right to critique laws dictated in the Bible and the Qur'an, you should critique them both as well.

I am unsure how you can untimately only lay into Islam and not see that Christianity has caused rubbish in your country as well. I am sorry if you cannot see it but you are the one pushing propaganda then and not Wells albeit unknowingly. Personally I do not know how you see it as propaganda.


Judge for yourself.

If I had the money I would have a benevolence fund giving certain individuals who do not fit into the lunacy who have not the funds the ability to seek refuge elsewhere. I am so very grateful I don't live in the USA. I feel spoilt beyond measure in comparison and where I live is not overly great, I wouldn't describe it as very great because it should not be impervious to criticism, it is just rather comfy and I am content.