Ben Carson’s anti-Muslim comments are at odds with traditional American principles
A lot of people are expressing shock today that presidential candidate Ben Carson said over the weekend that no Muslim should be elected president. But anyone who has been following conservative politics in recent years, or who knows much about Carson, wouldn’t have been shocked at all. The truth is that Carson is immersed in a part of the conservative movement that rejects some fundamental American values. It’s not a small part of that movement, and it’s worth understanding.
To be clear, I’m not talking about all conservatives or all Republicans. There is a significant split within the movement and the party, which one can see in the reaction to Carson’s comments, just as we did in reaction to Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis’ efforts to prevent gay people from being legally married in her county. In both cases, one group of people, including some presidential candidates, arrived at their position through their understanding of essential American principles, while the other group believes that Christians in particular should occupy a privileged place in law and society (granting that a few years ago they started citing “Judeo-Christian” values, making Jews sort of the equipment manager for the Christian spiritual varsity squad).
It may sound like an unfair criticism to say they’ve rejected foundational principles, but stay with me while I explain. To begin, let’s look at what Carson said on “Meet the Press” yesterday when Chuck Todd asked him whether a president’s faith should matter:
CARSON: Well, I guess it depends on what that faith is. If it’s inconsistent with the values and principles of America, then of course it should matter. But if it fits within the realm of America and consistent with the constitution, no problem.
TODD: So do you believe that Islam is consistent with the constitution?
CARSON: No, I don’t, I do not.
TODD: So you —
CARSON: I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation. I absolutely would not agree with that.
Given the chance to clarify later, Carson didn’t back off a bit:
In an interview with The Hill, Carson opened up about why he believes a Muslim would be unfit to serve as commander in chief.
“I do not believe Sharia is consistent with the Constitution of this country,” Carson said. “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 tenants of Sharia and lived a life consistent with that.”
“Then I wouldn’t have any problem,” he said.
For the record, the word “sharia” simply means “law” in Arabic. But Carson’s dime-store understanding of Islam probably comes from the likes of Glenn Beck, who regularly tells his listeners that sharia is coming to America, I suppose because the Taliban are going to take over your local city council and replace existing law with somebody’s interpretation of Islam. All over the country, but particularly in the South, there are public officials who try to pass laws to fight the imaginary threat of “creeping sharia.”
Carson’s understanding of the Constitution seems strikingly weak, particularly Article 6, which states that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” Carson would institute a religious test for the presidency — but only for Muslims, who would be required to “publicly reject” some imagined “tenets of sharia.” Of course, Carson does not say that Christians should have to make a public declaration that they would not impose their sectarian beliefs on the country in order to serve as president.
Source: www.washingtonpost.com