Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Actually there is no law against it. This is liberals attempting, once again, to re-write the constitution.So, are YOU guilty of requiring a religious test for public office?NO, hell NO and if that is not clear NO!
No laws for or against the free-expression of religion.
Of course there is a law against it, idiot. The constitution specifically says there will be no religious test
The No Religious Test Clause of the United States Constitution is found in Article VI, paragraph 3, and states that:
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.[a]
And nothing can or will stop a man or woman from running for office. But that gives me no obligation to advocate or support them.
So, are YOU guilty of requiring a religious test for public office?NO, hell NO and if that is not clear NO!
Would YOU support a Presidential candidate who held that Sharia Law superseded the U.S. Constitution?
The media is crowing in triumph after managing to catch Dr. Ben Carson in a "Gotcha" question.
They asked first if he would support a candidate whose views went against the Constitution. He gave the obvious answer: Of course not. (Never mind that this would cut out nearly every Democrat in elected office today.)
They then asked if he considered Muslim beliefs to be contrary to the Constitution. He correctly answered "Yes".
Then they asked if he would support a Muslim candidate for President. Rather than hedge, he flatly answered that he would not.
The media then jumped as far as they could, and are screaming that Dr. Carson would require a religious test for elected office, something forbidden by the Constitution.
When it's clear that Carson simply meant what he said: The he would not support anyone whose opinions and beliefs were contrary to the Constitution... whether those beliefs came from what he read in the newspaper this morning, or from his religion, or from what he was taught in public school, or from listening to Hillary. Doesn't matter WHY the guy held opinions that opposed the Constitution. If they did, then Dr. Carson would not support him, nor should he.
But the leftists are screaming with delight that they can twist what he said into something he obviously did NOT mean, and pretend he meant it. That's their bread and butter, no matter how false on disingenuous. And the leftists aren't about to give it up. In part because it's all they have.
So, let's ask generally:
Would YOU support a Presidential candidate who held that Sharia Law superseded the U.S. Constitution?
Including Carson himself.Many nutters are making a serious attempt to revise what Carson said.
I wonder why?
If you support the left, that's rich.You come up with some of the weirdest distortions of the Constitution I've ever seen. And on a board full of desperate liberals, that's saying something.If it says it's not required that's the same as saying it can be allowed.....no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. - U.S. Constitution, Article 6, Paragraph 3No laws for or against the free-expression of religion.
However, that doesn't stop the left from doing everything they can to make sure that what you think doesn't matter.But you would gladly support a Mormon, even though they believe that all other Christian denominations are abominations, and believe that god was a physical man who had physical sex with Mary, and believe that god lives on the planet Kolob.And no. I wouldn't.
How fucked up is that? And you're worried about a Muslim?
And we honor and sustained the constitution.
I would not support anyone who opposes the constitution.I don't care what their beliefs are.
Of course not.
Yes, this is a non-issue being blown out of proportion by leftists and the media.
‘We’re Going to Be the Majority Soon’ taunt MuslimsHowever, that doesn't stop the left from doing everything they can to make sure that what you think doesn't matter.But you would gladly support a Mormon, even though they believe that all other Christian denominations are abominations, and believe that god was a physical man who had physical sex with Mary, and believe that god lives on the planet Kolob.And no. I wouldn't.
How fucked up is that? And you're worried about a Muslim?
And we honor and sustained the constitution.
I would not support anyone who opposes the constitution.I don't care what their beliefs are.
Obama wants to flood this country with Muslims.
If he's successful, what you think won't matter a damn.
No American candidate does, or ever would! If they did, they would be a candidate for about 5 minutes. Carson's answer is a bullshit deflection from the question he was asked:Carson does not support Sharia law
Could you ever see yourself supporting a Muslim for President.
He wasn't asked about Sharia.
But you would gladly support a Mormon, even though they believe that all other Christian denominations are abominations, and believe that god was a physical man who had physical sex with Mary, and believe that god lives on the planet Kolob.And no. I wouldn't.
How fucked up is that? And you're worried about a Muslim?
Would YOU support a Presidential candidate who held that Sharia Law superseded the U.S. Constitution?
The media is crowing in triumph after managing to catch Dr. Ben Carson in a "Gotcha" question.
They asked first if he would support a candidate whose views went against the Constitution. He gave the obvious answer: Of course not. (Never mind that this would cut out nearly every Democrat in elected office today.)
They then asked if he considered Muslim beliefs to be contrary to the Constitution. He correctly answered "Yes".
Then they asked if he would support a Muslim candidate for President. Rather than hedge, he flatly answered that he would not.
The media then jumped as far as they could, and are screaming that Dr. Carson would require a religious test for elected office, something forbidden by the Constitution.
When it's clear that Carson simply meant what he said: The he would not support anyone whose opinions and beliefs were contrary to the Constitution... whether those beliefs came from what he read in the newspaper this morning, or from his religion, or from what he was taught in public school, or from listening to Hillary. Doesn't matter WHY the guy held opinions that opposed the Constitution. If they did, then Dr. Carson would not support him, nor should he.
But the leftists are screaming with delight that they can twist what he said into something he obviously did NOT mean, and pretend he meant it. That's their bread and butter, no matter how false on disingenuous. And the leftists aren't about to give it up. In part because it's all they have.
So, let's ask generally:
Would YOU support a Presidential candidate who held that Sharia Law superseded the U.S. Constitution?
Many nutters are making a serious attempt to revise what Carson said.
I wonder why?
No American candidate does, or ever would! If they did, they would be a candidate for about 5 minutes. Carson's answer is a bullshit deflection from the question he was asked:Carson does not support Sharia law
Could you ever see yourself supporting a Muslim for President.
He wasn't asked about Sharia.
The President swears to uphold the Constitution...PERIOD
There is no law prohibiting anyone from support/not supporting someone for President based on religious beliefs.Of course there is a law against it, idiot. The constitution specifically says there will be no religious testActually there is no law against it. This is liberals attempting, once again, to re-write the constitution.So, are YOU guilty of requiring a religious test for public office?NO, hell NO and if that is not clear NO!
No laws for or against the free-expression of religion.
Many nutters are making a serious attempt to revise what Carson said.
I wonder why?
Rain Man Carson is an idiot savant who is only interested in his Seventh-Day Adventist version of Christian Sharia Law. Does he hold the "secular" Constitution above his religious beliefs?
Adventist Beliefs
Seventh-day Adventists agree with many Catholic doctrines, including the Trinity, Christ’s divinity, the virgin birth, the atonement, a physical resurrection of the dead, and Christ’s Second Coming. They use a valid form of baptism. They believe in original sin and reject the Evangelical teaching that one can never lose one’s salvation no matter what one does (i.e., they correctly reject "once saved, always saved").
Unfortunately, they also hold many false and strange doctrines. Among these are the following: (a) the Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon; (b) the pope is the Antichrist; (c) in the last days, Sunday worship will be "the mark of the beast"; (d) there is a future millennium in which the devil will roam the earth while Christians are with Christ in heaven; (e) the soul sleeps between death and resurrection; and (f) on the last day, after a limited period of punishment in hell, the wicked will be annihilated and cease to exist rather than be eternally damned. (For rebuttals of many of these ideas, see the Catholic Answers tracts, The Antichrist, The Hell There Is, Hunting the Whore of Babylon, The Whore of Babylon, and Sabbath or Sunday?)
More: Seventh-day Adventism | Catholic Answers
