After the wolves finished trying to pick off Donald J. Trump’s non-responsiveness to his rally questioner who regarded President Obama as a Muslim, GOP presidential candidate, Dr. Ben Carson, unknowingly came to the rescue.
Carson told NBC’s Meet the Press’ Chuck Todd on Sunday that he would not “advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation. I absolutely would not agree with that.” Todd asked if he believed Islam “is consistent with the Constitution?” Carson answered, “No, I don’t, I do not.”
Will Donald Trump win the 2024 election?
The Atlantic immediately came to the defense of such a possibility, using Thomas Jefferson as its premise of righteousness:
Many years later, in 1821, Jefferson wrote that the Virginia legislature had explicitly rejected the idea that the statute applied only to Christians.
Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed, by inserting the word “Jesus Christ,” so that it should read, “a departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;” the insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo, and Infidel of every denomination.
The author of the Atlantic article framed Carson’s concern as a “cultural norm” that was “prophylactic”:
There are no Muslim presidential candidates, nor are any high-profile American Muslims currently considering a bid for the nation’s highest office. None of this nation’s estimated 2.8 million Muslim citizens, he apparently believes, have the capacity to lead the United States.
The author’s frame of reference immediately jumped to religious bias: “Protestant anxieties about religious compatibility for the presidency are nothing new.”
He continues with references to support his bias naming Mitt Romney who was a Mormon, anti-Catholic sentiment against Al Smith as well as John F. Kennedy who broke through era bias with charm, wit and intelligence.
In usual media format, Carson was not given time to expound on why his concern for the nation’s highest office should exclude someone of Islam faith. Carson is an extremely intelligent, thoughtful, careful man. And I for one would like to see a think piece by him, in print.
However, after coming across The Atlantic article filled with presupposition, bias and a paradigm that filtered out so many legitimate debate points coming to the conclusion that it’s “protestant anxiety” was disturbing.
Since the death of true journalism, media propagation of the politically correct, inclusivity, everything is permissible because we want “to be fair minded” value system has resulted in shallow thinkers with little to no quality judgment. Everyone’s biases and prejudices, including those on the Left against Christianity, cause us to delete other possibilities and factors. These are called blind spots—hence the need for open discussion and debate to expand our view.
I want to add to the discussion, not presuppose Dr. Carson’s mindset. It is my intention to add data points to the possible reasoning of Dr. Carson for his statement.
- The Left’s culture refuses to recognize that America and her Constitution are founded on the Judeo-Christian philosophy. I like the word philosophy rather than religion because our nation was set up for freedom of all religion to worship, providing the citzens assimilate into our Constitution, values and rule of law.
- The first amendment of the Constitution states: “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….”
Citizens against Sharia website writes that the way of Islam, states:
“To ‘establish a religion’ would mean the government would promote one religion over the others. Sharia clearly does this, by discriminating against non-Muslims. Sharia also forbids the free exercise of non-Muslim faiths. It abridges the freedom of speech and of the press by making criticisms of Islam, Mohammed, and Sharia illegal. All these are unquestionably unconstitutional.
The fourteenth amendment states: ‘…No State shall….deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws….’ Sharia, however, does not offer equal protection to all citizens. For example, a non-Muslim’s testimony is worth less than a Muslim’s, and a woman’s is worth less than a man’s. Again, clearly unconstitutional.
Since it’s obvious that Sharia law and the Constitution are incompatible, why would any Congressperson hesitate to say so? For Congressmen Mel Watt and Keith Ellison, we don’t know why. But here are some possibilities:
They could be ignorant of the Constitution, or ignorant of Sharia.
They could be pandering for the Islamist vote.
They could be pandering for Islamist contributions.
None of these possibilities are really very comforting. Moreover, it begs the question: How many other Congresspeople, Senators, and presidential candidates are equally unwilling to rule out Sharia, and for what reasons?”
So there is a philosophical difference in freedoms, rules and laws and cultural values – and our Constitution – not religion per se.
- To become a US citizen one must assimilate. Assimilation means to have an attachment for our values and our way of life. That includes our Constitution, rule of law, language, dress, and values. Islam is not just a religion but a political system. They have their own law called the Sharia Law. Our nation was founded on the Judeo-Christian laws. Dr. Pipes of Dr.Pipes.org says, “Assimilation is natural. Non-assimilation is deliberate.”
- While many Muslims-Americans seem to have assimilated accordingly and that should be emphasized, some have chosen to practice Sharia law. Two well known cases were the founder of an Islamic TV station, Muzzammil Hassan who beheaded his estranged wife Aasiya Zubair in 2009 and Muslim father, Yaser Said, kills his two daughters in “Honor killing”. These are instances of non-assimilation to our rule of law.
The First Amendment is to protect people of all faiths under the Constitution. Dr. Carson was not speaking to the rights of the freedom of all Americans to worship whom they choose, but rather spoke to the presidency that is sealed with an oath to uphold the Constitution, the rule of law and to protect us, even from subversion. Understood is citizens must assimilate into our Constitution, values, beliefs and rule of law. The culture war is creating a tribal nation and the only way to prevent further division is to discuss openly, without disdain, all perspectives. I believe it’s called Freedom of Speech.