Continuing our Constitution Appreciation Decade, tonight’s piece features a contrived OMG-of-the-DAY. It being a meal carefully cooked on the media’s rotisserie of revulsion. The feast was occasioned by Republican candidate Gentile Ben’s too-honestly expressed preference for continuing America’s odd tradition of non-Islamic presidents. As you will learn shortly, Carson’s catty contumacy is practically as vile as heterosexual marriage.
The leading Muslim civil liberties group in America called Monday for Republican Ben Carson to drop out of the presidential race after the retired neurosurgeon said this weekend that he doesn’t believe any Muslim should be president of the United States.
As a cursory review of Islamic countries reveals, there’s little that comes between a muslim and his love of civil liberties. One could almost say it’s a unanimously embraced ideal–that is until hegemony provides a more stern interpretation. Though until that is achieved, civil liberties can be quite useful indeed.
Carson said Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press” that he “would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation. I absolutely would not agree with that.” He said he believed that Islam was “inconsistent with the values and principles of America” and inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution.
Nihad Awad, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, said the group is calling on Carson to “withdraw from the presidential race because he is unfit to lead, because his views are inconsistent with the United States Constitution.”
I’m certain Nihad is correct on Sharia, though let’s review a more sacred text.
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.
I can’t find a penumbra anywhere, though my visual acuity in the realm of emanations is hardly one of Supreme Court caliber. Though accepting that limitation, on what leg does Carson have to stand? He simply can not apply a religious test to who he prefers for president. No actually he can. Carson will be greatly relieved to find the mighty constitution supports his right to advocate for or against candidates for whatever reasons inspire him. While the office itself may not have a religious test; a citizen can have all he likes. And that’s what Carson just said. He would not personally support a muslim candidate for president. This isn’t particularly noteworthy. It’s occurred in the past, most recently in 2012 when some people explicitly declined to vote for Romney as a Mormon. If any were candidates themselves then critics could take that under advisement in the voting booth. Though few legal scholars alighted on CNN to claim a constitutional breach.
And while the menagerie’s novel allegiance to constitutional strictures is simply precious, it’s also morbidly comical in historical context. The founders were attempting to evade a repeat of the Church of England, not render their children defenseless to alien creeds. To think that a founding cadre of devoutly Christian white men would draft a document meticulous in securing the rights of their posterity to be ruled by Muslims is a greater mouthful of defecation than most men should try to swallow. Carson’s bland observation that Islam “is inconsistent with the values and principles of America” is one so obvious that a certain IQ threshold is required to rationalize arguments in opposition. Or–for those not so fortunately endowed–there is the increasingly familiar unconstitutional!
By this logic, if readers sympathetic to our views were to advance their positions as ones of divine provenance, then the left’s professional gaspers would presumably be assuaged of their anguish.
We can’t have a hater for president! It’s against corporate values!
Hate is my religion.
Oh, ok then. Carry on.
It’s amazing how one can immunize an antagonistic ideology with God. Here’s a quote while I try to think of an example.
The Anti-Defamation League, a group that fights anti-Semitism and other bigotry, called Carson’s comments “deeply offensive, un-American and contrary to the Constitution” in a statement from ADL National Director Jonathan Greenblatt.
“As the campaign season advances, we urge all presidential candidates to avoid innuendo and stereotyping of all sorts, including against people based on their faith, particularly American Muslims and, instead, to confront all forms of prejudice and bigotry. Remarks suggesting that all Muslims follow extremist interpretations of Islam have no basis in fact and fuel bigotry,” Greenblatt said.
Greenblatt also knocked Trump for his “failure to stand up to an anti-Muslim bigot at a campiagn rally who questioned whether President Obama was a Muslim.”
Well nothing really came to mind. Though how felicitous would it be if your protected religion was one of ethnonationalism? I think it would offer quite an expedient platform from which to hector recalcitrant hosts on their failures to embrace a more ecumenical perspective.
We’ll conclude by returning to that disintegrating parchment so aggrieved by Carson’s comments. The constitution was a deeply imperfect document whose flaws now manifest in this very debate. Though in defense of its architects, the vagaries of modernity were not available for their consideration. And so a great deal of responsibility was vested in us to not be gulls, imbeciles, or fanatics. In this we have failed in far greater measure than our fathers.