OK. There are around 20 people running for President right now. Like a Pareto chart, list them in order of preference, and also choose who his or her running mate should be (only from those running).

I could find nothing in the link you provided to support your accusation that Carson seeks to establish a religious theocracy. Can you point to the basis of your claim ?
For the record, I am not Christian, nor am I observant of any faith, but I ardently defend the religious liberty of others to practice their religion without government interference. Or to be free to not practice any religion. I find the PC opposition to anyone expressing or even admitting to any religious connection much more troubling than any presidential candidates profession of personal faith.

More Atheist paranoia. Just because Carson supports his attitudes and personal practice on his faith, some with psychohysteric tendencies read "theocratic dictatorship." Secular society has failed in establishing a sound moral foundation, because it has allowed the laws which are supposed to govern our actions become so malleable and relative in application and enforcement that they've become meaningless.

The Founders saw nothing wrong with established secular law backed by religious morality. I would call them "enlightened Christians," rather than Deists, as they still believed in the power of prayer, but resisted mixing governance with faith. They expected people to support the law and each other to honor their god, in whatever way they believed.

A Deist (I am one - full disclosure) finds evidence of a higher spiritual force in reason and nature, believing each individual is an agent of the higher power. If you want miracles, make them happen.

Carson is a deeply religious man and he is also an accomplished physician which means he is trained in scientific disciplines. Like Lewis Carrol's Red Queen he appears to be able to hold two seemingly incompatible thoughts in his mind at the same time. When you consider the number of very capable medical institutions that are sponsored by religious organizations this is not uncommon. It may be difficult for an objectivist to comprehend how logical objective reasoning can coexist with religious faith but it happens all the time. Somehow belief and understanding can be combined and form an emulsion not unlike the mixture of oil and water.
"Believe" is a word I use rarely and with great care but it appears that men like Carson can handle the dichotomy quite well. This opens the question, "Is Objectivism a secular religion?" How much of Objectivism is based on faith and how much on understanding? A is A ... But why?

...Whoa!

You mean he might do things like try to change our present day moral atmosphere?

Do you think this might mean the end of Miley Cyrus sightings, Kardashian shows and stories? OMG, what about the Housewives franchises?

Who could possibly live without Celebrity Big Brother or I Am Cait?

Who could live without abortion? Imagine having to deny oneself a pleasure that is one's right? Imagine having to think of consequences before acting? Imagine, if you don't abort, having to pay to bear and raise the child...yourself? None of which is fair, or kind, to the woman who shouldn't have to say no. Nor is it right to expect a woman to use birth control (which, if it is being used, seems to fail constantly these days.)

Actually, I get the impression that Dr Carson is a religious man. I don't have the impression that he wants to force religion down the throats of citizens. He appears to embrace the morals and ethics of religion with the understanding that the individual is free to make errors. If you enjoy the increasingly paternalistic governments we have had for several decades, you may think of it as Dr. Carson appears to believe the "parent" must allow the "child" to learn from making errors.

I believe God was mentioned once or twice by our founders. They seem to have come up with a fairly decent road map that has led to the past success of the United States.

It appears to me that, for a number of years, enlightened humanists (including those whose words state a belief in God...but whose actions don't quite jive with the words) have chosen to use gradualism to veer off that map in order to progress toward an enlightened world.

Frankly, I liked the freedom of the dark religious ages (50s and 60s) a bit better than the feeling that I have to watch everything I say or do,,,even in my own house (cameras, microphones, TVs are two way streets.) You have to think twice before adjusting a bra strap at a stop light!

Isn't it odd that at the time we had prayer in school, we had far more freedom?

It appears to me that freedom is now somehow being confused with hedonism. Don't infringe on anyone's right to indulge in a moment of passion. Don't infringe on a persons right to make mistakes over and over again...while someone else pays for them (because it is only fair.) At the same time one must understand that individual rights, from privacy to obtaining individualized health care, must be sacrificed for the greater good.

I find it curious that you would think a religious man, who has stated that the constitution overrides religion, would create an enslaving religious theocracy.

Also, if what you say occurs...we become enslaved by Dr. Carson's government (should he win)...at least we will get to keep our heads should we disagree with his religious beliefs. I prefer that to the direction we are heading (excuse the pun) now.

This. I see so many "well he said this thing which is wrong/stupid/not-what-i-know so therefore he is not qualified" comments. I'm not a supporter but the trigger from "OMG he was WRONG" to "OMG he is TERRIBLE" is far to sensitive IMO.

Being a Republican, and a black one at that, the media holds him to a higher standard. That doesn't mean we should go along with them on it. After all nobody is perfect and nearly all of these have no bearing on his ability to make the decisions a President must make.

From Ben's website: Two of his major issues are abortion and "keeping the faith." https://www.bencarson.com/issues

Not only is he trying to create a religious theocracy, he is an intellectual light weight in the issue related to being president. If elected he will be a disaster probably worse than the Bush's.

You take your unsubstantiated speculation about a candidate and seek to set it against the actual actions of this president? How is this rational thought or reason?

Man, if Carson was an athiest or pretended to be one, or was dishonest enough to sidestep questions about his beliefs, the folks here would be deliriously happy and lauding his accomplishments

I, too, have heard him say Constitution trumps religion. However, I must ask. Why did Carson sky-rocket to a Presidential platform based on one damned prayer breakfast? Is that not odd to you all? Cruz is also religious. He has a detailed platform, articulated and verified. Casrosn is running on his breif fame and that he appears to be a solid gent. NOT ENOUGH FOR PRESIDENT

for one, he would like to over turn Rowe v Wade. I get to make my own morality as long as I do not initiate violence against you

There is no dishonesty in the claim that the Founding Fathers were essentially Christian. Deirm is still the belief in a God. You're claim is fallacious. Me thinks you have an ax to grind.

http://Dictionary.com (for expediencies sake).

Deism
1. belief in the existence of a God on the evidence of reason and nature only, with rejection of supernatural revelation (distinguished from theism ).
2. belief in a God who created the world but has since remained indifferent to it.

Carson is right about a lot of things and wrong about a lot of things. My neuroscience PhD son has pointed out many of the statements about the brain and drugs that Carson has made that were incorrect (surgery and research being two very different practices). Carson is human, flawed, and seeks guidance from a higher power.
So what?

yea, also mystic :)
a little satanic if you ask me

You expected correctly, I'm all for that Constitution thingy.

So no one who ever had a belief did anything not completely aligned with those beliefs. Odd, this country was founded by folks with beliefs and yet its open to all manner of beliefs, including not to believe in anything.

I appreciate the point taken for having a differing opinion. If it was related to the final statement I made I suggest you read on the Dark Ages and the unifying role of the catholic church in rescuing Europe from anarchy AND the muslims. I'm not remotely catholic nor do I condone what they have done in the past but they do get credit for saving western civilization, starting with Constantine.

Interesting point. Either way he is not a principled supporter of natural rights.

Hear hear

Right and Obama does not want to create a Socialist paradise. He never said that.

No the historical record is very clear that the US was founded on reason and natural rights. The revisionist history by christians is intellectually dishonest and not at all surprising given that they are not interested in facts only faith.

I don't see how you come to your conclusion that Carson wants America to scrap the Constitution (which he would have to do) to establish a slavish theocracy.
However differently they characterized it, most founders did believe in a higher power.
The essence of what I've heard Carson say and write is that people should have the choice to believe and say what they want without the yoke of political correctness around their necks.

Really would it be a misleading title if it had said Obama wants to create a Socialist paradise? Of course not and the same applies to Carson.

No the historical record is very clear that the US was founded on reason and natural rights. The revisionist history by christians is intellectually dishonest and not at all surprising given that they are not interested in facts only faith.

Because it is evil and irrational.

I expected that you would stick up for a belief in one god or another. And that is fine with me. The problem is that separating religious beliefs from government is extremely hard to do, and has failed miserably up to this point. I just find it hard to trust someone so immersed in his religion to separate his beliefs from his governmental actions. How could he actually do that in practice when it came down to things like same sex marriage and homosexuality, - all things that seem to be forbidden in christianity but are really victimless crimes.

If I kept getting down on my knees as often as Carson indicates, I'd need to hire someone with the job of just getting me back on my feet. Here's the caveat: Compared to all of the candidates, he is better than most. I think we know by now that there is not going to be a candidate who is 100% acceptable from an Objectivist point of view. The best we can do is to get someone as close to that 100% as possible. If you can't accept that, you are ready to drop out, sit in the corner, and eat worms.