The Real Ben Carson Muslim for Pres. Statement Thread

Jump to Last Post 1-5 of 5 discussions (21 posts)
  1. GA Anderson profile image88
    GA Andersonposted 8 years ago

    The Spinmeisters are tumbling over each other trying to get to the front of the mob. The PC crowd is aghast and enthusiastically pushing on the Spinmeisters backs as they surge for the microphones. And for the opposing politicians... oh my, a red meat dinner.

    Republican Presidential candidate Ben Carson said a Muslim should not be allowed to be U.S. President. He said Muslims should be barred from holding the office. OMG!

    Except that he really did not say those things.

    Of course the syllable-parsers and the Kreskins say that is exactly what he said. And fueled by the righteous support of PC monitors, the media has presented two paths to viewers; One is an in-depth, multi-expert-validated forensic dive into the un-Constitutionality of what he said, and the other is the religion road that is exposing the flaws in Mr. Carson's character for even thinking such a statement - much less publicly say it.

    Then there is the other hand...

    Could it be a rare example of an honest and principled man answering as his heart required instead of how his campaign adviser would insist... and other such explanations as offered by spinmeisters supportive of Dr. Carson

    Here are the two quotes from Mr. Carson in an NBC 's "Meet the Press" (as reported by CNN):"
    "..."I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation. I absolutely would not agree with that,..."

    From this quote CNN's lead-off to the story was; "Washington (CNN) Ben Carson says the United States should not elect a Muslim president."

    It sounds like Mr. Carson was saying he would not  advocate it. A personal position? Or is there more context in the interview that explains how this got from there to here? (Here is the full  Meet the Press Interview)

    Then, Ben Carson responds to another question, "...whether a president's faith should matter to voters.," with this;
    "I guess it depends on what that faith is, If it's inconsistent with the values and principles of America, then of course it should matter. But if it fits within the realm of America and consistent with the Constitution, no problem."

    Asked whether Islam is consistent with the Constitution, Carson said: "No, I don't -- I do not."
    (here is the referenced CNN article)

    Easy choice. Of course he is wrong on the second part, (and also that "Constitution" word in the first part), but is he also wrong on the rest of the first part? Hmm...

    The Kreskin in me sees a heck-of-a ride coming up these next few days/weeks.

    Did he say it? What say you?


    1. profile image0
      Old Poolmanposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Ben Carson said exactly what needed to be said, and most Politicians are afraid of the truth.  His having the courage to say that earned him my vote if he makes it that far.

      1. GA Anderson profile image88
        GA Andersonposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        Don't be such an easy vote. You should at least get dinner and a movie out of it.

        I think his statements reflect the feelings of a lot of Americans. I also take him at his words. He would not support it. He does not think it is a good idea. (advocate)

        The sensational headlines are just salt licks in the woods, and the outraged and offended are drooling with anticipation of so many ways to condemn these supposed declarations.


        1. profile image0
          Old Poolmanposted 8 years agoin reply to this

          It is just not smart to put a fox in charge of the hen house.  Oh wait, we already did that twice.

    2. colorfulone profile image77
      colorfuloneposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      GA Anderson, truly appreciate this post. 
      Thank you!

  2. profile image0
    ahorsebackposted 8 years ago

    And Ben Carson was absolutely right !

  3. profile image0
    PrettyPantherposted 8 years ago

    Well, I would not advocate voting for a candidate who brings up his faith on practically every political issue.

    The President serves all Americans, not just Christians.

    1. wilderness profile image94
      wildernessposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      +1.  Some of our current wanna-be's don't seem to understand that.

    2. rhamson profile image70
      rhamsonposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      And last I checked the Americans who would have to elect a supposed candidacy like this would all have to agree for it to happen. Not likely despite all those who have never disproven Obamas religion or birthright. Oh that's right he fooled us all. My bad  smile

  4. profile image0
    PrettyPantherposted 8 years ago

    Anyone who meets the qualifications can run for President.  It doesn't matter whether you are Muslim, atheist, Catholic, Mormon, Hindu, or worship the Flying Spaghetti Monster.  Mr. Carson was stating his point of view, and it is clear he would not advocate for a Muslim to be president.  Okay, now what does that really mean?  It means he would personally reject a candidate based on their religious views.  It does not mean he thinks a Muslim should not be allowed to run for President.

    However, the fact that he would reject a candidate solely based on their religious views is a BIG negative in my view.  Other people might think it is quite alright, but for me it's a huge red flag.  I'm sure Huckabee and quite a few other candidates would do the same, even if they are too smart to say it out loud.

    A smart voter votes on the issues, not on a candidate's personal religious beliefs.  The only time a voter should consider a candidate's personal religious beliefs is when the candidate makes it an issue by constantly trotting it out.  Carson and Huckabee do this all the time.

    1. GA Anderson profile image88
      GA Andersonposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      "... the fact that he would reject a candidate solely based on their religious views is a BIG negative in my view. "

      But what if his statement wasn't just based on religious views, what if it was based on the perception of the entire Muslim package that is presented almost nightly through the media?

      Islam has a very big problem with a lot of the American people, ( I think), and it goes far beyond the subtleties and details that your smart voter would know to consider.

      The PC folks seem to reject the realities of the everyday world that most typical Americans live in. There is a lot of gray. And a lot of massaged input on which the typical American has to form a perception or opinion.

      ISIS on the news, another Taliban take-over, a Muslim shoots a crowd of folks. A Muslim kid's digital clock science project gets him arrested/detained/questioned. John and Marge have to get to the airport an hour early and take off their shoes to get on a flight to his Mom's for Thanksgiving - just because we have to keep an Islamic extremist, (Muslim, to John and Marge), from boarding too.

      Perception is reality. So take the just described picture, (you may rightly claim it is a distorted one, but not an untrue one), and present a Muslim candidate under its colors to the American people and ask, "Would you want this man to be our president?" A segment of those asked will say they need to know more about the man, but I think the first reaction of a much lager segment of folks will be of that picture.

      Could this be the root of Ben Carson's answers? Deny and decry the intolerable unfairness, (and the ethical wrongness), of this truth, but Ben Carson may be speaking for a majority of Americans, not just the extreme conservative or religious folks that progressive minded people usually dismiss as substandard.

      Now may not be a time when Americans, as tolerant as we are, could contemplate a Muslim presidential candidate. You may not like the peas on your plate, but you cannot deny that they are peas, and that they are on your plate.


      1. profile image0
        PrettyPantherposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        Simply put, I am an atheist and have voted for deeply religious candidates.  My vote had nothing to do with their religious views, but with their political, economic, and social views.

        To summarily dismiss a candidate based on their religion is any person's prerogative.  But the decision to do so is not rational, it is emotional.  It is also bigoted, no matter how you try to frame it.  There was a time when most Americans wouldn't vote for a Catholic or a Jew, either.  They had their reasons, but it is wrong to pretend those reasons made any rational sense then, and it is wrong to pretend the reasons currently used to summarily dismiss a Muslim candidate are any more rational.

        1. GA Anderson profile image88
          GA Andersonposted 8 years agoin reply to this

          Hold on there PrettyPanther, you can't add qualifiers now. Rational, was never mentioned, and given the context so far, I don't think it could even be considered.

          Of course the described perception is not rational. But I want to split hairs and claim it is not exactly irrational either. Toss out the extreme fringes of both sides, and you are left with a very large segment of voters that have no involvement deep enough to prompt them to consider there is a question of rationality.


          1. profile image0
            PrettyPantherposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            If I'm understanding you correctly, we both agree that dismissing a candidate based on their religion is irrational.  I'm also saying it's bigoted.  I get that it's hard for some people to separate out the person from the religion, especially given 9/11 and the ongoing problems with Muslim extremists.  I totally get it.

            1. GA Anderson profile image88
              GA Andersonposted 8 years agoin reply to this

              Welllll... We almost agree. But it isn't just semantics that separate our perceptions. I think it might be dumb, or maybe even a bit bigoted, but within the context of my reasoning, (as explained earlier), I do not think such a decision is irrational. Just wrong, but for understandable reasons.


              1. profile image0
                PrettyPantherposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                Okay, I guess I can agree it's "understandable," but we should fight against our baser need to unfairly categorize people.  Like I said earlier, I doubt we will have a Muslim candidate for President for a very long time, precisely because of the stigma attached to that religion in this country.

  5. profile image0
    ahorsebackposted 8 years ago

    Yes , Lets put a Muslim in Office !  That way we don't have to worry over certain other voters in America .  I'm sure Sharia law  would be the new  law in America , dictated by the Karan .  We can put women" back in their place" , no voting , No driving , no  say at all except through their elected man representative .     We don't have to worry about the Gay  or Lesbian vote because they would certainly be eliminated ,      Christians would be relegated to the back seat [even more than now ] in political influence   . Why , because they are not Muslim !

    Sure , why Not ?  Its all good . Lets elect a Muslim .

    1. profile image0
      ahorsebackposted 8 years agoin reply to this


    2. profile image0
      PrettyPantherposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Ah, the crystalline pure logic that is emanating from this post is blinding but beautiful.  Let's elect a Christian, like Kim Davis, who pulls in $80,000 a year to do her job, but refuses to do her job and believes HER PERSONAL GOD should dictate how others should live, even to the point of defying the Supreme Court, the power of which is set forth in the Constitution of the United States.

      You do understand that there are intelligent, capable, college-educated Muslims living right here in the U.S. who do not subscribe to Sharia Law, and embrace the laws of the United States, probably following them better than devout Christian Kim Davis?

      Gasp, a Muslim might be elected President some day.  I doubt it will happen any time soon, given the stigma associated with the religion here in the U.S.

      1. profile image0
        ahorsebackposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        I personally can't wait until we  as Christians  are  no longer fighting a war on Christianity, perhaps then America may get back to being loved and led  by an  real American- leader  !

    3. GA Anderson profile image88
      GA Andersonposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      By your reasoning, it appears that divorce should have become illegal during JFK's time in office.



This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at:

Show Details
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the or domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)