What should I do if Ben Carson gets elected?

Post Reply New Topic

you can live here after the republicans decimate social security and medicare and take gay and women's rights back to the 1950's. and get the US into another unnecessary war that will raise the debt and make us unable to afford updating our badly-out-of-shape roads and bridges. i like myself too much to do that.

"Take gay and women's rights back to the 1950's"

Um, with all of the SJW's, I highly doubt that's possible. Not to mention, they're not fascists if you actually research some of the candidates.

"Get the US into another unnecessary war that will [RAISE THE DEBT]"

ISIS is a necessary war, what do you mean, you think beheading and killing innocent people is OK? Also, I highly doubt now that we will ever get to fight ISIS on the ground since Russia is helping Assad, and I want to depose of Assad as well, but it's just not possible, we need Assad to have power for now to not turn itself into another Iraq after Saddam situation.

Also, war doesn't raise the debt unless you actually win it, and ISIS would be easy from a military standpoint since it's pure desert.

That's certainly a novel interpretation of the first amendment. I mean, even Jefferson and Madison, while adhering to Deist beliefs, were nominally Christians. We may have had a Unitarian in there somewhere along the way, sometime, but every President of my lifetime has been a Christian.

No, it isn't. And how do you feel about these theocrats who say that Biblical law trumps the Constitution? Because at least Cruz and Huckabee, if not Carson, have claimed that while speaking in support of Kim Davis.

And of you really do your homework, you'll see that there aren't a whole lot of differences between Sharia and Leverite (aka Biblical law as set forth in Leviticus) Law.

You probably weren't alive in 1960. I was. People were making the same argument against Kennedy, as a Catholic, because they claimed he'd be bound by Canon Law and swayed by the Pope, if he was elected.

THANK YOU!

I think it's part of the 1st amendment that we can have an opinion. Kim Davis is just one of those people who defend our freedom of religion and that's all. Christians are continually criticized and shamed in public for having our opinions, and then when we try to defend ourselves like Kim Davis did, Leftists won't even begin to shut up, but we're allowed to tolerate their bull? Yeah, I'm not for double standards, I think everyone has the right to defend their beliefs without persecution or at least without legal consequence.

Sharia and Biblical Christian Law were the same, but we're past that(FOR THE MOST PART), Muslims are not.

Ben Carson had the right idea, bad way to express it as sensitive liberals tend to get offended at every little thing.

Speaking from a mainstream Lutheran point of view, if she was legitimate in her claims that this violates her religious beliefs, then she should resign. Gay marriage ( and I'm against it) is now the law of the land, and she is sworn to uphold the law. Our congregation has made the decision to not have any marriages in our church so that we will not be forced to perform gay weddings. Sucks, but that's all that we can do.
And while Ben Carson could have chose a better wording, he will be attacked no matter what by the left wingers because:
A) He's a conservative
B) He's a Republican who happens to be black. The Democrats absolutely hate any woman or minority who doesn't toe the 'liberal' line.

They would have to just like christian presidents....and no you would not have to abstain from running for president, because one actually cannot be denied that based on their religion.

The constitution is not rooted in christian values or christian 'theory' whatever that is, that is where some of these right wing christians are wrong. It actually makes a point to prevent this country being treated as a theocracy...constitution has got nothing to do with christianity.

That doesn't mean Christianity gets a preference above other beliefs constitutionally speaking....that just shows christianity is a common religion here. Hence 'there shall be no law respecting the establishment of religion'.

Woah there Kim Davis broke the law to refuse a government service to people based on her religious beliefs and refuses to resign even though she feels here religious beliefs conflict with the law. It doesn't mean she gets to violate the law because her religion says so. Freedom of religion does not extend to using religion to influence government policy in favor of one religion over others, or to violate rights. Kim Davis as a government employee does not have a right to refuse the service to people that she is responsible for granting. Also freedom of religion doesn't mean people cannot criticize your religion or say negative things about it.

And what you think if someone commits a crime or a government employee uses religion to try and deny rights to citizens they shouldn't face legal consequences? Sorry religion does not excuse those things.

And I like how you rag on the 'liberals' which like a lot of people by liberals you probably just mean people you disagree with for being too 'sensative'....and then you have christians throwing a big fit whenever their religion is criticized, or claiming by allowing same sex couples to have legally recognized marriage/unions somehow violates their right to practice christianity and participate in a traditional marriage which is a load of bull. But its the liberals who are too sensitive and prone to offense....lol.

Exactly!

But what I meant was that Ben Carson didnt say "banish all Muslims from the USA". I hadnt read the papers yet to see what carson actually said, and it sounded like the OP said that Ben Carson said that Ben Carson wanted to legally bar Muslims from the oval office (which would take amending the constitution -which bars any test of religion for public office-as you're saying).

So I responded by saying that even in the unlikely worst case scenario (that Carson not only wins the Whitehouse, but once there also somehow manages to change the Constitution) that Monstercrack's life here in the USA wouldnt be effected much (unless Monstercrack himself ran for President).

But it turns out that Carson didnt actually even say he wanted to legally bar Muslims from the Presidency, and that he just "didnt recommend voting for one of them for president- although 'Congress would be okay'".

Freedom of religion overrides an illegal court order. The court is not allowed to pass laws, it's allowed to see if they correspond with the Constitution then make a decision whether or not they are legal or illegal, and gay marriage is something that concerns society and "order" which is under the 10th amendment which would make it up to the states to decide. She broke the law to defend her beliefs, and she shouldn't face legal consequence if that was her intent because it's an infringing on an individuals right to their beliefs AND freedom of religion. Doing what the government wanted would have been equal to pissing on the Bible. The government cannot coerce an individual into doing something that offends their belief.

Dude, that SCOTUS has the last word on interpreting the Constitution has been settled law for over 200 years. Go back and re-read Marbury v. Madison. Or read it for the first time, because it doesn't seem like you ever read it in the first place. The whole "states' rights"/10th Amendment red herring was bandied about during the Civil Rights era 50 years ago, and knocked out of the park then.

Loving v. Virginia is another decision you need to review, or read. Griswold v. Connecticut. Roe v. Wade. All of those were state laws dealing with society, "order" and religious beliefs (interracial marriage, the right to contraception, and abortion). All of them invalidated state laws prohibiting those practices.

I hadn't heard of the guy until recently, not being from the US.

TBH he sound like an ignoramus, I find it so hard to understand how a neurosurgeon could be so clueless about science as a whole. I guess he was very specialised, and blinkered.

Freedom of religion means you have the right to practice your belief. The problem with people crying freedom of religion while denying gay marriage is that they infringe other peoples rights while trying to look like the victim. Fundamentalist Christians are tyrants who do not get the separation of church and state and believe that freedom of religion allows them to use the law against people who are unfavorable in their worldview.

Do not like gay marriage? Do not get married to the same sex.
You have the right to belief that homosexuality is wrong, however you do not have the right to use that belief as a reason to deny others of their rights. Christian belief was used as a reason to deny interracial marriage. That doesn't sound like freedom to me, that sounds more like religious tyranny.