Will Someone Please Point Out Ben Carson's Religious Hypocrisy?
Ben Carson would not support a Muslim candidate for president. This statement was made a week ago, and the media is still pressing him on the issue. But what's kind of puzzling to me is why they don't ask a few very obvious questions that would expose the rank hypocrisy involved in Carson's thinking. Instead, they just ask him the same question (in slightly different formats) over and over again, ignoring the fundamental contradictions in what Carson is espousing.
Here are two examples of Carson answering -- once again -- pretty much the same question. His answers are pretty consistent, too. The first comes from a recent article in The Hill.
"I do not believe Sharia is consistent with the Constitution of this country," Carson said, referencing the Islamic law derived from the Koran and traditions of Islam. "Muslims feel that their religion is very much a part of your public life and what you do as a public official, and that's inconsistent with our principles and our Constitution."
Carson said that the only exception he'd make would be if the Muslim running for office "publicly rejected all the tenets of Sharia and lived a life consistent with that."
"Then I wouldn't have any problem," he said.
The second is a direct quote from Carson from an interview on Fox News with Sean Hannity.
Now, if someone has a Muslim background and they're willing to reject those tenets and to accept the way of life that we have, and clearly will swear to place our Constitution above their religion, then, of course, they will be considered infidels and heretics, but at least I would then be quite willing to support them.
. . .
I don't care what religion or faith someone belongs to if they're willing to subjugate that to the American way and to our Constitution, then I have no problem with it.
OK, fine. Carson is saying that Sharia law is incompatible with the United States Constitution, and that Muslims should have to make it clear that they will recognize the supremacy of American secular law over religious tenets or beliefs. Strip this of the emotional content and put the most charitable interpretation upon it possible, and what Carson seems to be supporting is "the separation of mosque and state." This, hand in hand with the concept of separating church and state, is a very liberal idea made famous in a letter from Thomas Jefferson. But why are the obvious followup questions never asked?
For instance, why not ask Carson a few straightforward questions to truly explore what he is advocating -- beginning with: "When religious beliefs and the United States Constitution are incompatible, would you agree that the Constitution should always be dominant and supreme?" That seems to be no more than restating (in a generalized way) what Carson is saying about belief in Sharia law, right? So, to be consistent, Carson would almost have to agree with that sentiment.
This is where the questions should turn more specific. "The Supreme Court has ruled that gay couples have a basic constitutional right to equal protection under federal law, meaning they have a fundamental constitutional right to get married. Why, exactly, do you disagree with this? What is the precise reason that causes you to not wholeheartedly embrace constitutional rights in this case? Does it have anything to do with your own faith?" The hypocrisy should be plain for all to see at this point.
Carson's inherent inconsistency could be pointed out in many ways, as a matter of fact, which makes it all the more surprising that nobody in the media seems to be able to do so. Carson could be asked about the county clerk in Kentucky who went to jail rather than do her job -- about as clear a case of putting your own religious beliefs above the Constitution as there is. Why won't someone ask Carson why a public official -- who had to swear an oath to the Constitution when she got the job -- should be able to ignore parts of that Constitution because she puts her own faith above it (even answering that her authority to refuse to issue marriage licenses to gay couples came from "God's law"). If Carson thinks a Muslim should not be able to put Sharia above loyalty to the Constitution, how can he support a Christian doing exactly the same thing for the tenets of her faith?
If I were to interview Carson, I would phrase the question about as bluntly as I could manage: "Rightly or wrongly, it's been said in the past that part of the Mormon faith's teachings is that Mormons should aspire to as many American public offices as possible, so that they can eventually bend the government and the laws to be more in line with their faith. It was said about John F. Kennedy that because he was Catholic, he would be taking orders from the Pope -- which he'd have to follow even if they contradicted the United States Constitution. One school of thought among American Protestants is called "Dominionism," which is the belief that Christians should, again, work within the system to change America's laws so they conform better with their religious dogma. Could you support a member of any of these faiths for president? Or should they first have to forswear these beliefs or tenets publicly, the same way you say a Muslim should forswear Sharia? Why or why not?"
My followup question would be more general: "Should there be some sort of litmus test for any person of faith where they must proclaim the United States Constitution supercedes their religion when the two conflict?" This is definitely a "gotcha" question, because if Carson did agree with this, he would be proposing something which the Constitution itself bars. No religious test is constitutionally allowed for any public officeholder in America. Even hairsplitting religious tests where people must proclaim the Constitution superior to their religious beliefs.
This is the heart of Ben Carson's hypocrisy. Not only is he proposing an unconstitutional religious test for prospective presidents, but so far he's been pretty silent on the separation of church and state when it comes to Christian churches and the religious right. There is really only one reason to not wholeheartedly embrace the Supreme Court's ruling that gay marriage is a fundamental human right guaranteed by the Constitution, after all -- and that reason is religion. "My religion says it is wrong" is really the whole argument. But that argument is precisely what Carson is afraid of when the subject is a Muslim president. How is a Muslim advocating Sharia any different than the religious right advocating the government hew closer to the Bible? Both are attempting to subvert the Constitution by replacing certain parts of it with their own religious law.
Ben Carson's hypocrisy is quite obvious, no matter how he answers any of the above proposed questions. Proposing a loyalty oath to put the Constitution above the Muslim religion, but not supporting the same test for all candidates of faith is nothing short of religious discrimination -- which is unconstitutional. Proposing a loyalty oath to the Constitution for all candidates of faith -- equally and without discrimination -- is still unconstitutional because religious tests are forbidden by the Constitution itself. People who oppose gay marriage are doing so on religious grounds, even after the Supreme Court has ruled that it is a fundamental constitutional right -- so how is that any different than anyone else trying to put their faith above the Constitution?
Ben Carson is trying to portray his stance on Muslims and Sharia law as defending the United States Constitution. But by making the argument for the separation of mosque and state but not church and state, he is showing his own hypocrisy -- by instituting conditions on people of other faiths that he doesn't appear to accept for members of his own faith. He is advocating ignoring certain parts of the Constitution, while pretending to praise the same Constitution. He has no problem with people ignoring the parts of the Constitution that he doesn't like, as long as those people are professing Christian faith while doing so. The only problem he identifies is with Muslims doing the same thing -- which is in and of itself unconstitutional discrimination. The Republican Party has, for the past few decades, felt that (as Carson puts it) "their religion is very much a part of your public life and what you do as a public official." So why is this not (again, in Carson's own words) "inconsistent with our principles and our Constitution"?
It shouldn't take a journalistic genius to identify these contradictions (since they seem so blatantly obvious) and actually ask Carson a few questions designed to expose both his hypocrisy and his unconstitutional double-standard. But instead, we just get interview after interview with Carson where he is asked the exact same question over and over again, about his thoughts on Muslims running for office and Sharia law.
-- Chris Weigant
Cross-posted at The Huffington Post
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
"The Constitution of the United States...is a marvelous document for self-government by the Christian people. But the minute you turn the document into the hands of non-Christian people and atheistic people they can use it to destroy the very foundation of our society." - Pat Robertson
What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun. - Ecclesiastes 1:9
Our Zombie Messiah who art in GOP Heaven, hallowed be Thy multiple names and personalities.
Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done in the US as it is in Saudi Arabia.
Give us this day our better deals and forgive us our Muslim president and we will never forgive those who import Syrian refugees against us.
And lead us not into sharia law, but deliver us from the ISIS.
For Thine is the Islamophobia and the birtherism and the cognitive dissonance forever and ever.
Or else.
Yup, that is the end.
I have ALWAYS said that religion is the ultimate in hypocrisy...
How else can one explain the fact that religion has been responsible for more death and destruction than all the wars of the 20th century..
The SECOND ultimate in hypocrisy, of course, being the Democrat Party... :D
How else can one explain the absolutely fawning and ass-kissing of the pope by the totality of the Left Wing??
Michale
This is definitely a "gotcha" question, because if Carson did agree with this, he would be proposing something which the Constitution itself bars. No religious test is constitutionally allowed for any public officeholder in America. Even hairsplitting religious tests where people must proclaim the Constitution superior to their religious beliefs.
Not doubting you for a second, CW...
But could someone point to the part of the Constitution that states, "there shall be no religious litmus test for President Of The United States"....
Just curious....
I mean we all (and I include myself within that "we all") throw around "The Constitution says this" or "The Constitution doesn't say that" with reckless abandon, but fail to point to the actual text that says or doesn't say what we claim it says... or doesn't say...
So, I am just curious as to whether the US Constitution specifically states, "there shall be no religious litmus test for President Of The United States" or is that merely an interpretation of the actual text??
Michale
Yup, that is the end.
It's the end of the world as we know it.
It's the end of the world as we know it.
It's the end of the world as we know it.
And I feel fine..."
-R.E.M.
:D
Michale
This is better ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1b26BD5KjH0
Touche' :D
Michale
put the most charitable interpretation upon it possible, and what Carson seems to be supporting is "the separation of mosque and state."
Wouldn't the most charitable interpretation possible be that he has discovered a cure for cancer and a source of unlimited too-cheap-to-meter energy, and is telling it to us in code, or something like that? That's not even remotely plausible, but isn't it hypothetically possible? Anyway, it's a whole lot closer to plausible than the idea that he's supporting separation of church and state.
Interesting perspective, but have you also considered that there might not be religious hypocrisy here at all? Dr. Carson worded his answer to include the phrase "tenets of Islam." Those tenets in the form of Sharia, if taken literally and with the fervor most associate with religious dogma, are truly incompatible with the US Constitution. To directly compare tenets of the Christian faith with the same governing document, I do not see such incompatibility. The United States was founded by deists and Christians, and Jesus taught believers to submit to governmental authority (versus the other way around). Biblical scholars have noted that the Israelites of the Old Testament cried out for judges and kings, and God acquiesced – but that was not the original intent of God. Contrast that with Islam, where a country is either Dar-al Harb (house of war) or Dar-al-Islam (Muslim rule). The government not under Muslim rule is "at war" with Islam, so compatibility is not possible for strict adherents. I don't see hypocrisy here, viewed from this perspective.
Interesting perspective, but have you also considered that there might not be religious hypocrisy here at all? Dr. Carson worded his answer to include the phrase "tenets of Islam." Those tenets in the form of Sharia, if taken literally and with the fervor most associate with religious dogma, are truly incompatible with the US Constitution. To directly compare tenets of the Christian faith with the same governing document, I do not see such incompatibility. The United States was founded by deists and Christians, and Jesus taught believers to submit to governmental authority (versus the other way around). Biblical scholars have noted that the Israelites of the Old Testament cried out for judges and kings, and God acquiesced – but that was not the original intent of God. Contrast that with Islam, where a country is either Dar-al Harb (house of war) or Dar-al-Islam (Muslim rule). The government not under Muslim rule is "at war" with Islam, so compatibility is not possible for strict adherents. I don't see hypocrisy here, viewed from this perspective.
What about the hypocrisy of having taken the Hippocratic oath as an MD, but heartily supporting the death penalty? That seems like a pretty big character conflict to me....
M-4
"How else can one explain the fact that religion has been responsible for more death and destruction than all the wars of the 20th century.."
Hmmmm
Can you first establish how the above can be viewed as an established fact? Who exactly is filling in the scorecard? Who exactly are the "teams."
Or would you be willing to revise the quote to read:
"How else can one explain the factoid that religion has been responsible for more death and destruction than all the wars of the 20th century.."
Hey CW
Most candidates work overtime to prevent real journalists from getting anywhere near them.
In other words, none of the media personalities asking Carson the same question over and over are journalists.
Let's hope that reality is as obvious to others as it is to you.
Our country would be a far better place if more of the obvious questions were being asked.
A
So, I am just curious as to whether the US Constitution specifically states, "there shall be no religious litmus test for President Of The United States" or is that merely an interpretation of the actual text??
Article VI section 3:
3: The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
Michale wrote:
"But could someone point to the part of the Constitution that states, "there shall be no religious litmus test for President Of The United States"...."
The No Religious Test Clause of the United States Constitution is found in Article VI, paragraph 3, and states that:
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
Chris, I could care less about religious hypocracy. I wouldn't want anybody in the Whitehouse that has beliefs that could hurt me, my country or could dictate how and what I'm to believe in. So Chris, save your comments about religious hypocracy and start looking for the good in people. All of this negative crap is killing this country.
Can you first establish how the above can be viewed as an established fact? Who exactly is filling in the scorecard? Who exactly are the "teams."
No "teams" involved..
Count the number of dead based on religion...
Count the number of dead NOT based on religion..
Michale
Bashi & JM...
Thanx....
So, it's "ambiguous" as
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Thanx again.. :D
Michale
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
Interesting..
I don't see "litmus" test but rather the idea that a person does not have to be religious to be POTUS...
It defies common sense that anyone's religion is NOT a disqualifying factor for POTUS...
For example, a satanist that believes sacrificing virgins is part of their religion certainly is disqualifying...
A person who believes that they must behead anyone who doesn't share their religion would be disqualified as well...
The idea that NOTHING is disqualifying is a nice liberal koom-bye-yaa sentiment..
But, as with most liberal koom-bye-ya sentiments.... It has little to do with reality of the here and now...
Once again, we see the inherent irony of the Left Wing agenda...
They whine and complain about the Right Wing's so-called "War On Women" yet see no problem with Islam that has a REAL war against women...
It's Gay People/Iran Deal all over again...
Michale
No, it's legal requirements vs what people will vote for. If the country becomes mostly Muslim or mostly satanist then there is a good possibility that a Muslim or satanist candidate will get votes. Same currently goes for atheists. I don't think an atheist could get enough votes today to get elected president regardless of what the constitution says. But if they follow the bureaucratic paperwork and can meet the minimum popular support requirements, a Muslim, satanist or atheist can get on the ballot. No one has the right to be president but anyone who can meet the minor constitutional requirements can try. Same goes for all the other offices mentioned in that section.
They whine and complain about the Right Wing's so-called "War On Women" yet see no problem with Islam that has a REAL war against women...
Well, that is certainly your characterization of it. The truth is something different I think. The left can affect change here. We all can affect change there as well but we are either going to have to get rid of the concept of sovereignty and get behind some serious old school imperialism or hope time will eventually fix things.
What is your plan for fixing the problem?
It's Gay People/Iran Deal all over again...
No, not really. Though I can tell you desperately want to hold on that old chestnut...
Ben Carson quote."I don't care what religion or faith someone belongs to if they're willing to subjugate that to the American way and to our Constitution, then I have no problem with it.”
His point is that he does not support any religion that cannot separate itself from the constitution. When did he ever support the Kentucky clerk?
When did he ever say he would try to govern against the ruling on same sex marriage? I think you are putting words out there that have never been spoken.
The media needs to quit twisting candidates words to suit their own ideology. Are you racist against blacks or christians? Do you really think that most the citizens in this country would want our country to be influenced by Sharia law? Are you saying that would be appropriate or in the best interest of this country? The issue of Sharia law has come up in other countries. What exactly is the media defending?
Ben Carson has said he has nothing against Muslims, but does not think Sharia law would be compatible with our constitution. What do you disagree with about that statement?
No, it's legal requirements vs what people will vote for. If the country becomes mostly Muslim or mostly satanist then there is a good possibility that a Muslim or satanist candidate will get votes.
How would this country go mostly muslim or mostly satanist if we didn't elect mostly muslim or mostly satanist leadership???
No one has the right to be president
Yea?? Tell that to Clinton.. :D
Well, that is certainly your characterization of it. The truth is something different I think.
Truth is subjective..
My characterization is FACTUAL...
What is your plan for fixing the problem?
Quit electing morons to office whose SOLE concern is themselves and their agenda...
Simple...
No, not really.
That's your claim.. But without facts to back it up, it's only your opinion... :D
Michale
Truth is subjective..
My characterization is FACTUAL...
Is it? Does the all caps make it so or something?
Quit electing morons to office whose SOLE concern is themselves and their agenda...
Simple...
Is that really your plan to fix the Islamic "REAL war against women"? Doesn't seem like much of a plan...
That's your claim.. But without facts to back it up, it's only your opinion... :D
Strange boilerplate response...
Is it? Does the all caps make it so or something?
No, but it helps for emphasis.. :D
Is that really your plan to fix the Islamic "REAL war against women"? Doesn't seem like much of a plan...
Why in the HELL would I want to "fix" Islam?? By definition, religion cannot be "fixed"...
Strange boilerplate response...
Which is all to often appropriate around here.. :D
Michale
Why in the HELL would I want to "fix" Islam?? By definition, religion cannot be "fixed"...
You brought it up...
But for fun: you are criticizing the left for not fixing a problem that you really don't want fixed in the first place. Hmm, steps slowly back from the crazy person...
You brought it up...
You brought up fixing this country...
Fixing religion???
My solution would be to outlaw it.. :D
But for fun: you are criticizing the left for not fixing a problem that you really don't want fixed in the first place.
That's your take..
As far from reality as is possible to be.. :D
Michale
You identify the problem:
They whine and complain about the Right Wing's so-called "War On Women" yet see no problem with Islam that has a REAL war against women...
But then say:
Why in the HELL would I want to "fix" Islam?? By definition, religion cannot be "fixed"...
The normal English translation would be that you are criticizing the left for not trying to fix a problem that, by your own words, is not fixable.
That's your take..
As far from reality as is possible to be.. :D
Dare I ask what your "reality" on this is?
You identify the problem:
Yes... I DO identify the problem..
The problem is "THEY".... IE The Left Wing...
How I can fix the Left Wing???
I am open to suggestions...
The normal English translation would be that you are criticizing the left for not trying to fix a problem that, by your own words, is not fixable.
No, I am asking the Left Wing to fix their own hypocrisy...
Yea, I know.. Hopeless task for them..
Hypocrisy is a defining quality..
Dare I ask what your "reality" on this is?
"You may ask..."
-Admiral James T Kirk
:D
Michale
OK, first off, I apologize for the delay in posting new comments, and welcome 10inch45 and charliecrow and bonaman46 and Nancy (and anyone else I might have missed) to the site.
Your first comment was held for moderation, but from now on you should be able to post and see your comments appear instantly. Just don't post more than one link per comment, as multi-link comments are also automatically held for moderation (which, as you can see, sometimes takes me a while to get to).
I will answer comments in a bit, just wanted to welcome all the newcomers to the site and apologize for the delay in seeing your posts.
-CW
OK, first off, I apologize for the delay in posting new comments, and welcome 10inch45 and charliecrow and bonaman46 and Nancy (and anyone else I might have missed) to the site
WOW!!! It's a stampede!!! :D
Michale
nancy,
Ben Carson quote."I don't care what religion or faith someone belongs to if they're willing to subjugate that to the American way and to our Constitution, then I have no problem with it.”
His point is that he does not support any religion that cannot separate itself from the constitution. When did he ever support the Kentucky clerk?
When did he ever say he would try to govern against the ruling on same sex marriage? I think you are putting words out there that have never been spoken.
The media needs to quit twisting candidates words to suit their own ideology. Are you racist against blacks or christians? Do you really think that most the citizens in this country would want our country to be influenced by Sharia law? Are you saying that would be appropriate or in the best interest of this country? The issue of Sharia law has come up in other countries. What exactly is the media defending?
Ben Carson has said he has nothing against Muslims, but does not think Sharia law would be compatible with our constitution. What do you disagree with about that statement?
Well said!!!
As I am wont to do..
"Welcome to the party, pal!!!"
-John McClane, DIE HARD
:D
I especially appreciate your mention of the Kentucky clerk, Davis..
I mean, when you look at it, what exactly did she do??
She ignored the law in favor of her conscience/agenda...
And the Left Wing went totally bat-sheet crazy over that...
Yet, that EXACT same Left Wing supported Obama when he did the EXACT same thing...
Ignored the law in favor of his conscience/agenda...
Hypocrisy... Blatant, unadulterated and unequivocal....
Michale
CharlieCrow,
Again...
"Welcome to the party, pal!!"
-John McClane, DIE HARD
:D
What about the hypocrisy of having taken the Hippocratic oath as an MD, but heartily supporting the death penalty? That seems like a pretty big character conflict to me....
Not at all...
Look at it this way...
I don't think it's a good idea to throw people in jail just for the hell of it....
But I DO support throwing people in jail who have so emphatically proven that THAT is where they belong...
So it is with the death penalty...
An MD's first rule, above all else, is DO NO HARM..
Allowing scumbags who would murder innocent people to live is grievous harm...
Supporting putting these dangerous animals down??
Seems to me to be fully in keeping with the Hippocratic Oath...
You watch Star Trek??? Voyager??? Remember the episode, CRITICAL CARE??
Same concept...
As with most decisions of that nature, the ends truly do justify the means...
I see no conflict...
Michale
I have to say... I like these JEEPs... :D
Michale
Dr Ben Carson has been asked questions about same sex marriage and county clerk, Kim Davis. I can't imagine why anyone would think that he wouldn't be asked, considering he's running for president and these are the lead issues of the day as far as the US MSM is concerned. Here is one of those interviews which touches on both issues:
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/mairead-mcardle/ben-carson-kentucky-clerk-kim-davis-judeo-christian-nation
OK, finally got some time, let's answer a few of these...
John From Censornati [1] -
"One man's religion is another man's belly laugh."
-Robert A. Heinlein
Michale [5] -
I'm sure someone else has posted it by now, but here you go. Article VI, paragraph 3:
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
Highlighted the relevant part, there....
LizM [7] -
Nice! The most Oedipal song in rock history...
dsws [9] -
The key word is "interpretation" -- my interpretation of what Carson was actually trying to say. In other words, I wasn't grading on plausibility, but rather what he might have been thinking. With, as noted, the most charitable filter possible used.
10inch45 [10] -
I do see such incompatibility. There are many (see that "Dominionism" link in the article) who would prefer that America be ultimately ruled by the Ten Commandments -- what might be called the central tenets of both Christianity and Judaism. But, according to how you define your terms and how you count, up to 7 of these are incompatible with the Constitution, or are almost archaic in US law.
The only ones, in fact, that I can see do fit in the constitutional mold and have relevance today are "Thou shalt not kill" (murder is illegal everywhere in the US), "Thou shalt not steal" (self-evident), and "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor" (perjury is also a crime everywhere in the US).
The rest are either an unconstitutional invasion of government into the religious sphere ("Thou shalt have no other gods before me") or outdated (how often is adultery actually prosecuted these days?).
There are plenty of interpretations of the Bible. People are free to believe any of them. Any believer of any of them -- even a Dominionist -- is free to run for office. There are also plenty of interpretations of Islam. I've heard a lot of what I assume are non-Muslims (lots of them over on HuffPost) who seem to be experts on the religious tenets of Islam. But even being an expert doesn't mean that every Muslim believes one group of tenets. Just think of how Christians interpret "Thou shalt not kill" to understand how diverse religious opinion can be.
Mind you, I was very careful in how I phrased the first sentence in this article. Carson, in his original answer, was just answering a personal question -- would he support a Muslim for president? But since then, as he's doubled down on his answer, he has strayed into more general terms.
Which is all why I would REALLY like to hear someone ask these questions -- the whole point of my article. I'd like to hear his answers.
[Oh, and sorry for posting more than one of you first comments, to everyone else: the error was mine, not 10inch45's....]
charliecrow [12] -
Good point.
altohone [14] -
Yeah, if journalists suddenly started asking what I consider the most obvious questions, then I'd have nothing to write about in these blogs. But I'm not exactly nervous it'll happen any time soon, if you know what I mean...
:-)
BashiBazouk [15] and John M [16] -
See, I knew someone would provide that! Thanks!
bonaman46 [17] -
I hear your point, but overall I think I tilt a lot further to the optimistic side than pessimistic. Stick around and read a few weeks of columns, and see if you agree....
Michale [19] -
Wait, ambiguous??? What about that was ambiguous?
OK, I'm going to post these answers now, because I'd hate to type them all in again if I screwed up posting somehow. More later....
-CW
Michale [20] -
What about "no religious test" do you not understand? No religious test means NO religious test -- positive, negative, or neutral. None. Not allowed. Verboten. Tabu.
Now, there are two things here, so let me address the rest of your post. One is the Constitution, and who is allowed to run and take office. The other is the popular mood of the voters. That's not covered in the Constitution (or it is, proactively, under free speech).
Sure, it's highly unlikely that a religious extremist (of any stripe) would be elected president.
But would that include "someone who practiced ritual cannibalism every week"? What would you say about a son of Saudi Arabian parents, born in the US? Saudi Arabia beheads plenty of people under its laws.
So, yes, religion is certainly taken into account by the voters -- as is their right -- but ALL of the examples you cited would not in fact be legally "disqualified" for any of their beliefs, because the Constitution PROHIBITS this, specifically. Not even in the afterthought of the Bill of Rights, either, but right there in the main text.
Understand the difference?
Now some could claim (plenty have, over on HuffPost, I should mention) that I am also guilty of mixing these two things up, in the article. Sure, Carson has never proposed that there be an actual law barring Muslims from office, but I'd still like to hear his answers to the questions -- the reason I wrote the article.
BashiBazouk [21] -
That's an even better way to put it than what I just typed. Well done!
Nancy [22] -
All valid points. But here's Carson on Kim Davis:
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/mairead-mcardle/ben-carson-kentucky-clerk-kim-davis-judeo-christian-nation
He also lays out his stance on gay marriage. Both of which are rather troubling to me, seen through a constitutional lens. Which is why I would like him to clarify his basic position on the separation of church (and mosque) and state.
I am in no way supporting Sharia law -- a common strawman argument popping up on the rather lively comment thread over on HuffPost. But what this arugment ignores is that every Muslim (especially every American Muslim) does not believe that Sharia law should be implemented here. The Old Testament bans ham and cheese sandwiches, but how many Jews or Christians support such extreme laws? If you were a moderate Muslim who didn't agree with Sharia and wanted to see a secular government, don't you think you'd consider moving to America? To assume all Muslims in America have a secret plan to replace the Constitution with Sharia is a disservice to millions of American Muslims. "American Muslim" does not immediately equate to "Sharia law now in the US!" in other words.
Michale [23] -
If this country ever went majority-Muslim or majority-Satanist (a remote possibility) then you're right, we'd probably see more Muslims or Satanists in the government. But that's entirely according to the plan of the Founding Fathers -- being represented by someone you approve of.
[27] -
Outlawing religion seems a tad extreme, don't you think? How about just taxing them like any other social club? Heh.
[31] -
Yeah, I got featured pretty high on HuffPost's main page -- it's like the old days, I've seen hundreds of comments to this article there. But, since I refuse to sign up with Facebook, can't respond to any of them there.
[34] -
Jeeps? Um... come again? You a fan of American Motors classic products? Or maybe you're a Willy's fan?
Mopshell [35] -
Heh. I'm chuckling because I cited the same article earlier. Googled "Ben Carson Kim Davis" and it popped up...
Whew! Made it to the end! Again, welcome to all the new commenters...
:-)
-CW
While I believe that a journalist would ask follow-up questions of Ben Carson, there are no longer any journalists working in mainstream media to do so.
What we have now is a parade of talking heads and scribblers. Chuck Todd comes to mind. When asked why he doesn't ask tough questions, Todd replied "It's not my job." He went on to assert that if he did ask tough questions then his guests would not come back on the show. Apparently American politicians are all too sensitive and get their fee fees hurt very easily.
On a "Morning Joe" interview two years ago, he argued that it also wasn't his job to correct political figures when they lie, distort or misinform.
It seems he's had a change of mind since, that it no longer includes all political figures. Like many others on the interview circuit, Todd tried to give Carly Fiorina the opportunity to correct the record regarding her claims about a video she saw. She just doubled down.
Todd went into a poor me routine and got lots of sympathy from the round table afterwards. But the plain fact is he's incompetent as an interviewer and Fiorina easily bested him. He's had very little practice in asking hard questions and none at all in insisting on the truth so he hasn't a clue how to do it.
Another illuminating statement came from Fiorina herself this week. While speaking at a town hall event in Oklahoma City, Fiorina said, "Politics is a fact-free zone. People just say things."
That explains a lot.
What about "no religious test" do you not understand? No religious test means NO religious test -- positive, negative, or neutral. None. Not allowed. Verboten. Tabu.
I really can't explain it, but the wording says to me "no test on religion"...
So, yes, religion is certainly taken into account by the voters -- as is their right -- but ALL of the examples you cited would not in fact be legally "disqualified" for any of their beliefs, because the Constitution PROHIBITS this, specifically. Not even in the afterthought of the Bill of Rights, either, but right there in the main text.
But my point is that those SHOULD be disqualifying...
But what this arugment ignores is that every Muslim (especially every American Muslim) does not believe that Sharia law should be implemented here.
"Mr President... That is not ENTIRELY accurate.."
-SecDef Nimzicki, INDEPENDENCE DAY
A poll was taken of American muslims and the vast majority stated they would prefer Sharia over Constitutional law..
Outlawing religion seems a tad extreme, don't you think?
I calls em as I sees em.. :D
How about just taxing them like any other social club? Heh.
heh :D
Michale
Normally, when I make a point that everyone ignores, I just chalk it up to a win and move on..
But I am sincerely interested in the response on this point..
Towhit,
There is absolutely NO difference between Kim Davis ignoring the law in favor of her conscience/agenda and Obama ignoring the law in favor of his conscience/agenda..
So, this begs the question..
Why does the Left castigate Davis (A Democrat) and applaud Obama??
Michale
Straight from the pope..
"I can't have in mind all the cases that can exist about conscientious objection, but, yes, I can say that conscientious objection is a right that is a part of every human right. It is a right. And if a person does not allow others to be a conscientious objector, he denies a right."
So, Liberals..
Why would you want to deny rights to Davis, a fellow Democrat? :D
Michale
Straight from the pope..
"I can't have in mind all the cases that can exist about conscientious objection, but, yes, I can say that conscientious objection is a right that is a part of every human right. It is a right. And if a person does not allow others to be a conscientious objector, he denies a right."
So, Liberals..
Why would you want to deny rights to Davis, a fellow Democrat? :D
Michale
Dear chatbot,
Kim Davis is a Republican. Try to keep up. In addition, Judge Bunning is not a lefty liberal. He's the only one who has locked her up. He tried to accommodate her desire to not do her job by allowing her deputies to issues licenses, but she refuses to be accommodated because he won't accommodate her desire to persecute gay people.
BTW - Cherry-picking the Grand Wizard of Bronze Age Hocus Pocus is very weak trolling regardless of how many times you post it - even weaker than your normal transparently dishonest trolling, I mean Winning!
"just wanted to welcome all the newcomers to the site"
The Carson swarm has a Scientology-ish feel to it.
Dear chatbot,
Thank you for conceding the argument by admitting you have no rational or logical response other than personal attacks and immature name-calling..
You concession of my superior argument is appreciated, albeit irrelevant...
Gotcha again.. :D
Michale
The Carson swarm has a Scientology-ish feel to it.
To all the newcomers..
Apologies for the rudeness of JFC.. He has had one too many hits from the crack-pipe and social graces are lost on him...
:D
Michale
JFC,
Did you ever read SK's UNDER THE DOME???
You remind me of Phil 'Chef' Bushey.... :D
Michale
JFC,
Kim Davis is a Republican.
At the time of the incident and in the immediacy thereafter, Kim Davis was a Democrat.
She only switched Party after the Democrats attacked her and threw her to the wolves of Political Correctness and under the bus of Political Expediency...
I know, I know.. FACTS are annoying things when they go against your ideological enslavement, eh? :D
Michale
At the time of the incident and in the immediacy thereafter, Kim Davis was a Democrat.
A fact you yourself pointed out.. Granted you didn't substantiate it (you never do) but you DID point it out...
Funny how you change your tune when it suits your purpose.. :D
Michale