Ben Carson: Muslim shouldn't be president

If I thought Huckabee would fix the street I'd vote for him. By the qualifications you spelled out, what about Scott Walker that never mentioned unions and on occasions during his first campaign danced up and down how he would work with Labor Yada Yada Yada then turned on a dime. Do you give him a pass ? Or, despite his professed Christianity - do you give him a pass. My guess --- based on his profesding
 
please forgive my awkward posts. I am entering the 21st century and posting on a smart phone. Quit laughing
 
By the way Americans will never truly vote for a religious candidate. They all pay lip service to the idea that they are church goers, but most Americans are voting for the dude that sits in the back of the church who would rather be doing something else. G-dub, Reagan, Clinton and Obama, imo were all the same dudes. None of them were truly that religious. Most of us are that way and thus we'll vote for that person. A guy like Huckabee has no chance. If he wasn't essentially a pastor he'd actually have a legit chance to win the election.
 
57Brave said:
If I thought Huckabee would fix the street I'd vote for him. By the qualifications you spelled out, what about Scott Walker that never mentioned unions and on occasions during his first campaign danced up and down how he would work with Labor Yada Yada Yada then turned on a dime. Do you give him a pass ? Or, despite his professed Christianity - do you give him a pass. My guess --- based on his profesding
Click to expand...

Huckabee is actually pretty moderate like the Pope. He probably would fix your street. You just will never vote for an evangelical christian. You anti religious bastard.
 
Runnin said:
It's called a Christian-Agnostic. That's pretty much what I am.
Click to expand...

I think the difference between a Deist and a Christian-Agnostic is that Deism really doesn't get bogged down in the minutiae of 'the word' -- it simply acknowledges belief in a higher being and generally embraces basic religious moral belief systems while leaving the rest of the hand-wringing and pearl-clutching to individuals who want to go down that road.
 
Hawk said:
I think the difference between a Deist and a Christian-Agnostic is that Deism really doesn't get bogged down in the minutiae of 'the word' -- it simply acknowledges belief in a higher being and generally embraces basic religious moral belief systems while leaving the rest of the hand-wringing and pearl-clutching to individuals who want to go down that road.
Click to expand...

Yeah these definitions sound pretty reasonable. The way I usually define it in class is that while evangelical Christians feel that God created everything and he's still involved in every aspect of our lives, Deists (like Jefferson) tend to believe that God created everything then took a couple of steps back to essentially "let it run itself", sort of a "God helps those who help themselves" kind of thing.

What do you guys think?
 
I've always thought that Deists are of a similar strain as Unitarians in that they can't reconcile the man/God aspect of Christ and thus subscribe to much of the basic outlines of the moral structure without tackling the whole "Who is it you say that I am?" query from Jesus. Pretty much what Hawk said. Another aspect is, as you say Oklahomahawk, the "cosmic watchmaker" aspect of creation. The universe was created by a higher power, but then it just kicked back and let things take their own course. Lot of theological nuance after that.
 
Hawk said:
I think the difference between a Deist and a Christian-Agnostic is that Deism really doesn't get bogged down in the minutiae of 'the word' -- it simply acknowledges belief in a higher being and generally embraces basic religious moral belief systems while leaving the rest of the hand-wringing and pearl-clutching to individuals who want to go down that road.
Click to expand...

huh, I like this.
 
weso1 said:
By the way Americans will never truly vote for a religious candidate. They all pay lip service to the idea that they are church goers, but most Americans are voting for the dude that sits in the back of the church who would rather be doing something else. G-dub, Reagan, Clinton and Obama, imo were all the same dudes. None of them were truly that religious. Most of us are that way and thus we'll vote for that person. A guy like Huckabee has no chance. If he wasn't essentially a pastor he'd actually have a legit chance to win the election.
Click to expand...

Huckabee has no chance because he's a bigoted asshole, not because he's religious.

I'd have no problem voting for someone very religious so long as they don't use their religion to justify not giving others equal rights. That goes for a Muslim, too - we'd never allow a Muslim government to require women to cover themselves up the way some Muslims do. If they tried, they'd fail. Yet, we can have presidential candidates vow to take down legal gay marriage. It's the same thing.
 
I think POTUS is a liberal "Christian" of a fairly mild liberationist stripe. Coming from the black Christian tradition, he probably doesn't completely jettison supernaturalism, but likely downplays it. "Grace" for him isn't so much as unmerited divine favor (though he's got room for that), it's more something horizontal - offered to others, a Golden Rule as understood by theological progressives/liberals.
 
BedellBrave said:
And no, I don't think any of us would want an orthodox Muslim to be POTUS. Why is this even a debatable?
Click to expand...

Don't think an orthodox Muslim would ever have a chance at the presidency anyways. As atheism/agnostic numbers rise in the coming years, faith won't be as big of a political influence in national races as they wiil be locally.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top