Dr. Ben Carson vs Islam???

Why would anyone say this?

Did Carson step in it? Or is he expressing something we should listen to.

The Coverage – September 19th. 2015

WASHINGTON — The nation’s largest Muslim advocacy group says lawmakers from across the political spectrum should repudiate Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson’s comments that the Islamic faith is inconsistent with the Constitution and that he would not agree with a Muslim being elected president.

Ibrahim Hooper is a spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations and says the Constitution expressly prohibits a religious test to qualify for elected office.

Hooper says Carson’s comments show he is not qualified for the presidency because he cannot hold such views about a religion and at the same time say he will represent Americans of all faiths and backgrounds.

Carson said on NBC’s “Meet the Press” that he would advocate that voters not put a Muslim in charge of the United States.

The problem:

The freedom of religion was recognized at a time when the religions in the context of the United States and those who had come here to find freedom from religions of the state were all compatible with the laws and values of our foundations. No problem existed.

Now, a problem exists. That problem is that the tenants of the Islamic faith, at least as expressed by certain sects and factions, proposes global conquest. The seeds of conflict between civil government and the free practice of religion are built into the religious doctrine. Christianity, Judaism, Budhism, Hinduism, and most of the rest are quite content to practice their faith within the confines of any governmental system as long as it is free to do so. No problem.

But where the Islamic faith is concerned, at least in the segment of it that we are talking about, it cannot practice its faith within a context other than that which is governed by Sharia Law. This means, the context must change and the freedom given to other faiths must also disappear. So while the Constitution of the United States grants freedom to all religions, Sharia Law does not reciprocate. It demands adherence by all.

So what we end up with is not a religion as we know it and as we think about religion, but we have a radical authoritarian conquest oriented legal system seeking to overthrow our entire social, political and religious systems. By any definition we are familiar with in our Western culture, we are not facing another ‘religion’ but a geo-political forced set to destroy us.

If we continue to think of Islam as an alternative religion whose tenants and beliefs are simply alternatives from other religions, we are missing the point. The stated objectives of the factions and forces of Islam we are facing are antagonistic to the American social context in its entirety including those religions within our expressed freedoms. In fact, freedom itself is the enemy.

We have to redefine our view of Islam. They are not a religion as we define religion but a geo-political nation without borders, determined to destroy all who will not a bow to their rule. This is not about religion but about our survival as a culture. Freedom is not free and if we do not use our freedom to protect our freedom we will most certainly lose our freedom.

Dr. Ben Carson may not have had the opportunity to explain the sociological and philosophical differences but he is absolutely right. What is happening in America and around the world is not just a discussion between religions but a war of historic global proportions against freedom itself and all religions. If we do not wake up to this fact and act to protect our nation and our culture, we are doomed to the stated end proposed by radical Islam: Death.