Tuesday, September 22, 2015
Stop digging, doc!
Doc Carson is digging a deeper and deeper hole in a stupid attempt to trump Trump. He still hasn't figured out the basic problem of ACTION vs OPINION. Instead of trying to propose a meaningful action toward his incoherent goal, he's just expressing personal feelings.
I strongly suspect he doesn't actually own the feelings. He's just saying some stuff based on inaccurate media impressions of people who do own the feelings. (I used to own those feelings before I unplugged the TV. When I was locked into that mode, I wouldn't have recognized Carson's rendition of the notions as valid.)
Just for fun let's take seriously his assertion that Islam is incompatible with what he calls the "constitution".
Let's do a quick comparison of the basis of the obsolete Constitution, versus the basis of Sharia.
From the Declaration of Independence:
= = = = =
From Islam Awareness website:
= = = = =
Continuing with this Indirect Proof, continuing the assumption that Carson actually means what he's saying, only one conclusion is possible. Carson is NOT referring to the 1787 Constitution, which runs nicely parallel to Sharia. He must be supporting the "Constitution" as defined by the Supreme Satans, the 1954 "Constitution" that contains only three Articles:
1. ABORT! ABORT! ABORT!
2. Kill the poor, enrich the Chosen.
3.
This newer "Constitution" is totally incompatible with Natural Law as seen by Jefferson, and even more ferociously incompatible with Natural Law as seen by Mohammed. The Islamic version of Natural Law has specific strong provisions to protect the poor from the Chosen.
Doc Carson is digging a deeper and deeper hole in a stupid attempt to trump Trump. He still hasn't figured out the basic problem of ACTION vs OPINION. Instead of trying to propose a meaningful action toward his incoherent goal, he's just expressing personal feelings.
I strongly suspect he doesn't actually own the feelings. He's just saying some stuff based on inaccurate media impressions of people who do own the feelings. (I used to own those feelings before I unplugged the TV. When I was locked into that mode, I wouldn't have recognized Carson's rendition of the notions as valid.)
Just for fun let's take seriously his assertion that Islam is incompatible with what he calls the "constitution".
Let's do a quick comparison of the basis of the obsolete Constitution, versus the basis of Sharia.
From the Declaration of Independence:
... that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. ... But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.-
= = = = =
From Islam Awareness website:
In the Islamic view, governments exist only to ensure that the shariah is properly administered and enforced. Governments are subordinate to the shariah and must execute its commands and prohibitions. In other words, what Islam envisages is a scheme of divine nomocracy, in which the law is the medium of social control—truly, a government of laws, not of men.Sounds compatible. In fact, sounds like the same thing.
Should the government of a Muslim society fail in its obligation to uphold the shariah as the positive law, or the judges of this world fail in their obligation to administer justice in accordance with the shariah, the individual believer would still be held to the responsibility incumbent upon all Muslims to conform their behavior to the shariah.
= = = = =
Continuing with this Indirect Proof, continuing the assumption that Carson actually means what he's saying, only one conclusion is possible. Carson is NOT referring to the 1787 Constitution, which runs nicely parallel to Sharia. He must be supporting the "Constitution" as defined by the Supreme Satans, the 1954 "Constitution" that contains only three Articles:
1. ABORT! ABORT! ABORT!
2. Kill the poor, enrich the Chosen.
3.
This newer "Constitution" is totally incompatible with Natural Law as seen by Jefferson, and even more ferociously incompatible with Natural Law as seen by Mohammed. The Islamic version of Natural Law has specific strong provisions to protect the poor from the Chosen.
Labels: Natural law = Sharia law
¶ 3:47 AM
