Posted on 09/24/2015 7:16:33 AM PDT by shortstop
Ben Carson is right, a Muslim shouldn’t be president of the United States.
And an American who votes accordingly is demonstrating not bigotry, but liberty. It is not a religious test, it is a personal choice. We may vote for or against whomever we like for whatever reason we like. That’s how free people roll.
And there is a strong case to be made against voting for a Muslim for president.
But before we get to that, let’s look at the criticism and anger sent Carson’s way since his statement.
Everyone from Mitt Romney to the imam on the corner has weighed in about the Constitution and its ban on a religious test for public office. It’s as if they think Americans are dumb enough to be conned into believing that the two things are in anyway related.
Because they’re not.
A religious test, as the phrase is used in the Constitution, means that the government can’t say only Methodists can hold office – or any other such denominationally based requirement. The United States declared its independence from a Great Britain that required membership in the Church of England of all those who wanted to hold high office or have privilege with the government.
That’s a religious test.
America has no religious test. The only legal requirement to be president is to be a natural-born American and to have attained the age of 35. Those are the only requirements the government has.
The people, however, as they cast their ballots, can have whatever requirements they choose.
Including religion.
That’s why Muslims in America vote, when they can, overwhelmingly for Muslims.
And why Jews in America vote, when they can, overwhelmingly for Jews.
Ditto for Mormons, Catholics and Southern Baptists. Also – leaving religion and going to ethnicity – black people, Latinos, Italians and the Irish.
Americans vote for people like themselves. Affinity is an important part of representation, and in a republic, where elected officials are to represent the people, most voters feel best represented by people who are like themselves.
There’s nothing wrong with that. It’s natural. It’s logical.
And America, a nation whose majority religion is Christianity, would in most situations be best represented and led by a person who is Christian.
Further, when voters decide which candidate to support, they often consider the entire person, and nothing is more formative of a person’s entirety than that person’s faith – if the person truly is a person of faith. If you are truly religious, your religion shapes and directs every part of your life and outlook.
Consequently, religion is absolutely something to consider in voting. That’s not bigotry, that’s common sense.
In fairness, most candidates in modern America don’t really have anything more than a nominal religion, and are truly secularists, so their particular denominational affiliation doesn’t mean much. That’s why Catholic politicians have been some of the biggest defenders of abortion. Clearly, a presidential candidate whose background is Muslim could be as bad at living his religion as many Christians are, and so the religion wouldn’t be as significant a factor.
But if a candidate of any religion honestly takes his faith seriously, it becomes a driving part of his life, and should be considered seriously by voters. That is true of any religion, including mine, and including Islam. And it can be considered as a positive or as a negative, depending on the choice of the voter involved.
Now, as to the particular suitability of a faithful Muslim being president of the United States, there are areas of concern.
Starting with the Judeo-Christian ethic.
American life and law are based upon a cultural approach and faith tradition alien to Islam. Could a faithful Muslim faithfully uphold a constitutional system at variance with his religion’s traditions?
Law in America, for example, is based on the wish of the people as expressed through their elected representatives. Law in Islam, by contrast, is based on revelation from deity through a prophet. In American, the people are sovereign; in Islam, religion is sovereign.
It is fair to ask if a Muslim candidate would follow the system of our nation or the system of his faith.
Further, it would be fair to ask a Muslim candidate if he can embrace the equal protection under law innate in the American system but alien to his personal faith. The preamble and the 14th Amendment guarantee equal protection to all Americans – including women and gay people. In no nation led by a Muslim are women and gay people allowed equal legal rights. Islam teaches that women and gay people, and people who don’t follow Islam, are second-class citizens. Would a faithful Muslim follow his religion or the American Constitution?
Those are all fair and reasonable questions to ask.
And perhaps an individual Muslim candidate could answer them satisfactorily.
But it is not bigotry to wonder.
And it is not bigotry to believe that a Muslim is ill suited to be the American president.,P.
Ben Carson was right, and honest.
More candidates should be that way.
So tell us, if a Muslim ran for POTUS, which party would he belong to and what are the chances that a Muslim woman could ever run?
Who is to say that anybody who would vote to put a Muslim in office, here in the United States, is in any way acting out of free will?
Hearts and minds that are already captured and held in thrall are not fertile ground for critical thinking.
I would like to see a muslim run who was honest about being muslim. I think it would bring a lot of issues to the forefront for discussion.
Keith Ellison, your destiny is calling. I think after a muslim candidate runs, they might lose some of their victimhood status.
I read this on Facebook this morning:
Can a good Muslim be a good American?
This question was forwarded to a friend who worked in Saudi Arabia for 20 years.
The following is his reply:
Theologically - no. . . . Because his allegiance is to Allah, The moon god of Arabia ...
Religiously - no... Because no other religion is accepted by His Allah except Islam . (Quran, 2:256)(Koran)
Scripturally - no. . . . Because his allegiance is to the five Pillars of Islam and the Quran.
Geographically - no . Because his allegiance is to Mecca, to which he turns in prayer five times a day.
Socially - no. . . . Because his allegiance to Islam forbids him to make friends with Christians or Jews ...
Politically - no... Because he must submit to the mullahs (spiritual leaders), who teach annihilation of Israel and destruction of America, the great Satan.
Domestically - no. ... . Because he is instructed to marry four Women and beat and scourge his wife when she disobeys him (Quran 4:34 )
Intellectually - no. . . . Because he cannot accept the American
Constitution since it is based on Biblical principles and he believes the Bible to be corrupt.
Philosophically - no. . . .. Because Islam, Muhammad, and the Quran does not allow freedom of religion and expression. Democracy and Islam cannot co-exist. Every Muslim government is either dictatorial or autocratic.
Spiritually - no... Because when we declare ‘one nation under God,’ The Christian’s God is loving and kind, while Allah is NEVER referred to as Heavenly father, nor is he ever called love in the Quran’s 99 excellent names.
Therefore, after much study and deliberation.... Perhaps we should be very suspicious of ALL MUSLIMS in this country. - - - They obviously cannot be both ‘good’ Muslims and good Americans. Call it what you wish it’s still the truth. You had better believe it. The more who understand this, the better it will be for our country and our future.
The religious war is bigger than we know or understand. .....
Footnote: The Muslims have said they will destroy us from within. SO FREEDOM IS NOT FREE.
So you think it’s a necessity now with only 14 years since 9/11?
If you want to make the lefts heads explode just agree with them that a muslim should be president and you support the muslim position of forcing ugly women to wear a bag over their head.
...It is fair to ask if a Muslim candidate would follow the system of our nation or the system of his faith...
Keep in mind that the satanic Koran approves and recommends lying to unbelievers to further islamic “faith.”
The ROP is not a religion, it’s a political world-domination ideology cleverly disguised as a religion. Most Americans are incapable of understanding that statement, because in their limited minds they see religion as something that has no influence on normal life: it’s something you do on Sunday to make you feel good, and that’s it.
The ROP is politics, science, medicine, literature, art, religion, entertainment, morality, ethics and law. In short, it encompasses all aspects of life, and there is nothing outside of it.
I don't know who would have the power to do this, but I feel Islam should be declared a death cult and obliterated. Putin might be the only one who could do this and get away with it. It will never happen in this politically correct world, but one can always hope.
Maybe, while they are at it, they could take out that other sham religion, Scientology.
The root of this question by the media is an attempt by the democRATs to turn conservative Muslims in this country who would nominally vote GOP away from the GOP. There must be some internal RAT polling that indicates the GOP is vulnerable among these voters. Remember, the media and RATs work in concert to push the RAT agenda.
Now, here’s a question....
What say that the US finally ‘woke up’, recognized that islam is nothing more than a terrorist organization and NOT a religion, and decided to do something about it?
My wife and I were discussing this just yesterday. I am of the opinion that Congress should just declare that islam is NOT a religion and banish every last one of them. She contends that this isn’t possible and that islam is somehow protected by the First Amendment. She agrees that what they do is evil, but that we don’t have a recourse to get rid of it without destroying what America stands for.
If she’s right, what would we have to do about getting around the First Amendment? Is islam even covered by it?
The above and that SO many want stuff from the government (tax-payers) is the reason why western civilization is committing suicide, not to mention political correctness. People should NOT vote for those which they have an affinity (race, ethnicity, sex, theology, etc.). They should vote for those who best represents our founding principles which the World has copied time and again.
I have an affinity towards white people because I am white. So I should only vote for a white person? ABSOLUTELY NOT! I would vote for Ben Carson, Allen West, Booker T. Washington, Ted Cruz (hispanic) or any candidate that best represents our Constitution and the liberties it's based upon.
Yes, I know the aforementioned are not perfect on every issue (neither was Ronald Reagan), but they believe[d] in our forefather's general vision of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. They don't believe in a free ride from others and don't support the "grievance mentality" who are supposedly offended every day.
The above and that SO many want stuff from the government (tax-payers) is the reason why western civilization is committing suicide, not to mention political correctness. People should NOT vote for those which they have an affinity (race, ethnicity, sex, theology, etc.). They should vote for those who best represents our founding principles which the World has copied time and again.
I have an affinity towards white people because I am white. So I should only vote for a white person? ABSOLUTELY NOT! I would vote for Ben Carson, Allen West, Booker T. Washington, Ted Cruz (hispanic) or any candidate that best represents our Constitution and the liberties it's based upon.
Yes, I know the aforementioned are not perfect on every issue (neither was Ronald Reagan), but they believe[d] in our forefather's general vision of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. They don't believe in a free ride from others and don't support the "grievance mentality" who are supposedly offended every day.
Muslims must be obedient to Islam
Presidents must be obedient to the Constitution
A person cannot serve two masters
No, it's not covered by the 1st Amendment. It is a seditious political system that has already proved its anti-civil rights actions around the World and building in America. Of course, Congress can't ban a religion, but Islam is much more than just a religion. Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus pray to their gods and generally want peace. Islam teaches otherwise.
Does ROP mean Roast on Pyres?
Succinct.
The best example of why a Muslim shouldn’t be president is currently squatting in the WH.
This whole discussion is a mute point since we’ve had one for 6/12 years!!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.