Would YOU support a Presidential candidate who held that Sharia Law superseded the U.S.Constitution?

[Syriusly]

This all always reminds me of the bigoted anti-catholic campaigns against Catholic's being president.

So...
Would you or would not not support a Presidential candidate who refuses to set aside Sharia law and accept the constitution as supreme?

I would not support any candidate who claims that he or she would follow his or her religion before the Constitution- or that any 'law' is 'supreme' over the U.S. Constitution.

How about you?

 

[M14 Shooter]

This all always reminds me of the bigoted anti-catholic campaigns against Catholic's being president.

So...
Would you or would not not support a Presidential candidate who refuses to set aside Sharia law and accept the constitution as supreme?

I would not support any candidate who claims that he or she would follow his or her religion before the Constitution- or that any 'law' is 'supreme' over the U.S. Constitution.

So you take no issue with Carson's position on this matter.
Thank you.

 

[Pogo]

Why do some Conservatives keep claiming any liberals are fighting for Sharia law?

They like strawman fallacies. It's one of their most popular lying techniques, probably ranking right behind "making shit completely the fuck up".

 

[Syriusly]

This all always reminds me of the bigoted anti-catholic campaigns against Catholic's being president.

So...
Would you or would not not support a Presidential candidate who refuses to set aside Sharia law and accept the constitution as supreme?

I would not support any candidate who claims that he or she would follow his or her religion before the Constitution- or that any 'law' is 'supreme' over the U.S. Constitution.

So you take no issue with Carson's position on this matter.
Thank you.

I don't really know Carson's position- but I disagree with Huckabee's

 

[Skylar]

Would YOU support a Presidential candidate who held that Sharia Law superseded the U.S. Constitution?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?

I wouldn't vote for any candidate that believed that their religion superseded the US constitution. Muslim, Christian or otherwise.

 

[M14 Shooter]

This all always reminds me of the bigoted anti-catholic campaigns against Catholic's being president.

So...
Would you or would not not support a Presidential candidate who refuses to set aside Sharia law and accept the constitution as supreme?

I would not support any candidate who claims that he or she would follow his or her religion before the Constitution- or that any 'law' is 'supreme' over the U.S. Constitution.

So you take no issue with Carson's position on this matter.
Thank you.

I don't really know Carson's position- but I disagree with Huckabee's

Carson:
Carson: I can support a Muslim who denounces Sharia law - CNNPolitics.com
"If someone has a Muslim background and they're willing to reject those tenets and to accept the way of life that we have and clearly will swear to place our Constitution above their religion ... I would then be quite willing to support them," he said.

"I could never support a candidate for President of the United States that was Muslim and had not renounced the central tenant of Islam: Sharia Law," he wrote. "I know that there are many peaceful Muslims who do not adhere to these beliefs. But until these tenants are fully renounced...I cannot advocate any Muslim candidate for President.

 

[Arizona Willie]

Conservatives will lie about anything ... just to keep in practice.

Liberals are the only ones who push back against religion being involved in politics.

We are the ONLY ones demanding separation of Church and State.

14 out of 17 Republican candidates supported Davis and believe that their religious beliefs trump the Constitution.

========

[

Why do some Conservatives keep claiming any liberals are fighting for Sharia law?

I don't support Sharia law- and there is no chance in hell of Sharia law being mandated in the United States.

The whacky right wing hysteria about Sharia in the United States is nothing but right wing hysteria- the same kind of hysteria that was used to attack Catholicism in the United States in my life time.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

This all always reminds me of the bigoted anti-catholic campaigns against Catholic's being president.

So...
Would you or would not not support a Presidential candidate who refuses to set aside Sharia law and accept the constitution as supreme?

I would not support any candidate who claims that he or she would follow his or her religion before the Constitution- or that any 'law' is 'supreme' over the U.S. Constitution.

So you take no issue with Carson's position on this matter.
Thank you.

I don't really know Carson's position- but I disagree with Huckabee's

Carson:
Carson: I can support a Muslim who denounces Sharia law - CNNPolitics.com
"If someone has a Muslim background and they're willing to reject those tenets and to accept the way of life that we have and clearly will swear to place our Constitution above their religion ... I would then be quite willing to support them," he said.

"I could never support a candidate for President of the United States that was Muslim and had not renounced the central tenant of Islam: Sharia Law," he wrote. "I know that there are many peaceful Muslims who do not adhere to these beliefs. But until these tenants are fully renounced...I cannot advocate any Muslim candidate for President.

You understand this is equivalent to saying "I can support a Christian or a Jew for President, as long as they denounce the 10 Commandments", right?

 

[M14 Shooter]

So...
Would you or would not not support a Presidential candidate who refuses to set aside Sharia law and accept the constitution as supreme?

I would not support any candidate who claims that he or she would follow his or her religion before the Constitution- or that any 'law' is 'supreme' over the U.S. Constitution.

So you take no issue with Carson's position on this matter.
Thank you.

I don't really know Carson's position- but I disagree with Huckabee's

Carson:
Carson: I can support a Muslim who denounces Sharia law - CNNPolitics.com
"If someone has a Muslim background and they're willing to reject those tenets and to accept the way of life that we have and clearly will swear to place our Constitution above their religion ... I would then be quite willing to support them," he said.

"I could never support a candidate for President of the United States that was Muslim and had not renounced the central tenant of Islam: Sharia Law," he wrote. "I know that there are many peaceful Muslims who do not adhere to these beliefs. But until these tenants are fully renounced...I cannot advocate any Muslim candidate for President.

You understand this is equivalent to saying "I can support a Christian or a Jew for President, as long as they denounce the 10 Commandments", right?

No. It's not.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I would not support any candidate who claims that he or she would follow his or her religion before the Constitution- or that any 'law' is 'supreme' over the U.S. Constitution.

So you take no issue with Carson's position on this matter.
Thank you.

I don't really know Carson's position- but I disagree with Huckabee's

Carson:
Carson: I can support a Muslim who denounces Sharia law - CNNPolitics.com
"If someone has a Muslim background and they're willing to reject those tenets and to accept the way of life that we have and clearly will swear to place our Constitution above their religion ... I would then be quite willing to support them," he said.

"I could never support a candidate for President of the United States that was Muslim and had not renounced the central tenant of Islam: Sharia Law," he wrote. "I know that there are many peaceful Muslims who do not adhere to these beliefs. But until these tenants are fully renounced...I cannot advocate any Muslim candidate for President.

You understand this is equivalent to saying "I can support a Christian or a Jew for President, as long as they denounce the 10 Commandments", right?

No. It's not.

Yeah. It really is.

 

[Syriusly]

This all always reminds me of the bigoted anti-catholic campaigns against Catholic's being president.

So...
Would you or would not not support a Presidential candidate who refuses to set aside Sharia law and accept the constitution as supreme?

I would not support any candidate who claims that he or she would follow his or her religion before the Constitution- or that any 'law' is 'supreme' over the U.S. Constitution.

So you take no issue with Carson's position on this matter.
Thank you.

I don't really know Carson's position- but I disagree with Huckabee's

Carson:
Carson: I can support a Muslim who denounces Sharia law - CNNPolitics.com
"If someone has a Muslim background and they're willing to reject those tenets and to accept the way of life that we have and clearly will swear to place our Constitution above their religion ... I would then be quite willing to support them," he said.

"I could never support a candidate for President of the United States that was Muslim and had not renounced the central tenant of Islam: Sharia Law," he wrote. "I know that there are many peaceful Muslims who do not adhere to these beliefs. But until these tenants are fully renounced...I cannot advocate any Muslim candidate for President.

I would be fine holding all candidates to the same requirements- exactly as I said them

I would not support any candidate who claims that he or she would follow his or her religion before the Constitution- or that any 'law' is 'supreme' over the U.S. Constitution.

And unlike you or Carson- if I asked any candidate to affirm that they would hold the Constitution over their faith- I would demand all candidates- regardless of their religion to- make the same claim.

No requiring Muslims or Catholic do something that Evangelicals are not asked to do.

 

[Syriusly]

Has Carson said that he holds the Constitution before his religious faith yet?

Would he follow the Constitution even if he believes his faith says otherwise?

 

[M14 Shooter]

So you take no issue with Carson's position on this matter.
Thank you.

I don't really know Carson's position- but I disagree with Huckabee's

Carson:
Carson: I can support a Muslim who denounces Sharia law - CNNPolitics.com
"If someone has a Muslim background and they're willing to reject those tenets and to accept the way of life that we have and clearly will swear to place our Constitution above their religion ... I would then be quite willing to support them," he said.

"I could never support a candidate for President of the United States that was Muslim and had not renounced the central tenant of Islam: Sharia Law," he wrote. "I know that there are many peaceful Muslims who do not adhere to these beliefs. But until these tenants are fully renounced...I cannot advocate any Muslim candidate for President.

You understand this is equivalent to saying "I can support a Christian or a Jew for President, as long as they denounce the 10 Commandments", right?

No. It's not.

Yeah. It really is.

Only if you can draw a direct correlation with those that adhere to Sharia law, believing to to be the supreme law of the land, and someone who abides by the 10 Commandments.
Please begin.

 

[M14 Shooter]

So...
Would you or would not not support a Presidential candidate who refuses to set aside Sharia law and accept the constitution as supreme?

I would not support any candidate who claims that he or she would follow his or her religion before the Constitution- or that any 'law' is 'supreme' over the U.S. Constitution.

So you take no issue with Carson's position on this matter.
Thank you.

I don't really know Carson's position- but I disagree with Huckabee's

Carson:
Carson: I can support a Muslim who denounces Sharia law - CNNPolitics.com
"If someone has a Muslim background and they're willing to reject those tenets and to accept the way of life that we have and clearly will swear to place our Constitution above their religion ... I would then be quite willing to support them," he said.

"I could never support a candidate for President of the United States that was Muslim and had not renounced the central tenant of Islam: Sharia Law," he wrote. "I know that there are many peaceful Muslims who do not adhere to these beliefs. But until these tenants are fully renounced...I cannot advocate any Muslim candidate for President.

I would be fine holding all candidates to the same requirements- exactly as I said them

I would not support any candidate who claims that he or she would follow his or her religion before the Constitution- or that any 'law' is 'supreme' over the U.S. Constitution.

And unlike you or Carson- if I asked any candidate to affirm that they would hold the Constitution over their faith- I would demand all candidates- regardless of their religion to- make the same claim.

No requiring Muslims or Catholic do something that Evangelicals are not asked to do.

So....you agree with what Carson said.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I don't really know Carson's position- but I disagree with Huckabee's

Carson:
Carson: I can support a Muslim who denounces Sharia law - CNNPolitics.com
"If someone has a Muslim background and they're willing to reject those tenets and to accept the way of life that we have and clearly will swear to place our Constitution above their religion ... I would then be quite willing to support them," he said.

"I could never support a candidate for President of the United States that was Muslim and had not renounced the central tenant of Islam: Sharia Law," he wrote. "I know that there are many peaceful Muslims who do not adhere to these beliefs. But until these tenants are fully renounced...I cannot advocate any Muslim candidate for President.

You understand this is equivalent to saying "I can support a Christian or a Jew for President, as long as they denounce the 10 Commandments", right?

No. It's not.

Yeah. It really is.

Only if you can draw a direct correlation with those that adheres to Sharia law, believing to to be the supreme law of the land, and someone who abides by the 10 Commandments.
Please begin.

What makes you say that those who adhere to Sharia law believe it to be "the supreme law of the land"?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Carson:
Carson: I can support a Muslim who denounces Sharia law - CNNPolitics.com
"If someone has a Muslim background and they're willing to reject those tenets and to accept the way of life that we have and clearly will swear to place our Constitution above their religion ... I would then be quite willing to support them," he said.

"I could never support a candidate for President of the United States that was Muslim and had not renounced the central tenant of Islam: Sharia Law," he wrote. "I know that there are many peaceful Muslims who do not adhere to these beliefs. But until these tenants are fully renounced...I cannot advocate any Muslim candidate for President.

You understand this is equivalent to saying "I can support a Christian or a Jew for President, as long as they denounce the 10 Commandments", right?

No. It's not.

Yeah. It really is.

Only if you can draw a direct correlation with those that adheres to Sharia law, believing to to be the supreme law of the land, and someone who abides by the 10 Commandments.
Please begin.

What makes you say that those who adhere to Sharia law believe it to be "the supreme law of the land"?

I don't see you drawing that correlation. G'head. Begin.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

You understand this is equivalent to saying "I can support a Christian or a Jew for President, as long as they denounce the 10 Commandments", right?

No. It's not.

Yeah. It really is.

Only if you can draw a direct correlation with those that adheres to Sharia law, believing to to be the supreme law of the land, and someone who abides by the 10 Commandments.
Please begin.

What makes you say that those who adhere to Sharia law believe it to be "the supreme law of the land"?

I don't see you drawing that correlation. G'head. Begin.

No. I'm not your trained monkey.

Your premises are false, there's no need to "debate" your conclusion.

 

[M14 Shooter]

No. It's not.

Yeah. It really is.

Only if you can draw a direct correlation with those that adheres to Sharia law, believing to to be the supreme law of the land, and someone who abides by the 10 Commandments.
Please begin.

What makes you say that those who adhere to Sharia law believe it to be "the supreme law of the land"?

I don't see you drawing that correlation. G'head. Begin.

No. I'm not your trained monkey.

Absent that correlation, your claim that '... this is equivalent to saying "I can support a Christian or a Jew for President, as long as they denounce the 10 Commandments" holds no water.
/end

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Yeah. It really is.

Only if you can draw a direct correlation with those that adheres to Sharia law, believing to to be the supreme law of the land, and someone who abides by the 10 Commandments.
Please begin.

What makes you say that those who adhere to Sharia law believe it to be "the supreme law of the land"?

I don't see you drawing that correlation. G'head. Begin.

No. I'm not your trained monkey.

Absent that correlation, your claim that '... this is equivalent to saying "I can support a Christian or a Jew for President, as long as they denounce the 10 Commandments" holds no water.
/end

Of course it holds water, they're both religious law with many, many interpretations that can vary from fundamentalist to moderate and reform.

The fact that you think they're somehow different is due to your personal biases, and has no basis in reality.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Only if you can draw a direct correlation with those that adheres to Sharia law, believing to to be the supreme law of the land, and someone who abides by the 10 Commandments.
Please begin.

What makes you say that those who adhere to Sharia law believe it to be "the supreme law of the land"?

I don't see you drawing that correlation. G'head. Begin.

No. I'm not your trained monkey.

Absent that correlation, your claim that '... this is equivalent to saying "I can support a Christian or a Jew for President, as long as they denounce the 10 Commandments" holds no water.
/end

Of course it holds water....

Sorry... not interested in your response until you demonstrate that correlation.
But, since I am a kind and magnanimous guy, I'll help:
Ten Commandments - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Sharia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia