Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
I don't see a problem with the guy saying he wouldn't want someone who follows shariah law to be president.
Which is it then?religion should not be a political subject.
I don't see a problem with the guy saying he wouldn't want someone who follows shariah law to be president.
Which is it then?religion should not be a political subject.
He really is incredibly stupidCarson also believes evolution is evil
He's either incredibly stupid or lying to his incredibly stupid base
Stand up guy, that Ben Carson..
Shariah law violates rights of women.Which is it then?
"Let the women learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression." I Timothy 2:11-14Shariah law violates rights of women.
Don't be an idiot. Educate yourself.
Were you trying to make a point?"Let the women learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression." I Timothy 2:11-14
I don't see a problem with the guy saying he wouldn't want someone who follows shariah law to be president.
Which is it then?
Shariah law violates rights of women.
Don't be an idiot. Educate yourself.
"Let the women learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression." I Timothy 2:11-14
Were you?Were you trying to make a point?
Carson: I can support a Muslim who denounces Sharia lawWere you?
Ben Carson says he wouldn't support a Muslim as president because Islam is incompatible with the US Constitution, then you defended his position by reiterating the same message "Shariah law violates rights of women", then I showed you how Christianity also violates the rights of women and is also incompatible with the Constitution.
So why do you, and I'm presuming Carson, hold Islam up to a different standard than Christianity when they both demonstrably oppose women's rights and both violate the Constitution?
Let's quit dancing around the elephant in the room, what does Sharia law say about growing pot? All cool or will I lose a hand?Shariah law violates rights of women.
Don't be an idiot. Educate yourself.
Because Islamic Countries use Shariah law to persecute women.Were you?
Ben Carson says he wouldn't support a Muslim as president because Islam is incompatible with the US Constitution, then you defended his position by reiterating the same message "Shariah law violates rights of women", then I showed you how Christianity also violates the rights of women and is also incompatible with the Constitution.
So why do you, and I'm presuming Carson, hold Islam up to a different standard than Christianity when they both demonstrably oppose women's rights and both violate the Constitution?
Why the different standard for Christianity than with Islam?Carson: I can support a Muslim who denounces Sharia law
They are equal if the person practicing it does not use their faith to subjugate others.Why the different standard for Christianity than with Islam?
You guys are being hypocrites on this issue. You're saying one is OK and the other one's not and you're using a position of moral authority to justify it when our founding document states that all religions (or none at all) must be equally respected
Politicians use Christianity to justify insane beliefs that persecute not only women but everybody; climate change denial, reproductive rights Planned Parenthood and contraception/abortion, etc. Arguably much worseBecause Islamic Countries use Shariah law to persecute women.
America doesn't use Christianity to behead, chop off hands, or restrict rights based on gender.
apples to oranges.Politicians use Christianity to justify insane beliefs that persecute not only women but everybody; climate change denial, reproductive rights Planned Parenthood and contraception/abortion, etc. Arguably much worse
I think you're using two different sets of standards for Christianity and Islam because one has run through the gauntlet of western civilization for a couple thousand years and developed a cushy makeover for the 21st century while the other is still very much in its openly barbaric phase. You go back just a few hundred years and Christianity was exactly the same.You are comparing apples to oranges pada. Like you often do.
So you want the barbaric vs the cushy.I think you're using two different sets of standards for Christianity and Islam because one has run through the gauntlet of western civilization for a couple thousand years and developed a cushy makeover for the 21st century while the other is still very much in its openly barbaric phase. You go back just a few hundred years and Christianity was exactly the same.
I think I get your point on the hypocrisy. But I like my hands. I think on balance you will find that Sharia, or pretty much any theocracy, will be more incompatible with the founding documents than compatible. I could be wrong, but I doubt you will ever see a president win office on a Sharia law platform.Why the different standard for Christianity than with Islam?
You guys are being hypocrites on this issue. You're saying one is OK and the other one's not and you're using a position of moral authority to justify it when our founding document states that all religions (or none at all) must be equally respected