Ben Carson Does Not Believe a Muslim Should Be President

nbcnews.com/meet-the-press ^ | Ed Demaria

[RoosterRedux]

Republican presidential candidate Dr. Ben Carson said he would not support a Muslim as President of the United States.

Responding to a question on "Meet the Press," the retired neurosurgeon said, "I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation. I absolutely would not agree with that."

He also said that Islam, as a religion, is incompatible with the Constitution.

Carson, who is near the top of several early presidential polls, said a president's faith should matter depending on what that faith is. "If it's inconsistent with the values and principles of America, then of course it should matter," he clarified.

Carson's comments come days after another Republican presidential candidate, Donald Trump, did not distance himself from a questioner at a town hall meeting in New Hampshire who accused President Obama of being a foreign-born Muslim and called Muslims a "problem" in the United States. Carson said he has "no reason to doubt" that President Obama was born in the United States and is a Christian.

Many times in the past, Trump has questioned Obama's birthplace and American citizenship.

[LS]

Absolutely. But I would think no matter WHAT clause it is, one should have a problem with someone who flat out says, “Well, I’m not going to observe THAT part of the Constitution.” We apply the same standards to anti-gunners.

[LS]

That’s for you to take up with Congress, not the Constitution. So you are agreeing that the Constitution is clear?

[P-Marlowe]

Apparently the Founders had no problem with it.

So you would have no problem voting for a Koran thumping Sharia Law promoting Muslim with a Bhurka wearing first lady as president?

I don't think you understand that the Constitution merely prohibits the government from having a religious test for office, but it does not apply to individuals and does not apply to the voters.

Now would you or would you not DISCRIMINATE in the voting booth? Or would the candidate's religion have no bearing on your decision?

[P-Marlowe]

It’s not about you or me, it’s about a presidential candidate who says he apparently doesn’t accept the Constitution’s “no religious test” clause.

Geez, LS, I thought you were smarter than that. Carson didn't suggest that NOBODY should be allowed to run if they were a Muslim and he didn't say that Nobody should be prohibited from being president. He simply said he would not support a Muslim for president.

Can't a candidate say that he does not support a Muslim president without running afoul of your peculiar interpretation of the Religious test clause?

[LS]

Of course I would discriminate on a whole host of factors. Boy, you seem really dense. Maybe a bad night drinking.

There is a difference between me as a private citizen, and a potential PRESIDENT saying flat out he would violate the Constitution, or claiming the Constitution is wrong. Voters can do what they want. But Carson was not talking as a private citizen making a decision in the booth. He was speaking as a potential president indicating he had no knowledge of the Constitution's "no religious test" phrase.

But stick to the question: Are you saying the Constitution is flawed?

[LS]

No, really, he can't. As a private citizen, he can. But as a presidential candidate, he needs to understand the Constitution and it clearly says there should be "no religious test." My next question is, "Could a Scientologist be president? How about Jew? A Mormon??" (We had a lot of people here last election who thought a Mormon could not).

There is a reason this is prohibited and a reason it's left up to the voters. But for a candidate to say this indicates that he would NOT support and defend the Constitution of the US as is. I just think it's stupid of Carson to say this, and especially now sounds like he's pandering to the Christian Right. He should have said, "The Constitution is clear that there can be no religious test on anyone, and that it's up to the voters to decide who best represents them."

[LittleBillyInfidel]

Islam is not a religion, it is a theocracy. A true Muslim lives within the structures of that theocracy. This is why B-HO is not a Muslim and why a Muslim should never be president (or hold any office or even live here). Our way of life is wholly incompatible with true Islam and true Muslims. We, here, seem to be expert at identifying “Rinos” - but can’t get a grasp on “Islam 101”.

[P-Marlowe]

Of course I would discriminate on a whole host of factors. Boy, you seem really dense. Maybe a bad night drinking.

Ad hominem attack. 10 point deduction.

But Carson was not talking as a private citizen making a decision in the booth. He was speaking as a potential president indicating he had no knowledge of the Constitution's "no religious test" phrase.

Gee, I didn't know that you gave up your free speech rights when you declare yourself a candidate for office. When did this begin?

There is a difference between me as a private citizen, and a potential PRESIDENT saying flat out he would violate the Constitution, or claiming the Constitution is wrong. Voters can do what they want.

He never said he would violate the consitition. He merely said he does not think a Muslim should be elected to lead the United States of America.

Do you think America should have a Muslim President? Would you vote for one? Would you support one right now?

Since when did Ben Carson give up the right to express an opinion? Does the Religious Test clause apply to the opinions of private citizens who are merely candidates for elected office?

But stick to the question: Are you saying the Constitution is flawed?

No the consitution is just fine (except for the Amendments after the 15th). It is merely your arguments that are flawed.

[LS]

So where we disagree is in what a presidential candidate is allowed to say. You say he should express any view he wishes.

I say that as a candidate, he enters a different level in which ALL of his statements must be judged as if he were president, and therefore are considered differently. I tell my students all the time what I'd do when appointed Dictator of America. Plenty of it is unconstitutional. But if I were to run for office, I would certainly expect to never say those things because it would indicate an intent NOT to uphold my oath of office.

When a Dem says something like "When I'm elected I'll confiscate guns." That disqualifies him immediately, even though he's a private citizen, because he's already indicated he won't keep his oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution. I think Carson just did that. But, if you don't, fine.

[P-Marlowe]

No, really, he can't. As a private citizen, he can.

Is Ben Carson currently on the government payroll? Is he not a private citizen? Is he not vying for the votes of people like me who agree with him that it would be very unwise to have a Muslim President given that Islam is completely and totally at odds with Judeo Christian principles and the Liberties protected by the Constitution.

If there is a choice between a bible believing Christian and a Koran Believing Muslim for president, could you pull the lever for the Muslim?

Further, since Muslims believe in Sharia Law as being superior to the Constutition, wouldn't it be a legitimate issue for the voters to consider as to whether or not Islam would be compatible with their politicial views?

Would you prohibit the Christian Candidate from raising the issue of his opponent's religion?

Should candidates for President be prohibited from discussing the religious views of their opponents?

When did this "Don't talk about Religion" Clause get put into the Constitution?

[LS]

So, it’s ok for a candidate to campaign on his view that the Constitution, or a clause in it, is irrelevant, right?

[ForYourChildren]

“..the FOUNDERS did not intend for any religious test to be applied.”

There was a religious test in almost every state for public office, and it required that an oath be taken somewhat along the lines of believing in Jesus Christ and the Old and New Testament as divine revelation. Each state had a state sponsored Christian denomination religion.

The “no religious test” at the Federal level was for denominations; “no denomination religious test.” The first amendment was to make sure that the federal government wouldn’t usurp any specific state sponsored Christian denomination and make a national sponsored Christian denomination. The founders didn’t want Christian religious wars over denominations similar to what wreaked havoc on Europe and what was the reason for migration to the New World.

The no federal religious test was to make sure that no specific Christian denomination would be supported, and all Christian denominations would be equally treated. But it was always Christian. At that time, nothing was even considered another religion. There was only the Christian religion with many denominations.

[P-Marlowe]

So where we disagree is in what a presidential candidate is allowed to say. You say he should express any view he wishes.

You bet. I wan't them to talk about every one of their views.

Apparently you think the "religious test" clause prohibits candidates from even bringing up the subject of religion.

I think you need to go back and read it again.

Further, even if the founders intended to prohibit the discussion of the religion of their opponents, the First Amendment is superior to the body of the Constitution. Freedom of Speech trumps anything in the body of the Constitution.

I say that as a candidate, he enters a different level in which ALL of his statements must be judged as if he were president, and therefore are considered differently.

So you would prefer that Candidates keep their mouths shut about religion when they run for office. I guess that means that they can't even say they are Christians themselves. This issue should be off the table in your constitutional view, right?

When a Dem says something like "When I'm elected I'll confiscate guns." That disqualifies him immediately

So rather than express what he intends to do as president, he would just keep that little secret to himself?

I really don't think you understand the "religious test" clause at all. Nor do you understand the First Amendment.

The people elect "REPRESENTATIVES". I want someone who represents me both politically and religiously.

FWIW I certainly would not vote for a Fundamentalist Mormon or a Scientologist for any office.

In your view that makes me either some kind of bigot or someone who does not believe in the Constitution.

[jwalsh07]

The Constitution does not restrain private citizens from making judgements based on race, religion or sex.

[LS]

Unfortunately, they didn't say Christian or denominations. You're free to change the Constitution, but I doubt you'll get the amendment passed.

So you would exclude a Jew?

A Scientologist?

Who else? A Mormon? A Seventh-Day Adventist . . . oh, wait. According to some denominations, they aren't Christians.

[LS]

Nor did I say it did. Come on people, you can read. THAT'S NOT THE ISSUE.

The issue is that you have a CANDIDATE who is acting as a candidate for president/chief executive officer who will take an oath saying he will "support and defend the Constitution" AS IS, saying that in fact he would NOT support and defend the "no religious test" clause. A private citizen is free to say what he wants. And Carson also is "free" to say this---but it should raise a red flag because if he's already willing to violate this clause, what other clauses will he ignore?

[jwalsh07]

Good on Ben. One look at Pews polling of American Muslims makes this a wise decision since 1 in 4 said they support Al Qaeda and suicide bombers. That’s right, 1 in 4 owned up to it which means probably another 25% feel the same way but would not say so to a pollster.

[LS]

So a guy says “I’ll ban guns” and you say “See, he’s going to violate the Constitution.” Carson says, “I won’t observe the ‘no religious test’ clause,” and you say, “But he’s talking as a private citizen about violating the Constitution. HUGE difference. HUGE. /s

[jwalsh07]

Raises no red flags at all. Now supporting Kelo raises all sorts of flags.

[noinfringers2]

I tend to believe that Carson is somewhat confused as to the real Obama who intentionally took on a Muslim name as part of his ie. Obama’s identification. Perhaps Carson’s words were meant to be a bridge so to speak. In any case Carson cannot have it both ways as to whether or not Obama is a Muslim. Perhaps Carson needs to do a bit more reading about the Obama and Dunham families going back to the days mama Stanley Ann spent in Indonesia.