Wednesday, September 23, 2015

No Muslims for President?

Given the hostility to non-Muslims written in the Koran, how could a Muslim be given the powers of the Presidency?  It would be insane.  But that decision has to be by the people, no-one else.  Carson was right in spirit but wrong in detail. 

Ben Carson embarrassed himself badly over the weekend when he said on "Meet The Press" that he opposed having a Muslim serve as president of the United States, saying that Islam was not "consistent" with the Constitution — although he did allow that perhaps a Muslim could serve in Congress under certain circumstances.

That's outrageous, but it's not so far out of the mainstream for Republican presidential contenders of late. It's also sort of ironic given that nearly half of Republican voters think Dr. Carson's nightmare — a Muslim in the White House — has already happened. At least 43 percent of GOP voters mistakenly think President Barack Obama is a Muslim, according to a recent CNN poll (it's 54 percent if you believe the earlier findings of a Public Policy Polling survey).

Dr. Carson's Sunday morning gaffe was so egregious, however, that it drew rebukes from at least two fellow candidates with strong ties to evangelicals and extremely conservative views on matters of foreign policy and the military, Sens. Ted Cruz and Lindsey Graham, the former pointing out that the Constitution bans a religious test for public office and the latter noting, correctly, that "America is an idea, not owned by a particular religion."



Anonymous said...

If the US was to elect a Muslim for the office of President it deserves everything that it gets. It will happen in time if the US doesn't disintegrate under the weight of illegal aliens first.

Anonymous said...

His statement was not egregious; he was speaking reality. Muslims are not trustworthy.

Anonymous said...

If it talks like a Muslim ("the sweetest sound in the world is the Muslim call to Prayer") and walks the walk like a Muslim (allows Muslim "refugees" into the country, while excluding persecuted Christians), it's a Muslim. The US did indeed elect a Muslim to be President. In other words, the majority of voters "acted stupidly" and the country is being destroyed as a direct result of the promised "fundamental change." Those who refuse to believe the obvious in an effort to avoid being labeled bigot, Islamophobe, etc., etc. are enabling their own destruction.

Anonymous said...

Strict followers of religions like Islam AND Christianity (with its major denominations like Roman Catholicism), are expected to put their religious faith and loyalties BEFORE secular/government/national loyalties. Religious dogma trumps the Laws passed by a democratic government, and such people even welcome the opportunity to become "martyrs" (aka vain self-promotion)- like the Davis woman who broke her employment contract in favor of global publicity as a "religious martyr"! And even all would-be Presidents of the USA claim to be church-goers or at least theists, in order to attract votes, and wouldn't dare say they were atheist or even non-religious.

Use the Name, Luke said...

In addition to the points made by 12:50, Obama was also fathered by a Muslim, had a Muslim stepfather, spent part of his formative years in a Muslim dominated country, and was officially listed as a Muslim in his school records.

According to the Koran, that makes him a Muslim for life, with apostasy punishable by death.

He also slipped a time or two in public and said he's a Muslim instead of Christian. Not to mention defending Islam by attempting to explain away the behavior of those who are actually following Mohammad's example.

Obama speaking of Islam

Islam is not merely a religion, it is an absolutely theocratic system of government and demands that its followers establish a one-world government which actively kills or enslaves all non-Muslims. It is completely incompatible with the Constitution. While the Constitution forbids a "no Muslim may run for office" law, anyone who votes for a Muslim expecting them to necessarily disobey Islam to uphold the Constitution is voting very, VERY foolishly.

Islamization Explained

Anonymous said...


like the Davis woman who broke her employment contract in favor of global publicity

You should do more research before making comments.

Davis is an elected official. There is no "contract" for her job. She took an oath to support and apply the laws of the State of Kentucky. At the time of her swearing in, Kentucky law defined marriage as that between a man and a woman. Secondly, Kentucky has a very strong Religious Freedom Restoration Act (as do the majority of the states and the Federal Government). Third, under the law, Davis asked for a reasonable accommodation for her religious beliefs. Such an accommodation is allowable and required under Federal and State laws. Her requested accommodation was only that her name did not appear on the license.

That meant that the licenses for all couples could be issued by Deputy Clerks or even with the stamp of "Clerk of the Court -Rowan County."

No right thinking person can believe that such an accommodation is not reasonable.

A Federal judge denied her that accommodation. He did so in clear violation of the law as well as applying a different standard to her than he would to other people. Oddly, his rulings may violate the 14th Amendment which was the basis of the Supreme Court ruling on gay marriages.

The United States has a long history of people of conscience acting contrary to what people think are the laws of the land. Founders of the country assembled in groups in violation of laws. People helped slaves escape to free territories prior to the Civil War in violation of the law and Supreme Court rulings. Many acts during the civil rights movement were contrary to established laws.

You are free to disagree with Davis' beliefs and stance, but her right to make that stance and not have her rights trampled upon my the government cannot be denied or dismissed.

Maybe the moral objections and beliefs of some don't matter to you. You may think differently when the government or some judge comes down on the things you believe and live your life by.

What happened to Davis is an example of the tyranny of the government and how judges seem to think they are above the law.

Dean said...

No thinking citizen of the United States would vote for a Muslim candidate for president. At least, if they wanted to continue living under the United States constitution. Islam is not just a religion, it is a total government, controlling the lives of those under it according to the dictates of the Koran and Sharia law.

There have already been demands for Sharia law to be allowed in the United States, so far without success. That is a camel's nose that should be allowed no where near the tent, let alone in the tent. People immigrating here need to understand that they will live under the laws of this country. If they wish to live under Sharia law, there are many countries that would welcome them. They should relocate to one of those countries.

Ben Carson understands exactly what would happen under Muslim leadership for the United States. We should thank him for speaking out, and listen to what he said.
By the way, he is reported to have spoken at greater length than the quote given. It would be nice if the rest of his comments were published, but they most likely won't be given the liberal agenda of the media.

Bird of Paradise said...

The United Nations needs to go

Anonymous said...

3:33 If Davis could no longer do the job she was PAID to do, and changes in the law conflicted with her private beliefs (which she claimed to be religious beliefs), then the proper and honorable thing to do would be to resign, not make a spectacle of herself for all the World as a victim and religious martyr. Perhaps she could have been "accommodated" but she wasn't entitled to demand special accommodation. Would you approve of muslims dictating the terms of their employment or appointments in order to follow special Islamic rules that even conflicted with US law or custom??

Anonymous said...


It is amazing the ignorance and lack of clarity of thought in your response. First, please show me anywhere where the Constitution or any law says a person must give up their beliefs because they are being "paid."

Please explain how your stance jives with the idea that people should not be discriminated against on the basis of religious beliefs.

The fact - not an opinion, FACT - is that people cannot be discriminated against on the basis of several factors including moral beliefs. That is the law under the 1964 Civil Rights Act. An amendment to the Act (proposed by a Democrat no less) that was passed allows a person to demand (that's right - demand) an accommodation for their religious beliefs at their place of work. Whether that accommodation can be made is determined by whether the accommodation is deemed "reasonable."

What is odd here is that you are demanding that people like Davis "follow the law" and they trying to deny her rights under the law.

As to your question on accommodations of Muslim beliefs, that answer is "as long as the accommodations are reasonable, they are fine by me." Unlike you, I am not willing to say the law applies to some and not to others.

The fact is that there are lots of cases where Muslims have applied for accommodations that have been granted. There have also been accommodations that have been deemed to be "unreasonable" because of too great of a shift in work load or too great of a cost.

In the Davis case, no one can honestly say that a reasonable accommodation of simply removing Davis' name from the license was not available and should have been granted. In fact, marriage licenses are being issued now without her name on them so it is clear that the State of Kentucky found her request to be reasonable under the legal definition.

It is truly stunning how hypocritical and discriminatory liberals such as yourself can be.

Anonymous said...

2:19 AM You sound like a rant. Just calm down and take your meds!

Anonymous said...

... 2:19 is misrepresenting and strawmanning 7:29 and using almost hysterical language!

Use the Name, Luke said...

2:45 & 2:48 = Typical responses of "when you can't handle the argument, attack the person."

Anonymous said...

So what is the point of having laws and regulations made through a democratic process if so-called religious people can just defy them at will claiming religious exemption, especially as religious belief cannot be distinguished from personal opinion dressed up as religious conviction! It seems like religious people want to undermine democracy to create a theocracy!

Anonymous said...

A typical response from Luke is a non-argument!

Anonymous said...


Which laws are you talking about? Kentucky's Religious Freedom and Restoration Act and the 1964 Civil Rights Act which were established by a "democratic" process or the Supreme Court decision in Obergefell which is neither a law nor done through a "democratic" process?

No one is saying that people can defy laws at will. What is being said is that if a law or directive violates a person's moral conscience and a reasonable accommodation can be found to where the purpose of the law and the objection are both dealt with and satisfied, that should be the path that is taken. In fact, such a path is the law as it stands now.

In the Davis case, if no workaround or reasonable accommodation could be found, that is a different story. However, the county is now issuing the licenses without her name on them which is what she requested as an accommodation. Because of that, the rights of those seeking to be married are met and protected. The rights of freedom of thought and religion for Davis are met as well.

In the end, we should all be striving to protect the rights of everyone. Too many people have decided that the rights of Davis don't exist, should be discarded and do not warrant protection or examination.

That's not the American way.

Anonymous said...

When laws and regulations are intended for everyone so that all are equal before the law, then special concessions for those who claim exemptions on the grounds of religious conviction are creating inequality before the law (even if some Laws are perversely allowing for such special exceptions for a privileged group). However, this will backfire on so-called Christians "demanding" such special treatment, as they will have to concede that Muslims are entitled to corresponding accommodations, and what is "reasonable" is begging the question and will always be contested. Unfortunately, the muslim way of life requires the whole of society to adapt in rather unreasonable ways so as to "respect" Muslim sensibilities - aka creeping Islamization, which will only get worse as the Muslim population grows in western countries through immigration and a high birth-rate. In effect we will all become practising Muslims by default!

Anonymous said...

Continuing to work for an organization that starts conducting activities that are truly contrary to one's conscience or religious beliefs is in itself compromizing those claimed beliefs, and as said already, the honorable thing to do (as in the Davis case) would be to resign or arrange some mutually satisfactory exit. Otherwise it suggests the pay and "career" are more important than the claimed beliefs. It is no better than vegans working in a slaughter-house with the excuse that their job only involves administration. As it is some Muslims are happy to work in stores where alcohol and pork is traded so long as they don't have to actually touch the items. It smacks of getting around the spirit of a principle by some devious interpretation.

Anonymous said...


There are laws that are intended for everyone dealing with religion and the government's involvement in religion. There are laws dealing with moral viewpoints in the workplace.

Those laws - based on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights - apply to everyone and insure that all people are treated equally before the law. It is odd to me that what you seem to advocate is a total disregard of equality in one area and demand equality in another.

There is a clash of rights when beliefs protected under the First Amendment come face to face with activities and rights that are contrary to those beliefs. That is where the Civil Rights Act and "reasonable accommodations" come into play. There is no bright line as to what is a reasonable accommodation, but for the most part courts have decided that the deciding factors are 1) is the purpose or interest of the government or business still met? 2) cost and 3) shifting of work loads. In the Davis case, the government's interest (issuing of licenses) is still met. The cost is nothing and the shifting of work load is negligible. The accommodation should have been granted under the law.

While I understand your point that people who don't agree with something shouldn't work at place, doesn't that mean they are being discriminated against for what they think and believe? In your hypothetical about a vegan in a slaughterhouse, isn't the workplace better off with diverse views? If the vegan does her job, does it really matter what she believes in?

In essence, instead of supporting equality, you are for discrimination based on viewpoint.

The irony of not treating people equally on the basis that "all people should be treated equally" is not lost on many.

Anonymous said...


Just so I understand your point of view, you believe that people who have a different point of view should be excluded from the workplace? They should be excluded from seeking a job in certain industries? In the case of the government, only people who agree with the government in all things should be allowed to work there?

Doesn't that mean you want the government to be telling people what to do, what to think and how to act?

There is no room for dissenting voices in your monolithic world?

That's really sad.

Anonymous said...

3:00 go right ahead and deliberately misunderstand 10:30 - it makes you look so smart!

Anonymous said...

2:56 & 3:00 Interesting comments in relation to the earlier discussion here on disciminating against gay customers, where most here seemed to think that was okay and the gay customers could go elsewhere for sympathetic treatment. So why not someone go to a more sympathetic employer. There's no compulsion or advantage to stay with an unsympathetic employer or government agency.

Anonymous said...


His remarks aren't being misunderstood at all. He is saying that if your disagree with something, you don't have the right to work there.

Anonymous said...


There is a big difference between offering services to someone and employment. The rights of man include that of the right of "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" (which was originally "pursuit of property." Therefore it is the individual who has the right to determine where they work and the contracts they make. That right does not exist with the government on any level.

As to "going someplace else," believe it or not, there is case law on which holds that if one county does not offer something, the person can go to another county and the first county must honor the product of the first county.

But if you want to compare the two cases of a baker and Davis, I am willing to go along. In the Davis case, it is not Davis as an individual who must issue licenses to all people (which she stopped doing.) It is the Office of the Clerk of the Court that must issue the licenses. Such work can be done by Deputy Clerks without interruption. In fact, that is what is happening now. I've said it before and I'll say it again. Allowing Davis to not sign the license is a reasonable accommodation as long as the licenses are still being issued.

With the baker, you have people who are being forced to create something that supports something against their beliefs. The Supreme Court has said that the act of creation is a form of speech. As speech, the government cannot compel speech. (That is why kids do not have to say the pledge of allegiance, or people have to swear on a Bible, etc.) Compelled speech is not free speech. Therefore the baker should not have to make something that is against his beliefs.

The creation of a special cake is different from a cookie, cupcake or cake sitting in the showcase waiting to be sold. I wholeheartedly agree that those items should be sold to whomever. But no one should be forced to say what they don't want to say. No one should be forced to support ideas with which they disagree.

For example, should a gay designer be forced to create t-shirts for an anti-gay rally? Should a prochoice publicist be forced to write a press release on a pro-life event? Should a black printer be forced to create flyers for a Neo-Nazi / KKK rally? I would argue that they shouldn't. If you think that the baker should be forced to make a special cake, you have to believe the other folks should be forced to create works that are against their moral beliefs.

We can exist in a society that has different viewpoints and seek to accommodate those viewpoints.

Anonymous said...

The Davis woman "wanted to have her cake and eat it too". She wanted to keep her job but not do her job as required. She wanted her claimed "rights" respected, but disrespected the rights of the public she was paid to serve. She felt she was discriminated against for her religious beliefs but was happy to first discriminate against same--sex couples in her office. She was seen across the World's media refusing to serve them! For the clumsy and unprofessional way she behaved and for the disruption to a public service that she caused, she should have been dismissed, not just for having religious opinions.

Anonymous said...

@1:44, You can't "fire" elected officials for not doing their job.. otherwise Washington DC would be empty. You have to either impeach, recall, or elect someone else next time around.

Anonymous said...

@3:54 I didn't say "fire" and deliberately chose the word "dismissed" to cover any form of removal. But thanks for your pedantic contribution.

Anonymous said...

5:09 - your unnecessarily long and involved attempt at justifying discrimination against Gays sounds a bit like "protesting too much". It's certainly comparing "apples and oranges" to liken denying a service to an ordinary gay couple planning a wedding to denying a service to extreme hate-groups such as neo-nazis or the KKK. And it's unlikely that there would be the equivalent of an anti-cakemaker rally.
To refuse to bake a cake for a gay couple when one would be baked for a hetero couple is a petty and priggish kind of "moral" stance, while thinking it quite moral and ethical to demean and insult a potential client as though they were sub-human. It isn't as though the cake-makers were asked to directly endorse gay-weddings or even attend gay-weddings.
If that Davis woman had been a lesbian standing on her assumed rights, I know many here would be denouncing her as an aggressive female disrupting society, but I guess it's okay if an aggressive so-called religious woman disrupts her workplace and a public service just to promote her private beliefs!