Monday, September 21, 2015

So what exactly is wrong with what Ben Carson said about Muslims?

The head of an organization that even Saudi Arabia has labeled a terrorist group is calling on Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson to withdraw from the presidential race for making statements "inconsistent with the United States Constitution."

The organization, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, apparently thinks you are Constitutionally required to agree with Muslims. Maybe their spokesman could direct us to the section of the Constitution that requires this.

All Ben Carson said was that he would not support a Muslim for president unless he swore off Sharia law. What exactly is the problem here? All of us have kinds of people we would not want in the Oval Office. My list includes not only Muslims, but communists, members of ISIS, Wiccans, cannibals, people just released from sanitoriums, anyone who has ever donated to the ACLU, children under 7 years old, editors of the New York Times, Tom Cruise, anyone who watches "The View," and (the most dangerous of all) secular liberals.

So what is the problem with Ben Carson not wanting Muslims who believe in Sharia law to rule this country?

Nihad Awad, the groups spokesperson for he group, talked as if Carson wanted to legally prohibit Muslims from holding the nation's highest office. But that's not what Carson said. He said he would not support it.



Anonymous said...

Wow, I actually have to agree with Martin here, in that I would not want a Muslim president who wanted to impose Sharia law; such an attitude is inconsistent with the Constitution. [Of course, there were the same concerns about Kennedy and Catholicism. And yes, I am old enough to remember.]

But let us have some consistency here (the hobgoblin of little minds like mine).

Carson seems to be
Carson himself, who belongs to the Seventh-Day Adventist Church, has religious beliefs that don't line up with the Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court. Still, he said he'd uphold Supreme Court rulings he disagrees with legalizing same-sex marriage and abortion nationwide, while seeking to overturn or override the rulings. “We have to live within the framework. Doesn’t mean we can't work to change it within the system,” Carson told reporters.

So if Muslims and Seventh-Day Adventists should subordinate their religious beliefs to the current interpretation of the Constitution, why shouldn't Christians such as Kim Davis?

j a higginbotham

1) i plan to reply on kim davis post later today
2) Kim Davis recently "found God"; before that she was a Baptist. does that mean that Baptists, like Catholics, aren't considered true Christians?

Daniel said...

For your reading (or viewing) pleasure...

CAIR press release:

Original Carson interview:

Follow-up interview:

So, the circus goes on...What else is new?

Daniel said...

I think CAIR was listed by the UAE, not Saudi Arabia?:

Art said...

It's a bit amusing that Carson threw Martin and his ilk under the bus to defend his statements.

Poor Dr. Carson. He is in a party that has a solid core who won't vote for any black person for president. And a larger core that is openly theocratic in sentiment and action. Methinks he really hasn't thought through this presidential candidate business.