Ben Carson: Set Aside Your Christian Principles to Elect Trump

[Silver Pines]

It seems I heard that all men have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God; I think Dr. Carson is just saying, don't let the personal faults of an individual, in this case, years ago, keep one from doing the right thing.

Leave it to the Cruz-bots and Beck-bots to bring in the Constitution; let's see how effective the Constitution is with an HRC stacked court.

@TomSea

As soon as you nominated Trump, a Hillary win was guaranteed.  Donald was always going to lose.  He's shocking ignorant, amoral to the core, as corrupt as any Clinton, and totally unprepared.  And now the factor that will seal the landslide is his uncovered history of sexual assault.
 
Choose more wisely next time.  And for God's sake, don't pick an incoherent game show host.

[TomSea]

Where is prayer in schools in the Constitution, exactly? Curious now.

1st Amendment.

[HonestJohn]

1st Amendment.

Not seeing it.

Nothing in the First Amendment allows the hand of government to chose a religion's prayers for forced recitation by students who may, or may not, be a member of said religion.

In fact, I'd say it does the opposite and forbids it.

[geronl]

Support Evil Incarnate, just this once...

(you can only sell your soul once)

[DB]

Where's abortion and same-sex marriage in the Constitution? Looks like we crossed that bridge long ago.

A Supreme Court that ruled to take prayer out of schools? That Constitution?

Your champion supports same sex marriage.

And enjoy this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsOlXidHXRE

How can you be so foolish?

[Luis Gonzalez]

Not seeing it.

Nothing in the First Amendment allows the hand of government to chose a religion's prayers for forced recitation by students who may, or may not, be a member of said religion.

In fact, I'd say it does the opposite and forbids it.

Thanks for catching that.

[Chosen Daughter]

I would submit that if one can set  aside one's Christian principles, one is, by definition, not a Christian.

Absolutely Correct!


1 peter 2:14

or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right

Proverbs 29:4

The king gives stability to the land by justice, But a man who takes bribes overthrows it

Daniel 2:37-38

"You, O king, are the king of kings, to whom the God of heaven has given the kingdom, the power, the strength and the glory; and wherever the sons of men dwell, or the beasts of the field, or the birds of the sky, He has given them into your hand and has caused you to rule over them all. You are the head of gold.


James 4:13-15

Come now, you who say, "Today or tomorrow we will go to such and such a city, and spend a year there and engage in business and make a profit." Yet you do not know what your life will be like tomorrow. You are just a vapor that appears for a little while and then vanishes away. Instead, you ought to say, "If the Lord wills, we will live and also do this or that."


1 Samuel 8:7

The LORD said to Samuel, "Listen to the voice of the people in regard to all that they say to you, for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me from being king over them.

Exodus 18:21

"Furthermore, you shall select out of all the people able men who fear God, men of truth, those who hate dishonest gain; and you shall place these over them as leaders of thousands, of hundreds, of fifties and of tens.

[HonestJohn]

Not that Trumpbot TomSea knows what he is talking about.  He doesn't.  But regarding prayer in schools, those who fought it misrepresented it.  Congress has prayer.  The Supreme Court begins with prayer.  The part of the First Amendment that protects it is the part that says Congress shall make no law inhibiting the free exercise of religion. 

Prayer in school consisted of acknowledgement of God's Sovereignty over us and thanksgiving.  That's it.  The Declaration of Independence does that.  When I encountered prayer in school it was, "God is great, God is good, let us thank Him for our food."  The atheist child did not have to participate.  But given that even atheists live under the Declaration and the Constitution where our rights come from God....I see no harm.  No particular faith is imposed in that.  No one is made a Christian or a Jew by that, or by a display of the Ten Commandments.  In that context it is a philosophical statement.  Our rights come from God and He is "the Sovereign to whom all men ought to be obedient."  That idea is woven throughout our founding documents and in the writing of the Founders, even those with very little faith or none at all.  They all agreed that was important. 

Even Thomas Paine who in later decades wrote "The Age of Reason" contributed this influential idea at the time of our founding:

Common Sense by Thomas Paine: "But where says some is the king of America? I'll tell you Friend, he reigns above, and doth not make havoc of mankind like the Royal of Britain. Yet that we may not appear to be defective even in earthly honors, let a day be solemnly set apart for proclaiming the charter; let it be brought forth placed on the divine law, the word of God; let a crown be placed thereon, by which the world may know, that so far as we approve of monarchy, that in America the law is king. For as in absolute governments the king is law, so in free countries the law ought to be king; and there ought to be no other. But lest any ill use should afterwards arise, let the crown at the conclusion of the ceremony be demolished, and scattered among the people whose right it is. "

Which version of the Ten Commandments was shown?

There are four versions; one followed by Catholics and Lutherans, one for Protestants, one for Jews, and one for Muslims.  While similar, there are distinct differences between them all.

http://undergod.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000824

Having the state choose one would indicate to the rest that the state favors one of these faiths over the other.  Not to mention the issue with Buddhists, Shintoists, and Hindus.

[Smokin Joe]

I voted for Bush 2 times, that invasion put Christians in the firing line as far back as 2004; I see no problem with Trump, especially against the Democratic party. You can't make a bigger mess than Obama and Bush did.

I dunno. Trump will stand on the shoulders of giants of SNAFU and FUBAR, and may well bring on TFUTEAFU.


Look! It's a conga line!

[Smokin Joe]

1st Amendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

Congress didn't  establish a religion, nor did it prohibit the free exercise thereof.

[Smokin Joe]

I want to also add that the same people deeply offended by mere acknowledgment of and thanksgiving to God are perfectly fine if Christian children are forced to to accept homosexuality as moral and good.  THAT IS A VERY GREAT OFFENSE TO ME!!!!!!

As i see it, PROHIBITING prayer is a violation of the First amendment. Requiring it would be equally so, in any venue. IMHO, homosexuality should not even be a topic of discussion. Save it for 10th grade 'health' class.

[DB]

Not seeing it.

Nothing in the First Amendment allows the hand of government to chose a religion's prayers for forced recitation by students who may, or may not, be a member of said religion.

In fact, I'd say it does the opposite and forbids it.

A community school wasn't supposed to be under the federal governments authority. The community under the 1st amendment should be able set the policy of prayer in their school as they see fit. The 1st amendment was to direct the federal government to butt out and not set policy one way or the other.
The mistake is accepting the premise that the federal government has any role in our local schools.

[Norm Lenhart]

Not that Trumpbot TomSea knows what he is talking about.  He doesn't. 

Ever notice that in nearly every case on any subject, Trump and his dwindling number of supporters are not just 'wrong' but they get whatever it is they are talking about either completely backwards ot end up hip deep in category error? The open leftists do that pretty often but occasionally they get one close to right.

I think it comes down to their sloganeering type of debate. Trump says something and it becomes gospel. His followers then go off on various tangents justifying whatever he said or did but they don't actually understand the core issue being discussed, just that Trump said something and they have to justify/defend it to the death, lest he be seen as human and not divine. So we get random unrelated phrases put forth as facts and reasoning.

Examples? Gun control, Healthcare, foreign policy. In each case Tump has said something either batshit crazy or fully in line with leftist positions lacking a legal or constitutional basis. We already know the left is in the wrong because we can open the door, look outside and see the results with our own eyes. But because Trump said X, and because Trump said he would MAGA, then the leftist position that we have long known to be wrong and seen actual damage from, is now the correct position.

That simply cannot be the case in reality. If it was the wrong position before, it is wrong now. The most blatant example of this and the one that kicked off his campaign was healthcare. "Sorry conservatives. I love ya, but we gotta take care of everybody."

Does it matter to the Trump faithful that this is EXACTLY the reasoning that Romney used for Romneycare and Obama built on for Obamacare? Not in the slightest. Does it matter that nothing in the Constitution actually authorized the government to 'take care' of anyone, much less at taxpayer expense?

Trumps supporters are smack dab amidst category error. They are arguing in defense of Trump's fantasies based of a leftist creation that has no basis to exist in the first place. So for them to actually rationalize his position, they are doing it based on something that does not even exist: Constitutional authorization. How then can they know what they are talking about when what they are talking about isn't even there?

Was that hard to follow? It should be for anyone with an IQ over that of plant life. Yet it is the process they apply to everything concerning Trump.

TLDR: Trumps supporters base their positions and justifications off pure fantasy and explain their relevance by spouting random phrases they read somewhere relating to different issues entirely. And if you do not wholly embrace their delusion, it's you, not they, that is in la la land.

[Smokin Joe]

>snip<
I think it comes down to their sloganeering type of debate. Trump says something and it becomes gospel. His followers then go off on various tangents justifying whatever he said or did but they don't actually understand the core issue being discussed, just that Trump said something and they have to justify/defend it to the death, lest he be seen as human and not divine. So we get random unrelated phrases put forth as facts and reasoning.

Examples? Gun control, Healthcare, foreign policy. In each case Tump has said something either batshit crazy or fully in line with leftist positions lacking a legal or constitutional basis. We already know the left is in the wrong because we can open the door, look outside and see the results with our own eyes. But because Trump said X, and because Trump said he would MAGA, then the leftist position that we have long known to be wrong and seen actual damage from, is now the correct position.

That simply cannot be the case in reality. If it was the wrong position before, it is wrong now. The most blatant example of this and the one that kicked off his campaign was healthcare. "Sorry conservatives. I love ya, but we gotta take care of everybody."

>snip<

Agreed. Now step back and take a look at the big board. For election after election, the same fundamental principle holds true. This is how the Federal Government has amassed such unconstitutional power and gained such incredible scope.

Y'see, the Left plays this game, too. Both sides do it. If 'our guy says it is a good idea, well, we've just gotta have it. If their guy says so, we're gonna pick it apart. Change the name of the bill, put different names at the top, and you can almost bet who will vote against it.

If 'pubbie proposes it, the left fights it, but if a Dem proposes it, the Left is all for it. Balance of power goes back and forth, seesawing the power structure a little to get the Dem stuff through, the 'pubbie stuff through, left, right, left, right, down the road to a totalitarian government and complete abandonment of the Constitution.

[Sanguine]

...

That said, I never heard him actually SAY that you have to put aside your Judeo-Christian principles....so the title of the article is misleading, to say the least.

.......

Well, he really did: 
"“I love the fact that all of a sudden you want to talk about morality in our country,” Carson argued. “I would love us to bring back our Judeo-Christian values and begin to teach those things and emphasize them at a time other than a political election. Let’s do that. But right now, the train is going off the cliff.”"

[bigheadfred]

Well, he really did: 
"“I love the fact that all of a sudden you want to talk about morality in our country,” Carson argued. “I would love us to bring back our Judeo-Christian values and begin to teach those things and emphasize them at a time other than a political election. Let’s do that.But right now, the train is going off the cliff.”"

 :huh?: