On an NBC (does anyone still watch that network?) broadcast of “Meet The Press”, Carson matter-of-factly said, “I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation.’’
Oh my, Dr. Carson, you have stepped in a particularly nasty pile that time. As to be expected, the left and the Muslim complainers all took issue with the statement. Interestingly, many of the more conservative pundits also railed against the good doctor’s opinion. In the end, though, a large swath of Americans agreed wholly with Carson’s statement.
Before the din becomes deafening, let’s look at what was said and give it a little critical analysis.
Contrary to what some claim, Dr. Carson did not say that a Muslim cannot become President. Such a statement would be entirely inaccurate. Even Obama has not been able to strip the First Amendment from the Constitution, which reads:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The US Constitution does stipulate that the President must be a natural-born citizen. Article II section 1:
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;…
A foreign-born person would not be eligible to become President regardless of religion. Not a word is even implied in the constitution about any religious qualification for the office of President. But you knew that, and so did Dr. Carson.
Would it be wise to elect a Muslim to the Presidency? Not to put words into Carson’s mouth, I believe this is what he meant by expressing his opinion that he would not advocate for a Muslim becoming President.
Why not a Muslim? Simple! While there are many good Muslims both here and abroad, the tenets of Islam and Sharia law are entirely incongruent with the US Constitution. That’s not to say that a Muslim would not make a good president, but if that person would adhere strictly to his or her religion many laws would be violated.
When John F. Kennedy became the first Catholic President, many people feared that the Pope would have the last word on Presidential issues. That didn’t happen. The Speaker of the House, John Boehner is a devout Catholic, yet he has never advocated in his job for any religious advantages.
Would a Muslim President proselytize or bring Sharia law to the US? Only good sense and integrity on the part of that person would prevent it.
Sharia is an abomination. There I have said it, and I will stand squarely behind my statement. I am not a theologian, but I have read the Quran and have researched Sharia law. First, it is not a universal, codified law. Every sect has its own version of Sharia, much of it is not even written down. The Muslim faithful are at the mercy of the whims of a Mullah, Caliph, or Ayatollah, often with no appeal or recourse. What is haram (forbidden) in one sect or even by an individual Mullah may not even be considered by another. Oppressive dictates on women are common, and punishments are far out of line with the severity of the “crimes”.
Under Sharia, we see punishments such as stoning for adultery – nearly always women – “honor” killings of women who have been raped, hands lopped off, heads lopped off, women beaten by husbands at the consent of Sharia, women not allowed to appear in public without a male relative escort, women required to wear burqas, and three-year-old girls being sold as brides.
This is not a law; it is an abhorrent violation of human rights and dignity. Could a Muslim President ignore these tenets and still be considered a good Muslim? That is the crux of Dr. Carson’s statement. It is also a moot point in this election, as I haven’t heard of any Muslim running for the office.
No comments:
Post a Comment