Stephen
Kershnar
Ben Carson on Muslim Presidential
Candidates
Dunkirk-Fredonia Observer
September
27, 2015
Republican
presidential candidate Ben Carson asserted that he would not support a
religious Muslim for president and all hell broke loose. Chuck Todd of Meet the
Press asked him whether voters should consider a presidential candidate’s
religious faith, he said the following, "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." When the interviewer asked whether Islam is consistent with the
Constitution, Carson responded, "No, I don't -- I do not." He later
added that, "I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this
nation. I absolutely would not agree with that." He later noted that he
had a different view of Muslims running for Congress.
The president of the Council on American-Islamic Relations
immediately demanded that he withdraw from the presidential race and labeled
him unfit to be President. Most of the presidential candidates piled on. Establishment
hacks, Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush, joined the chorus of critics. So did Bernie
Sanders and Marco Rubio. Sanders analogized Carson’s comments toward Muslim
presidential candidates to bigotry against Catholics and blacks. One wonders
whether these pompous asses would be willing to vote for candidates who were
Scientologists or members of Mormon polygamous sects.
The Obama White House, Clinton, and National Public Radio argued
that Carson’s assertion is unconstitutional. Their argument reflects a profound
misunderstanding of the Constitution. Article VI says, “No religious Test
shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under
the United States.” The First Amendment says, “Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof.”
Because
Carson did not support a law that puts for that puts forth a religious test or
establishes a religion, his position is consistent with the Constitution. The
Constitution does not require voters ignore a candidate’s religion or values
and were the government to do so, it would violate other parts of the
Constitution.
Other
things being equal, a voter should support a candidate for President only if
the voter is confident that the candidate does not have beliefs about the
government that are false and conflict with American freedom. A significant percentage
of religious Muslims have such beliefs. In addition, because candidates so
often lie or misrepresent who they are, voters can’t be confident as to which
Muslim candidates have such beliefs.
On
the topic of lying, consider that George W. Bush ran against nation building and
claimed that Iraq was linked to al-Qaeda and had weapons of mass destruction.
Barack Obama said that Obamacare would reduce the deficit, people could keep
their doctor, health insurance premiums would go down, etc.
No
one thinks that people who reject basic freedoms deserves to be elected. For
example, doctrinaire communists and Nazis don’t deserve our votes because their
values are at odds with our basic freedoms. The same is true for those who are leaders
of a criminal enterprises (for example, Mexican Mafia and Hell’s Angels).
Given
that some people’s ideas make them a poor choice for the presidency, the
question is whether religious Muslims have such ideas. To see they do, consider
Muslim countries. Far too often Muslim countries make it clear that the Muslim
leaders have little to no respect for freedom. Consider the Middle East. A 2015
Freedom House study found that only one out of twenty-two Muslim countries in
the Middle East is politically free. The study assumed that freedom is a function
of political rights and civil liberties. Only Tunisia was found to be free and
this is a recent development. The study found that only four are even partly
free and the best of these, Turkey, has a constitutional firewall between the
Muslim religion and its government. Similarly,
the Cato Institute ranks countries and regions by freedom (personal and
economic) and the Muslim countries consistently score badly, especially powerful
ones such as Iran, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia.
As National Review’s Andrew McCarthy points
out, where sharia law is in place, countries fail to
separate religion from political life and are hostile to freedom, suspicious of
reason, backward in economics and education, and treat women and gays poorly.
One
objection to this is that even if Muslim leaders in other countries act
disgracefully, we should not assume the same will be true of American Muslims. However,
one of the best tests of how a belief system works is to see what happens when
it is systematically implemented.
A
second objection is that the Muslim religion does not support the gross
contempt for civil liberties and economic freedom. Rather, it has been twisted
beyond recognition by foreign leaders. This objection is odd. Even if it were
true, a voter should fear that a Muslim presidential candidate would have an equally
twisted understanding. The content of the religion itself is beside the point
if its members regularly misinterpret it and we can’t predict who will do so.
In
any case, I doubt Carson’s critics want to rest their case on whether the real Muslim
religion permits wife-beating, allows women to be confined to the home, permits
child marriage, and requires the burqa. Nor do they want their position to rest
on whether the real Muslim religion requires that gays be flogged or killed and
Jews and Christians be treated as second-class citizens. They likely don’t want
their position to rest on whether the real Islam requires Muslims to wage war
against non-believers. They don’t know enough about it and, in any case, there
are experts on both sides of these issues.
Islam
is also blatantly irrational in asserting that Muhammad is a prophet and that
God exists as depicted in the Quran, and he wants us to obey sharia law, but
irrationality isn’t the issue. Rather, it’s the incompatibility with American
freedom. Carson is on the money.
No comments:
Post a Comment