Posted on Aug 8, 2016
RNC Speaker Antonio Sabato Jr.: Obama’s a Muslim, ‘I Don’t Believe’ He’s Christian
2.61K
36
14
6
6
0
So he expects the POTUS should be a Christian, but doesn't recognize the separation between church and state. It's ignorant people like this man regardless of race, shows we are 50 shades of stupid. So I guess he never heard the mess JFK went through he was announced he was a Catholic, and people fell out thinking that he would be a puppet for the Pope. He even made a solid speech on it so, why do we insist on making his religious views or anyone's religious views a litmus test to become either legislator or POTUS. Your religious views are YOUR religious views. Who you pray to is YOUR buisenss as long as it doesn't interfere with the job at hand. I believe in God, but that in NO way gives me open season on others who do not believe in the same God I do.
Donald Trump
Republicans
Elections
Edited 8 y ago
Posted 8 y ago
Responses: 6
5
5
0
Everyone wants "Separation of Church and State" except for THEIR religion. Every time one of my friends brings up "Prayer in school" I point out that hearing the Muslim call to prayer several times a day in Kindergarten might not be what they have in mind.
(5)
(0)
2
2
0
This is exactly what makes my BLOOD boil! Why would it matter even he was a Muslim?
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
Freedom of religion doesn't mean freedom from religion. I am not opposed to people expressing their religious views as long as they don't force them on me. I agree with you, there is no religious test for president. Now if in someone's opinion they state that they will only vote for people from one specific religion for president then they have the right to do that. Personally I am more concerned on the candidates view on certain issues than what church they go to but in this country all legal citizens have the right to vote for who ever they want. If you want to write in Chuck Norris this november it is your right to do so.
(2)
(0)
SSG Warren Swan
You hit the nail on the head. If a citizen not affiliated with government states that Is something they want. Then by all means vote for who you like. Now if you are a candidate and using your religious views and position in government to solicit votes then you're wrong. Lol I'd vote in Bruce Lee. No one ever beat him and giving a damn was not in his vocabulary.
(2)
(0)
TSgt (Join to see)
I agree 99%... except that the constitution DOES grant us freedom FROM religion. Its called the Establishment clause and it actually comes before the Free Exercise Clause.
(1)
(0)
MSgt (Join to see)
"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."
To me (and I am by far a legal sholar) this means the government can't institute a national religion, sharia law, cannon law, jewish law etc... It does not prohibit people from voting against someone or advising a vote against him because of their religion. It does not say that people cannot tell people merry chistmas, happy haunakah, namaste, ramadan mubarak or what ever religous greeting stikes their fancy. The problem comes in where someones rights of religous expression run contrary to anothers rights of either religous expression or something else. (Such as honor killings, still against the law here no matter what religion you practice) how to deal with those issues (freedom of expression vs someone else's freedom if religion) is a tougher nut to crack. As long as we all remember that there is no such thinng as the freedom to never be offended by anything we should be ok. Unfortunately people tend to forget that and when they do they want someone else to be prohibited from speaking their peace. For me it is more of a freedom of expression thing and a freedom of religion thing. My take: guy has the right to be ignorant. We don't have to listen to him. Now then minute they start passing laws saying everyone has to be one religion or another, then we have a serious problem!
To me (and I am by far a legal sholar) this means the government can't institute a national religion, sharia law, cannon law, jewish law etc... It does not prohibit people from voting against someone or advising a vote against him because of their religion. It does not say that people cannot tell people merry chistmas, happy haunakah, namaste, ramadan mubarak or what ever religous greeting stikes their fancy. The problem comes in where someones rights of religous expression run contrary to anothers rights of either religous expression or something else. (Such as honor killings, still against the law here no matter what religion you practice) how to deal with those issues (freedom of expression vs someone else's freedom if religion) is a tougher nut to crack. As long as we all remember that there is no such thinng as the freedom to never be offended by anything we should be ok. Unfortunately people tend to forget that and when they do they want someone else to be prohibited from speaking their peace. For me it is more of a freedom of expression thing and a freedom of religion thing. My take: guy has the right to be ignorant. We don't have to listen to him. Now then minute they start passing laws saying everyone has to be one religion or another, then we have a serious problem!
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google