Soon-to-be GOP front runner presidential candidate Ben Carson thinks that the culture of Muslims and America are incompatible and that a Muslim could not be president. In an interview with NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Sunday, Sept. 20, 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.”
As you might imagine, this created a firestorm of objections, so Carson clarified his point of view about whether a Muslim could be President of the United States the next day.
“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 … I would then be quite willing to support them.”
Interesting point of view. The key assumption that Carson makes is that there are “tenets” of Islam that are absolute and unquestionable.
Islam is like other major religions. You can find lots of authorities who teach lots of things. People have to choose what they accept and what they reject. Islamic scholar Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri wrote a 600-page “fatwa” (a legal pronouncement in Islam, issued by a religious law specialist on a specific issue) condemning terrorism as being against the principles of Islam. The two main branches, Shia and Sunni, don’t agree with each other at all. They seem to hate each other more than they hate us.
Let’s contrast this with, for example, Mormonism. Mitt Romney ran for president, and he is a high priest in the LDS Church. To achieve that, he had to swear to certain things in a sacred temple ceremony. We won’t go into detail here because it’s supposed to be secret, but the ceremony includes a pledge to “defend the faith against all else.” (Emphasis added) Mormonism is a good deal more absolute and unquestionable than other Christian churches or Islam. The Mormon theology is well documented in books like the Doctrine and Covenants and has a much clearer way of resolving questions because they have just one living prophet of God with the authority to interpret their doctrine, and once that interpretation has been done, no one in the mainstream Church is allowed to disagree. Islam has lots of scholars, and they often disagree.
What if a conflict came up between Romney’s faith and his responsibility as president?
“That would never happen!” I hear you saying.
I agree with that. It most likely would not happen. But isn’t that exactly what a Muslim could say too? Mormons believe their God is true and just and would never make them choose between their patriotism and their religion.
A Muslim could say that too. In fact, a Muslim has. Representative Keith Ellison of Minnesota is a practicing Muslim who swore his oath of office with his hand on the Koran.
I don’t think that Carson, or Mike Huckabee, or Bobby Jindal would be willing to pass the very same test that Carson himself demands of Muslims. Would these people swear to reject the tenets of Christianity and place the U.S. Constitution above their religion? My guess is that they would avoid answering the question.
When John Kennedy ran for president in 1960, he looked the press straight in the eye and told them that if he were elected president, he would not allow the Pope or his archbishop in Boston to dictate how he would run the country. That satisfied the press and pretty much quelled the Catholic issue. There was hardly a peep during the 2004 election about John Kerry’s Catholicism. You might argue that Kennedy wasn’t much of a Catholic, but the point is that he made it clear that he wouldn’t run the country according to religious principles but rather according to democratic principles.
That’s why we have freedom of religion here in America. It should never be an issue in a political campaign … unless the issue is freedom of religion. Then we should reject anyone who wants to make their own religion special and other religions suspect, and that clearly should include the Muslim religion.
