Article VI, paragraph 3 of the United States Constitution (emphasis added):
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.
With that in mind, here’s what Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson had to say about the possibility of a Muslim being elected president.
Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson says Islam is antithetical to the Constitution, and he doesn’t believe that a Muslim should be elected president.
Carson, a devout Christian, says a president’s faith should matter to voters if it runs counter to the values and principles of America.
Responding to a question during an interview broadcast Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” he described the Islamic faith as inconsistent with the Constitution.
“I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation,” Carson said. “I absolutely would not agree with that.”
Taking to Twitter, Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders criticized Carson’s intolerance.
I am very disappointed that Dr. Carson would suggest that a Muslim should not become president of the United States.
— Bernie Sanders (@BernieSanders) September 20, 2015
People should be elected to office based on their ideas, not their religion or the color of their skin.
— Bernie Sanders (@BernieSanders) September 20, 2015
Zach you have presented no evidence that Ben Carson wants to disregard the U.S. Constitution. He simply does not view Islam as compatible with our constitution and does not advise voting for one given that fact. In the interest of fairness and accuracy I suggest a thread title change to something like “Ben Carson says some stuff I don’t like.”
Interesting, comment #1 bitches about the title of Zach’s opinion piece, while at the same time interpreting Carson’s intent as being (not compatible with) directly in violation of Article VI, paragraph 3 of the Constitution.
*yawn*
PLease explain to all the women in this country about how muslims treat them/??
Dr. Carson should be well aware Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination based on religion. If he is not aware that’s strike one. I actually liked (kind of) Dr. Carson until the anti-Muslim diarrhea dribbled from his mouth. No policies, no agendas, no details just more fear mongering. Admittedly, I have some conservative views but I will never stand behind or support racism or prejudice. Anti-gay, anti-Muslim, anti-women, anti anti anti. The tool being used to justify and at the core of such hate is the Bible. There is nothing less Christian then hate.
His comment has nothing to do with wanting to officially bar Muslims from being able to be president. He was stating his own (bigoted) opinion. In response to an earlier comment, I’m sorry but that line of thought is exactly how many conservatives reinvent what their political opponents say. You can’t create a caricature in your head by claiming what someone’s intent is about stuff they simply didn’t say. I’ll call out anyone on that, no matter their political leanings. To claim his “intent” is that the constitution should bar a Muslim from office is to claim you can read his thoughts. You can’t, and that is the simple truth. He specifically said it should matter to voters. That has nothing to do with the constitution.
I see it over and over again, a little almost religious collection of conservatives get in a discussion, outright MAKE UP what “LIBERALS” (said with as much scorn as possible) want, then make themselves feel all high and mighty by arguing against the caricature rather than what the person they are attacking actually wants… and worse living in a little bubble world where the caricature is real, so they can just ignore any meaningful discussion of why their opinions differ. Misrepresenting an opinion isn’t right no matter what someone’s political affiliation is, or no matter how bigoted their statement.
He later clarified his comments by saying they would have to renounce supporting Sharia law, and I can see that. I see where he’s coming from, because the concept of Sharia is obviously completely incompatible with freedom and even basic human rights.
I absolutely understand the alarm for that. I absolutely think it would be fair to ask a Muslim candidate if they would denounce the implementation of Sharia law just as surely as people should and do challenge the more theocratic members of the Republican party when it comes to some of them not thinking privacy is a fundamental right, for example. The hypocrisy is when he stands side by side with the likes of for example Huckabee or Santorum without holding the same level of judgement over them, or when he supports laws grounded in imposing his Christian beliefs.
I’m with him to a point. People need to be wary of theocracy, which is not compatible with freedom. He just chooses to single out one religion. I’m not supporting what he said (initially), but I don’t think it’s wrong to question someone on their faith, especially when enslaving the world is written right into it. The Bible is hardly any better especially in the Old Testament, but the fact is we do not have any Christian hardline theocracies based off of the Old Testament right now. For Islam, even more advanced countries like Malaysia discuss how it is inevitable that they implement barbaric literal Islamic law.
I oppose any theocracy. It just so happens that there are many brutal Islamic theocracies, but even in the more “moderate” countries figures of 60% thinking people should be brutally killed for leaving Islam are “low.” That is the cold, hard, fact.
The mistake the far right here makes is in ignoring the Muslims who are not like that. It’s interesting how some on the far right rant about the extermination of Christians by ISIS. Yes, that’s terrible. Why do they care only about them and not the untold numbers of Muslims exterminated as well for not being in line with them? Some do, but I’m talking specifically about the conservatives I know. They almost exclusively talk about the Christians, ignoring everyone else slaughtered, tortured, enslaved, or displaced.
I said so much because I don’t think it’s a simple issue of religious freedom. It’s an inconvenient fact that for a very large number of Muslims, “I don’t think we should exterminate non-Muslims when we take over the world” is “moderate.” Claiming all Muslims think that way is bigotry. Ignoring the threat altogether is delusion though, in my opinion.