Ben Carson

[Grey Colson]

Kennedy fell under suspicion because he was Catholic. There were questions of whether a Catholic president would be under the thumb of the pope.

That said, politicians who wear their religion on their sleeve scare me. That's why I won't be voting for Carson, Cruz, or Huckabee. I feel the same about an equivalent Muslim president or, indeed, a politician of any religion.

The trouble is that Carson limits it to Muslims and refuses to see that the same thing applies to any religion.

The press are the ones who bring religion into the conversation. They are the ones who are awfully preoccupied with the issue, not Carson. If they didn't want his opionion, they shouldn't have asked.

I'm proud of Carson for being steadfast in his faith. It's a very rare thing in this world.

 

[Madea]

Kennedy fell under suspicion because he was Catholic. There were questions of whether a Catholic president would be under the thumb of the pope.

That said, politicians who wear their religion on their sleeve scare me. That's why I won't be voting for Carson, Cruz, or Huckabee. I feel the same about an equivalent Muslim president or, indeed, a politician of any religion.

The trouble is that Carson limits it to Muslims and refuses to see that the same thing applies to any religion.

I support Cruz. I don't see where his religious beliefs are being "worn on his sleeve". Is he a deeply religious man? Yes. Would it trump his support of the constitution? No, it hasn't.

 

[Guard Dad]

It seems that Carson's remarks about a Muslim president have met with approval.


http://allenbwest.com/2015/09/whoa-look-what-happened-to-ben-carsons-fundraising-right-after-muslim-comments/

 

[ShoeDiva]

It seems that Carson's remarks about a Muslim president have met with approval.


http://allenbwest.com/2015/09/whoa-look-what-happened-to-ben-carsons-fundraising-right-after-muslim-comments/

If it was the fact he spoke against Muslims, then that is sad that money is pouring in for that reason.
If it is because he spoke his opinion and like with Trump that is what people want. People with backbone and not waiting to hear what there next move is, than that is good.
:seesaw Sooooo conflicted.

 

[Boss 302]

It seems that Carson's remarks about a Muslim president have met with approval.


http://allenbwest.com/2015/09/whoa-look-what-happened-to-ben-carsons-fundraising-right-after-muslim-comments/

I agree with Carson. Devout Muslims put Islam ahead of everything else and people should be aware that Islam clashes with the Constitution. Although one could argue a Muslim president could not enact Sharia law, but would you want a president who believed in it?

People make criticisms of candidates who are devout Christians claiming they would make decisions based upon their religious beliefs. Any person elected as President or into Congress cannot do a thing to make abortions illegal as the SCOTUS already ruled on it. So what does it matter if Carson or any other candidate thinks abortion is wrong because of their religious beliefs, as it cannot change anything on it? What does it matter if a candidate believes in evolution or not? Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with governing.

 

[honeybunny]

Dr. Carson is a truly inspirational figure and his non conventional campaign is very interesting...


:thumbsup

 

[honeybunny]

Apparently... pointing out the FACT that children benefit from stable
two parent families is now an unforgivable sin amongst progressives :

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/ben-carson-traditional-values_5615b2c2e4b021e856d38c35?utm_hp_ref=politics


I seem to remember Obama expressing the very same
sentiment a few years ago in a speech about fatherhood.


:dunno

 

[Guard Dad]

I completely agree with him.

 

[J-man]

For as many who would vote for one having views supporting evolution there are as many who would vote against, or at least for one having conflicting views. Generally speaking, those with views supporting evolution believe science, those with conflicting views believe their interpretation of the Bible. Both require belief in something. Science is never "wrong" but often revised. The Bible is constant.

 

[Waski_the_Squirrel]

For as many who would vote for one having views supporting evolution there are as many who would vote against, or at least for one having conflicting views. Generally speaking, those with views supporting evolution believe science, those with conflicting views believe their interpretation of the Bible. Both require belief in something. Science is never "wrong" but often revised. The Bible is constant.

One has evidence. The other was written by some tribe in the desert several thousand years ago.

 

[J-man]

For as many who would vote for one having views supporting evolution there are as many who would vote against, or at least for one having conflicting views. Generally speaking, those with views supporting evolution believe science, those with conflicting views believe their interpretation of the Bible. Both require belief in something. Science is never "wrong" but often revised. The Bible is constant.

One has evidence. The other was written by some tribe in the desert several thousand years ago.

And one was written by people who get grants and perks for writing supporting ideas. Funny how those tribesmen got it right the first time, even chiseling theirs in stone. Evidently they knew they wouldn't need an eraser.

 

[ShoeDiva]

For as many who would vote for one having views supporting evolution there are as many who would vote against, or at least for one having conflicting views. Generally speaking, those with views supporting evolution believe science, those with conflicting views believe their interpretation of the Bible. Both require belief in something. Science is never "wrong" but often revised. The Bible is constant.

One has evidence. The other was written by some tribe in the desert several thousand years ago.

And one was written by people who get grants and perks for writing supporting ideas. Funny how those tribesmen got it right the first time, even chiseling theirs in stone. Evidently they knew they wouldn't need an eraser.

Which stones are we speaking of, the ones just in your bible or all the ones that are included in mine too? :whistle Because if yours they didn't use an eraser, they just threw them out. ;D

 

[Waski_the_Squirrel]

For as many who would vote for one having views supporting evolution there are as many who would vote against, or at least for one having conflicting views. Generally speaking, those with views supporting evolution believe science, those with conflicting views believe their interpretation of the Bible. Both require belief in something. Science is never "wrong" but often revised. The Bible is constant.

One has evidence. The other was written by some tribe in the desert several thousand years ago.

And one was written by people who get grants and perks for writing supporting ideas. Funny how those tribesmen got it right the first time, even chiseling theirs in stone. Evidently they knew they wouldn't need an eraser.

Do you have evidence that they got it right? And what are your feelings on changes to the Bible over time? The councils on which books to accept, the additions and revisions? Deletions? Why don't all the churches agree on which books belong in it (Catholics, for example)? Which one is right?

The beauty of science is that it's open for criticism. All it takes is evidence. No matter what the conspiracy theorists say, it is based on evidence. The fact that it will change in light of new evidence makes it powerful.

Religion is impervious to evidence.

Here is an introduction to how the Bible came to be.

http://www.newsweek.com/2015/01/02/thats-not-what-bible-says-294018.html

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ancient/origins-written-bible.html

And here's a handy chart on how science works.

 

[J-man]

For as many who would vote for one having views supporting evolution there are as many who would vote against, or at least for one having conflicting views. Generally speaking, those with views supporting evolution believe science, those with conflicting views believe their interpretation of the Bible. Both require belief in something. Science is never "wrong" but often revised. The Bible is constant.

One has evidence. The other was written by some tribe in the desert several thousand years ago.

And one was written by people who get grants and perks for writing supporting ideas. Funny how those tribesmen got it right the first time, even chiseling theirs in stone. Evidently they knew they wouldn't need an eraser.

Which stones are we speaking of, the ones just in your bible or all the ones that are included in mine too? :whistle Because if yours they didn't use an eraser, they just threw them out. ;D

Are you baptist now too?

 

[Guard Dad]

It's interesting to note that "settled science" (scientific theory) has been later proven wrong many times.

Which is why the scientific community continues to challenge theories when they are free of agenda.

 

[ShoeDiva]

For as many who would vote for one having views supporting evolution there are as many who would vote against, or at least for one having conflicting views. Generally speaking, those with views supporting evolution believe science, those with conflicting views believe their interpretation of the Bible. Both require belief in something. Science is never "wrong" but often revised. The Bible is constant.

One has evidence. The other was written by some tribe in the desert several thousand years ago.

And one was written by people who get grants and perks for writing supporting ideas. Funny how those tribesmen got it right the first time, even chiseling theirs in stone. Evidently they knew they wouldn't need an eraser.

Which stones are we speaking of, the ones just in your bible or all the ones that are included in mine too? :whistle Because if yours they didn't use an eraser, they just threw them out. ;D

Are you baptist now?

:wut

 

[stradial]

For as many who would vote for one having views supporting evolution there are as many who would vote against, or at least for one having conflicting views. Generally speaking, those with views supporting evolution believe science, those with conflicting views believe their interpretation of the Bible. Both require belief in something. Science is never "wrong" but often revised. The Bible is constant.

One has evidence. The other was written by some tribe in the desert several thousand years ago.

And one was written by people who get grants and perks for writing supporting ideas. Funny how those tribesmen got it right the first time, even chiseling theirs in stone. Evidently they knew they wouldn't need an eraser.

Which stones are we speaking of, the ones just in your bible or all the ones that are included in mine too? :whistle Because if yours they didn't use an eraser, they just threw them out. ;D

Are you baptist now too?

Apparently I am, my sometime Catholic wife (and Diva) said so.
However, the Baptists said I wasn't.
:dunno

 

[honeybunny]

Well Dr. Carson has now secured my vote...

He was on GMA this morning and basically told
George Stephanopoulos that he was full of crap.


:CLAP :CLAP :CLAP

 

[Grey Colson]

Well Dr. Carson has now secured my vote...

He was on GMA this morning and basically told
George Stephanopoulos that he was full of crap.


:CLAP :CLAP :CLAP

Carson is the real deal. :thumbsup

 

[honeybunny]

Well Dr. Carson has now secured my vote...

He was on GMA this morning and basically told
George Stephanopoulos that he was full of crap.


:CLAP :CLAP :CLAP

Carson is the real deal. :thumbsup

George was like : "Well the media says blah, blah, blah..."

Ben Carson : "The media is full of crap."


:thumbsup