I don’t know half as many Carson statements as well as I should like, and I despise less than half of them half as much as they deserve.
Let’s call doorhinge Prisoner A, and Ben Carson Prisoner B…
Egyptians could run for POTUS if they’re of age and were born in the U.S.A…
Do you see a difference between “Muslim candidate” and “Muslim candidate who choses radical, fanatical, or violent Islam”?
Or do YOU consider them to be one and the same?
Is there room at the inn? 
Carson further clarified his position on Sept 21st.
*GOP presidential candidate Ben Carson said on Monday that he would only reject a Muslim candidate for the presidency who practices a radical interpretation of Islam.
Carson added during an interview with Fox News’s Sean Hannity that any president must place the Constitution above their own personal faith. “You know, what we have to do is, we have to recognize that this is America, and we have a Constitution,” Carson said on “Hannity.”
“We do not put people at the leadership of our country whose faith might interfere with carrying out the duties of the Constitution,” he said.
“Now, 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, then, of course, they will be considered infidels and heretics, but at least I would then be quite willing to support them,” the retired neurosurgeon added.
Carson’s original remarks that a Muslim should not be president sparked a firestorm, drawing swift criticism from the Obama administration, Democratic lawmakers and even other members of the 2016 Republican presidential field.
“I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation,” he said Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “I absolutely would not agree with that.”
Carson argued on Monday that his position is completely valid when expressed in the context of radical interpretations of Islam.
“I could never support a candidate for President of the United States that was Muslim and had not renounced the central tenet of Islam: Sharia law,” Carson wrote during a question-and-answer session on his Facebook page that evening.
“Those Republicans that take issue with my position are amazing,” said Carson, a Seventh Day Adventist. “Under Islamic law, homosexuals — men and women alike — must be killed. Women must be subservient. And people following other religions must be killed.”
“I know that there are many peaceful Muslims who do not adhere to these beliefs,” Carson added. “But until these tenets are fully announced … I cannot advocate any Muslim candidate for president.”
The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) is now calling for Carson’s exit from next year’s White House race in light of his remarks earlier this week.*
Many in the LSM, pundits, and some on the internet, have taken to reminding Carson that there is no religious test to run for political office in the U.S.A…
While that statement is true, it’s address to the wrong person. Carson has made it clear that he would not want a blood-thirsty, radical, fanatical, homosexual-murdering, misogynist follower of Islam in the White House.
However, it’s the supporters of radical, fanatical, Islam, such as CAIR, who do not understand that there is no religious test for those running for the WH. It’s CAIR who has said that Carson should not run for POTUS. The LSM, pundits, and those on the internet should be reminding the CAIR-types that anyone 35 and over can run for the office.
Maybe you should remind the supporters of radical, fanatical Christianity.
You’re a Democrat, aren’t you? Is there any reason that you can’t remind other people of your position(s)? Do you believe that other people’s post might have more credibility than yours? Don’t be so hard on yourself. You’re entitled to your opinion just as much as Ben Carson is entitled to his opinion. Even if CAIR doesn’t think so.
Don’t know, but it’s not remotely outside the realm of possibility and I’d bet the UK hits that particular milestone first.
Muslims are a minority so the odds of a Muslim PM are smaller than those of a Christian one on sheer demographics alone, but there are currently 13 Muslim MPs so someone is obviously voting for them (also note: eight of those 13 are women). We’ve also already had a Muslim chair of the Conservative Party, Baroness Warsi. If a suitably charismatic Muslim candidate comes along, they could very well be a contender for the top job.
Not yours, if that’s what you mean. Certainly your refusal to address the most central point does not enhance your credibility, although you may not realize it.
The existence of the “no religious test” clause in the Constitution is not a matter of opinion.
I know this is hard for you, but you do have to try.
Then they would not be Egyptians.
They might be ethnic Egyptians or Egyptian-Americans, depending on one’s preference for terminology, but if they are citizens of Egypt, (the location of the misquoted statistic*), they cannot be U.S. President.
In the context of this discussion with Hooleehootoo’s attempt at misdirection, your claim is not just off track, it is stupid.
- The “86%” figure is not the percentage of Egyptians who polled in favor of the death penalty for apostasy. It is the percentage of Egyptians who would already support Sharia as the law for Egypt who would support the death penalty for apostasy. Since the base number is 74%, the 86% of that number reduces the overall to 63.64%–still a very high number, (if accurate), but not 86%.
He has also lied about what Islam teaches, implying that all Muslims are “blood-thirsty, radical, fanatical, homosexual-murdering, misogynist[s]” and falsely claimed that Muslims would have to renounce their religion or, if expressing “American” values, would be attacked by other American Muslims.
Carson is either blitheringly ignorant, (as he often is of facts), or he is deliberately stirring up hatred. Your defense of his words shows where you stand in that analysis.
(post shortened)
That is correct.
It’s CAIR who seems not to understand that no religious test is required for campaigning for the office of POTUS. It’s CAIR who is demanding that Carson drop out of the presidential race because they object to Carson’s opinion.
That’s not a religious test that Carson failed. Nobody is asking Carson to drop out because of his religion.
It’s a dumb-ass, moron test. Carson failed.
No one from CAIR has claimed that Carson’s Christianity makes him ineligible for the office. Your statement is dumb.
It is his failure to understand the Constitution and his promotion of religious bigotry that makes him ineligible and CAIR has a right to point out both of those issues.
If an Egyptian couple were to give birth to a baby Egyptian somewhere within the U.S.A., that baby Egyptian would meet the “natural born citizen” qualification for the Office of the President.
When that natural born citizen reaches the age of 35, they would meet the age requirement for the Office of the President.
If that natural born citizen were to have resided within the U.S.A. for the fourteen years prior to becoming President, they would have then met all of the age and citizenship requirements for qualification for Office of the President.
They would then be eligible to be POTUS, if not electable. I would recommend that they renounce their Egyptian citizenship, to avoid any empirical entanglements. 
(posts shortened)
CAIR wants you believe that they should decide who should, and who shouldn’t, be allowed to run for POTUS.
No, Ben Carson is doing that. :smack:
The fact that you think I did not know this says more about you than me. Egyptians can immigrate the the U.S., have children, and teach children that it is proper to put to death idolaters of Islam. That is very uncommon. It would be even more unlikely for such a person to run for POTUS, but come on… the whole question is theoretical at this point. Do you think Carson was under the impression that Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi had declared? No, he probably was thinking that in the future an American Muslim might have to explain where he stands on certain Islamic ideas… Riba, for example.
No they don’t. Saying “he should drop out” is entirely different from saying “he should not be allowed to run”. I see no evidence CAIR believes that Carson should not be allowed to run for President.