No religious test applies here, not even remotely. The religious test would be if a candidate were prevented from running or serving if elected. The voter is free to apply any and all criteria to the process of determining whom to vote for.
We certainly should follow the example of all the Islamic countries that have set up democratic constitutional republics that are even better than our own, all of which would be more than willing to elect a president who happened to be Christian or belong to any other religious faith other than Islam. After all, most of the freedoms and minority protections that we tried to enshrine in our constitution were actually rooted in Sharia law, so I can certainly see no reason why a devout member of a religion like Islam - who has a lifelong devotion to democratic principles like free speech and protecting the rights of women, minorities, and individuals in general - should have any problem taking an oath of office in our country to “protect and defend” a constitution that does the same.
Besides, what is the right afraid of if we had a Muslim president?
What? Are they worried that:
* A radical Islamic government, like Iran, might someday get a nuclear weapon?
* Our ally, Israel, would be antagonized?
* The president might say things like “the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam” or “the sweetest sound I know is the Muslim call to prayer”.
* Radical Islamists, knowing the president’s ideology and thus unafraid of U.S. reprisals, would begin a genocide against Christians in the Middle East?
* Millions of Christian, non-Islamic and secular Middle-East residents would begin a mass migration to Europe and other areas, including our own, as they fled persecution from the emboldened, more powerful, and more numerous radical elements in their own country.
Geez - get real folks, nothing like that would happen if we had a Muslim president.
And yes, this post, much like my underwear, is tagless, and also requires some attribution (thanks RL) for the “what if” comments
Folks can call me whatever names they wish, but...
Electing a muslim for POTUS would be samey same as electing a Nazi for POTUS during WW2... or ever.
Of course, commiescum of whatever idiot brand they call themselves is just as dumbass and evil, but we’ve been doing that lately.
OLD Islamic Law?
There is no such thing as NEW Islamic Law. It is all OLD.
The words of Mohammed cannot be deleted or revised. Any public attempt to do so will be met with the same treatment they gave to Salmon Rushdie.
Anyone who claims to be a Muslim therefore must believe in OLD Islamic Law.
There is no conflict with our constitution or traditions when you accept the undeniable fact that Islam is an inhuman political system disguised and costumed as a religion and dedicated to our subjugation, death and destruction.
We all know that every US government elected official, bureaucrat, employee, and service member takes an oath of office.
The president vows to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
Almost everyone else (except the president and judges) takes an oath to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.”
(why the exception for the president and judges?)
Islam is certainly a foreign enemy dedicated to the overthrow of the US Constitution and to the subjugation of the American people.
So why would any American patriot want an Islamist as president and commander of the US military?
CAIR and the Muslim Brotherhood mean to overthrow our tattered Republic form of government and replace it with a caliphate which is what Islam is A Form of Government.
There is NO ISSUE with what Dr. Carson said.
I totally agree with him .. you cannot serve two masters .. Islam believes they are the LAW .. while our Constitution says .. IT is the law.
If the media thinks they will escape Sharia Law if a Muslim is president are in LA-LA land (which is not a surprise).