Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson outraged the perpetually outraged the other day by saying that he would not support a Muslim for president. To his credit, he’s not apologizing, as Fox News reports:
We don’t put people at the head of our country whose faith might interfere with them carrying out the duties of the Constitution,” the retired neurosurgeon told Fox News’ Sean Hannity. ‘If you’re a Christian and you’re running for president and you want to make this [country] into a theocracy, I’m not going to support you. I’m not going to advocate you being the president.’
‘Now, 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, then of course they will be considered infidels and heretics, but at least I would then be quite willing to support them,’ Carson added.
By way of clarification, the Constitution has this, and only this, to say on the issue of a religious test for public office, including the presidency:
…no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.’ Article VI
Therefore, anyone professing any religion would not be disqualified, as a matter of law, from holding public office, again, including the presidency. That, however, is not what Carson is saying, and as his answer to Hannity indicates, he understands more about Islam than the average bear.
While the government may not prevent a Muslim from becoming president simply because he is a Muslim, that prohibition does not extend to citizens, individually or collectively. The electorate may elect or reject any candidate on matters as seemingly frivolous as the color of their skin, or their gender. The electorate, having already caused damage that may take generations to repair—if ever—by deciding it would be wonderful to elect a spectacularly and obviously unqualified black person as president primarily because, “hey, he’s running, and he’s black,” one hopes the American people have such foolishness out of their collective systems and they’ll reject the idea of electing a female president because “hey, she’s running this time, and wouldn’t it be historic and maybe kinda cool to have a female president? Besides, It’s like, her turn, man!” Some people used to think it was very cool indeed to have a black president. Now, with few exceptions, only some shrinking portion of Democrats think that. God help us—no one else will—if we ever decided to experience the coolness of a Muslim president.
If so, it will be a male. Women are not allowed positions of power–bodily integrity, or any actual practice of individual liberty–in Islam. The only good thing about a Muslim presidency would be Democrats would no longer have to make up stories about a war on women. Women living under Islam live the war on women, wounds and dead bodies included. It might be novel, though, to have a burka-clad first lady no one has ever actually seen.
Dr. Carson is absolutely right. Islam is utterly incompatible with the principles and values of our constitutional republic. It is utterly incompatible with democracy. In fact, Islam, if practiced by its scriptures and interpretations of/commentaries on those scriptures, is actively hostile to democracy and individual liberty, and that hostility extends directly to rape, torture, slavery, conquest and mass murder. ISIS is a barbaric, brutal group of medieval thugs, but they are faithfully acting on the letter and spirit of their scriptures. Islam is not primarily a religion, but a political system with religious overtones.
This is what most Americans fail to understand, or willingly overlook, when they call Islam “the religion of peace,” or when they, with the best of intentions, think followers of Islam just like Baptists, Lutherans or any other faith commonly practiced in America. Americans have an unfortunate tendency to think others, even foreigners that have never been to America, think and live like them, sharing the same hopes and aspirations. Usually, they don’t. Often, the gap is enormous–and dangerous.
To be sure, there are Muslims that do share the desire to practice their faith in peace and to live in harmony with their neighbors, enjoying the benefits of life in America. Unfortunately, it is not they, but their violently Islamist co-religionists that are obeying the spirit and letter of their faith. This is in large part why so few supposedly “moderate” Muslims stand up and oppose Islamists: not only are the Islamists right according to their faith, but Islamists will kill anyone that annoys them, even other Muslims, even though Islam prohibits that.
Winston Churchill recognized Islam’s reality in the early 1900s, as he wrote in The River War:
How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity.
The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property—either as a child, a wife, or a concubine—must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen: all know how to die. But the influence of the religion paralyzes the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science—the science against which it had vainly struggled—the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome.
The most serious problem with Islam, the problem so many Americans fail to grasp, is that it is impossible to be an orthodox Muslim and swear primary allegiance to a nation and its principles. Muslims swear allegiance, first and foremost and exclusively to Islam, which recognizes no national borders, and which aims for nothing less than world domination and the imposition of Sharia—Islamic law. They do not, if they are faithful followers of Islam, think of themselves as Frenchmen, or Jordanians or Americans, but as Muslims. This is why so many secular nations with Muslim majorities fight constant battles to remain secular, suppressing the Muslim hordes that desperately want to impose Sharia and slaughter any that oppose them, which makes President Obama’s support for the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt—one of the worst terrorist organizations on the planet and the philosophical wellspring of contemporary militant Islam—utterly bizarre and destructive. Mr. Obama’s support for the Iranian jihadists threatens to plunge the Middle East into nuclear war, and the world with it.
For the faithful follower of Islam, it is not enough to believe Islam to be the one true faith, and to have a desire to convert, through reason and exemplary daily living, others to that faith for their eternal benefit. Islam not only mandates violence against non-believers, it demands that they be enslaved and conquered, and in many instances, describes precisely how such violence is to be done.
As Churchill observed, individual Muslims may be wonderful people, people that identify as loyal Americans, and who recognize the benefits of American citizenship and values. Such people could honestly swear to defend and uphold the Constitution and faithfully apply America’s secular laws, but in so doing, they would be rejecting much of the letter and practice of Islam, and there are millions of fellow Muslims around the world that would gladly slaughter them as apostates. We see the accuracy and truth of Churchill’s clear-eyed understanding of Islam around the world today. The only difference between his time and ours is the modern weapons—and thanks to Mr. Obama, nuclear weapons will soon be in their grasp–that makes contemporary Islam more and more deadly,
Fortunately, we have nearly eight years of experience with this topic. Barack Hussein Obama is a Muslim. He has not acted overtly as a jihadist, but he has done his best to support and defend the worst Islamist regimes and movements, Iran being only the most obvious recent example. He has also allowed Muslims with direct connections to Islamist movements and operatives access to America’s national security secrets, Huma Abedin, Hillary Clinton’s primary advisor, being only one example.
It also does not help Mr. Obama’s claim to Christianity that the only outward evidence of his Christian faith was his twenty-year membership in the Chicago church of Rev. Wright, which preached a vicious version of black liberation theology (BLT). BLT is a Marxist, racist, anti-American political ideology that advocates black supremacy, and hatred in general. Mr. Obama admitted attending at least twice a week for two decades, but claimed to have no idea of the actual ideology of the church or of Rev. Wright, a man he could no more abandon than his white grandmother, until he threw both under the campaign bus. It is not unreasonable to imagine his Christianity to be the visible manifestation of political expediency. No black politician could rise in the Chicago Machine without visible ties to a politically connected, radical church that could successfully mask as a mainstream religion.
A Muslim president is certainly a lawful, constitutional possibility, but because of the very nature of Islam, Americans would want—one hopes–to be assured that any candidate was truly an advocate of democracy—our constitutional republicanism–and viewed Islam as virtually all Americans view other faiths, as separate from and in a different realm than our system of government. It’s little remembered that many Americans were worried that John F. Kennedy would try to rule American on behalf of the Catholic Church, which turned out not to be the case. Because of the very nature of Islam and its fundamental rejection of the separation of church and state, the specter of a stealth Muslim seeking high office is always a possibility. Even swearing an oath of fidelity to the Constitution would be less binding on Muslims than it was on Mr. Obama, as a fundamental doctrine of Islam is lying to infidels.
Fascinating is another reality: the kinds of people castigating Dr. Carson seem unaware that Islam is the very antithesis of their progressive beliefs. LGBTQWERTY activists and ideas, feminism, and every other contemporary progressive obsession fare very, fatally badly under Islamic rule. The self-imagined ultra civilized, morally superior elite would find themselves face to face with medieval barbarians more than willing to rape, disembowel and behead them in their homes or in any convenient public venue. Perhaps such people imagine that Islamists would make exceptions for them because they’re so tolerant, inclusive and diverse, but just as Islam has no tolerance for “moderate” Muslims, it “tolerates” infidels primarily by brutally killing them. It does, however, occasionally pretend to ally with useful idiots until their usefulness expires, and then, the sword (these days, the dull, rusty knife).
Those that reflexively attack Dr. Carson, which include Hillary Clinton, reveal their lack of understanding of Islam and the Constitution. Such people, just as is true of Muslims that embrace the letter and spirit of Islam, should never be elected to public office.