While I don't agree with some of Dr. Carson's positions, I found the Republican debate this week very enjoyable and thought Dr. Carson did very well in it. He was humble, thoughtful, respectful, and brought new ideas to the table. What do you think?
Dr. Carson is an awesome man. I also so him say in Church that he believes Sunday law will com from the right wing. This is the only thing that really bothered me about him running as a republican and he clarified his position.
I also saw this clip in which Dr. Carson said that he believes that the Sunday law will more than likely come from the right wing party of this nation. I was shocked that he made that comment. We know that both parties will lead in the push for the Sunday law. However, though I was amazed at his statement I respect his truthfulness and honesty. It can clearly be seen that the agenda to legislate morality is pushed by the right wing of this nation. This is the plan to of those who will lead out in the coming crisis. The female politician who said that it should be law that each person should choose a church and must attend each Sunday is an example of that. It is true that "Righteousness exalts a nation." However, legislating Christianity debases a nation.
So true. The excess, and swing to the left and the lawless of both the ruling class and the lower classes may cause the swing to the right and with it Sunday law. I am bothered by Trump's "make America great again", just like I was by Obama's "change" slogan. How and by what laws is never really answered.
It still more intelligent than 3/4's of the things that get posted in these forums.
As SDA we should be reading history books part of the time and the Bible most of the time, but it would seem some are more interested in reading people magazine and watching Oprah than actualing looking at the real issues as Dr. Carson has.
Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson says Islam is antithetical to the Constitution, and he doesn't believe that a Muslim should be elected president.
Carson, a devout Christian, says a president's faith should matter to voters if it runs counter to the values and principles of America.
Responding to a question during an interview broadcast Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press," he described the Islamic faith as inconsistent with the Constitution.
"I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation," Carson said. "I absolutely would not agree with that."
While I am glad that Dr. Carson clarified his point, I think we should note that the Constitution has no requirement about faith in holding the office of President. I believe the country exercised discretion as he says when Mitt Romney was running and some did not vote for him because of his faith.
Mitt Romney's faith and JFK's faith did not conflict with the office of president. Sharia law if followed would be a problem. Do you understand Sharia? Ben Carson discussed this at length and also stated that it would not be a problem for a Muslim to be in Congress but as a matter of conscience it would for a Muslim to be president of the United States. You really should study into this. You could also look into the conflict the USA had early on and the writings of Thomas Jefferson on this matter concerning Tunisia.
I must admit I do not understand Sharia law at all, nor the system behind it. I don't believe a Muslim President would or could change our laws without the consent of the People. I lived in New Mexico and came to know many LDS church members and to know about their faith. I would be concerned if one of them became President. I have no idea what you are talking about concerning Tunisia and my relative Thomas Jefferson. Didn't that have to do with pirates?
Yes, The pirates, interesting you are related to Thomas Jefferson. Christian faith as shown in the Old Testament by Daniel and written of in the New Testament allows for a certain separation of secular from religious faith as long as Gods law is not violated. This is not the case with Sharia. I wonder sometimes why those who argue the hardest about separation of church and state are the first to break it, such as the pope now and all this Islamic stuff. Maybe it is just fundamental Christians that need to be separated.
Yes, so far two presidents. The other one was President James K. Polk. My line runs through noblemen in England, tribal chieftains in France (Viking), the Anjou line of Kings of France, the kings of Castile in Spain, back to Charlemagne.
Well, you know at one time the pope and the state were intertwined, and when the founders of the country came here and wanted to start another nation, they probably had that in mind when they wrote that the state would have no established religion and support none, thus creating a separation.
I find that Islam seems to be mainly supported by peasants with very little education, and more than a little propensity for violence (in Islamic countries).
My kin did fight in the revolution, but they were Scottish and Irish. My cousin has a letter from Samuel Adams who represented one of my relatives in a court case involving drunkenness and bigamy. The argument is so much for Islam that and there are so many problems around the world regarding Islam. They are violent to women, gays and have no religious tolerance. Yet the claim is Islamophobia. Like Shakespeare says:
I think he is the only candidate I have been enthused about in recent memory.