Yabut, there's already a Muslim in the White House, dintcha know?
It's on all the honest patriotic websites. :us:

Transcript of Carson's words on Meet The Press 9/20/2015
Then the 6th Amendment...



UT: What does it take for something to be a "religious test" or an actual declaration to be taken "aghast about" ?


.

There is a citizenship test for office of the President. One has to be born in this country.

There is no religious test for office of the President. One does not have to be a certain religion.

Those are qualifications.

Disqualifications: Anything that undermines the oath of office to support and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Religion can be a disqualifier if it promotes theocracy; but, doesn't necessarily have to be depending on an individual's ability to maintain a separation of church and state in their mind despite group pressure.

Islam, as it is practiced by a huge majority of its adherents although not all, is not compatible with the US Constitution.

This is not to say that one couldn't locate moderate practitioners who would agree to the standards of the Constitution. Of course one could. And those practitioners would be considered apostate in a huge majority of the Islamic world.

I don't really want a Southern Baptist to be President either. I don't consider their beliefs all that Constitutional. You could find me a "moderate one" but I would only ask why they are hanging out with and defending their friends if they want to be President of a country with LGBT equality and gender equality and freedom of religion.

And so would you, my progressive brethren. Not demanding the same of Muslims is just your attempt to say how well-evolved you are.

presidents, clerks of court, stewardesses
 

Don't hire X if X can't do the job.

Fire X if X refuses to do the job.

Offer no accommodations that relieve X of work at the expense of other employees.

#

Don't apply for work you can't do.

Quit if the work becomes unacceptable.

Don't expect accommodations that relieve you of doing your job.

So it's less about them being muslim, than it is about them potentially holding views that are counter to the duties of president- which in your opinion much of Islam is, in the same way that many branches of Christianity are?

Would you waive your objection if said muslim was an army veteran? Or had served his/her country in some other very tangible way?

Because 'muslim' conjures up the Islamic world, whereas there are plenty of secular muslims -many of whom are born in America.

Yeah, the first thing people say when confronted with this kind of question is "well what about the ones who are modern?"

(Because you can't say "Well what about the good ones?" ...unless they are Southern Baptist or some religion that we may safely criticize)

No matter how carefully the "although not all" qualifier is placed, it's invisible to progressives!

Point is, it doesn't matter; we here are the evolved thinkers and we are already into nuances just starting; and once we get into nuances, leadership becomes more difficult/impossible. You can't start by losing the support of over half the country and expect to lead it. So once we say "This person is part of a global belief system that is anti-American, anti-freedom, and actually rejects a separation of church and state as one of its central beliefs... but forget all that because this person is one of the good ones!" You've already lost. Whether they are one of the good ones is the only debate we would be having for 4 years.

The first step to a Muslim becoming POTUS, electorally, is a wholesale rejection of almost everything Muslim. Does that work on the world stage?

Also, I can't imagine a Muslim POTUS just seeming to support one side of Shia versus Sunni and the world coming out a better place in the end. Serious shit will have hit the fan.

For the record UT, both Carter and Clinton have been Southern Baptists...apparently they are now just Baptists.

They share my take on this.

How do you know? Were you and Bubba sharing cigars between a lady? Were you chatting with Jimmy in-between building houses and monitoring elections in Africa?

That was the same rationale used for blocking catholics from positions of power and influence in many European nations during the 19th century.

UT: To begin with, such a comment creates situational denial of a Constitutional Amendment.

Can "...no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification..." be interpreted other than
as ”no” religious test, not yours or mine or some orange-vs-black pundits

…unless you are of Scalian-thinking: “The Constitution means what I say it means.”


.

I know of few religious adherents that stick to the tenets of their religion lock, stock and barrel.

I hate to defend Ben Carson, but unless he was saying that a Muslim should be denied the Presidency after winning the election, or that states should be able to deny Muslims a place on the ballot, then I don't see the constitutional angle to this.

Individuals can have any test they like for their vote, and even for their public pronouncements of support. That doesn't innure them from criticism, but that criticism isn't really about the Constitution.