Here is the pyramid/rice thing: http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/05/politics/ben-carson-pyramids-grain/index.html And he apparently is "not hard and fast" on the 6000 year thing, although he is certain that god worked his wizardry in 6 days: http://www.cnsnews.com/blog/michael-w-chapman/ben-carson-i-believe-six-day-creation-world Both contain videos of Carson speaking, so it is in his own words. I am sure there is more out there, they were the first two Google results.
Actually, yes. I am not going to automatically disqualify someone from a leadership role simply because of their religious beliefs. That would be stupid.
What if someone was say a Scientologist, or a member of the Order of the Solar Temple, or maybe a modern day Branch Davidian. Would it still be stupid to disqualify them because of their religious beliefs alone? I'm just trying to understand if it is stupid all the time, or only if you disagree and/or think whatever religious beliefs they uphold are too extreme, or too far removed from one's own.
I think using religion, lack of religion, abortion, death penalty, or any one single issue as the sole basis for disqualification is stupid all the time.
I hear you if religion was as simple as a single issue, but I don't see it as that simplistic. I think most people will share that their core belief system is rooted within their religion or their belief system acknowledges a lack of it and they have developed core beliefs in a different manner. So religious choice, whatever it is, permeates across many issues. But yes, agree single issue voting decisions are generally stupid, but there is an exception to every rule.
I'll grant that there are exceptions. However, I am not aware of any candidate that has publicly come out and stated they have no religion. I have not studied the entire crowd at that level, but aside from Sanders being Jewish, the remaining pool has not, to my knowledge, claimed to be anything other than Christian. For some, it may well be simply to avoid alienating the segment of voters that makes it a litmus test. For some it is probably genuine. It doesn't seem to be an issue unless someone becomes a front runner, and then only if their name is followed by an "R".
I think that anyone who voted for Obama and is posting in this thread about the lack of quality of the Repub candidates should probably look at what their opinion did for the US over the last 7 years then go sit in a corner and shut up.
Really? That's what you're going to go with? What US are you living in. Unemployment, GDP, Gas prices, opportunity, the market? You don't have to like Obama, you can even hate him, he has been a major disappointment on many fronts but if you're not thriving compared to 7 years ago you're doing it wrong and need to look in the mirror for who to blame. The AHCA is a complete clusterfuck but even that doesn't sink the last 7 years. Oh, this year my health care costs went up $6 a month, one less box of k-cups. Growth and opportunity have been everywhere, quit whining on forums and go get some, it ain't coming to you unless you go look for it.
I am doing fine. Not as good as I was 8 years ago because my purchasing power per dollar is alot less but still fine. Obviously you are too. The jobs market, unemployment and the cost of everything, not so much. That is unless you believe the fudged numbers coming from the Ministry of Truth...
I may have IYCed this but you seemed to imply it would be preferable to have someone that took the bible to be the true words of god... (you know, the closed eyes, wavy arms prayer type)
The Nightly Show - Panel - Science vs. Religion The proof is in the yoga pants! Pretty cool pastor on the panel.
Nope. I said i would not automatically discount, or support for that matter, someone based on their religious beliefs.