The Deconstruction of Ben Carson

I’m peeved at Charles Krauthammer. First, George Will reportedly endorses euthanasia several days ago and now another normally lucid and articulate conservative stalwart has given comfort to the enemy (the liberal media). Ben Carson’s original comment that a Muslim should not be president is correct. So is Krauthammer’s quote from the Constitution that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." However, Carson went on to say that he wouldn't necessarily oppose Muslim congressional candidates; “It depends on who that Muslim is and what their policies are." But the Constitution and Carson are in opposition regarding the presidency, are they not? First off, I think it’s safe to say that when the founders incorporated the words “religious test” they weren't thinking of the globalization we have today. They weren't thinking of Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, or Animists but the various Christian denominations of the day (although there is little doubt many of them would have liked to have excluded Catholics).

Be that as it may, “no religious test” is in our founding documents and is there to stay. People living in a free society must be able to freely elect their representatives. Unfortunately, this even applies to candidates whose positions are antithetical to freedom. Right now we have a presidential candidate whose core convictions run counter to the rugged individualism and independence that has always been a hallmark of the United States. His name is Bernie Sanders and he’s an open socialist. Socialism is completely contrary to our founding principals, so should we ban Sanders from running for the presidency? And if a religious community seeks to impose its ideology on all Americans either by litigation or force, should members of that religion be banned from the presidency? As long as a person meets the minimal requirements by law (born in the U.S., age, etc) and is not a convicted felon, seemingly anyone can run for the presidency.

This brings us back to Ben Carson. Should a Muslim be able to run for the Presidency? According to our Constitution the answer appears to be yes. Should a Muslim ever be president? No. Never. Why? Because the Koran and the Constitution of the United States are incompatible and cannot be reconciled. For proof, look at all the dozens of Muslim countries worldwide and what kind of freedoms they enjoy. They don’t, especially the minorities who are often terribly persecuted. Why it this? Because Islam is not simply a religion and it is not simply a political system: it is a religio-political system. Their religion is their politics and their politics is their religion. The two are completely and irrevocably intertwined and it is about one thing: the advancement of Islam (whatever flavor is dominant in any given country). This doesn't mean that electing a token Muslim here and there to Congress is going to result in the initiation of Sharia Law in this country, but if enough of them were elected then, sooner or later, it probably would. Muslim congressman Keith Ellison of Minnesota may or may not do a good job of representing his district, but as a member of a significant religious minority he must attempt to address the needs of his constituents who are mostly of other faiths or no faith at all. This ‘frees’ him to act more in accord with his political values as a Democrat than that of his religious views as a Muslim. However, if Muslim influence in Congress were much greater he would have to make a decision to either act more in accord with following the tenants of his religious faith which favors his fellow believers to the exclusion of non-believers or he would choose the well-being all Americans to the exclusion of what is required of his faith. If the former case won out Ellison would be a good Muslim. If the latter case won Ellison would be a bad Muslim. When Carson says whether or not he would vote for a Muslim for Congress based on “who that Muslim is and what their policies are” Krauthammer commends him by saying it is “of course, the right answer, the American answer, the only possible answer to the same question about a candidate for the presidency.” But is it? After all, if a Muslim is true to his faith we know who that Muslim is and what his policies are: the advancement of Islam. You can remove the boy from the mosque, but you can’t remove the mosque from the boy.

Well, now that I've gone even further than soft-spoken Dr. Carson in saying that not only should we not have a Muslim president but also not Muslim congressmen, I guess I can rule out my own presidential run. I agree that mandating who can hold office and who can’t would get really dicey really quick…if that were the case then JFK may never have been elected president…but I am not coming from a legalistic mentality but a moral one. If we can’t properly reason our way to electing representatives who will preserve or enhance our liberty and instead vote for those who will take them away by cunning, force, or even good will (i.e. a socialistic nanny state) then we are doomed as a country. The founding fathers probably thought that good ‘ol common sense would, in the end, win out during election season. They certainly understood that our ability to remain free was contingent upon our morality as determined by our Christian heritage. Once the moral framework is undermined - and it’s constantly under attack today - then the ability of the people to make rational and informed decisions itself gets undermined. Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, et.al. probably never conceived that we would eventually have such a powerful, perverse, and invasive media that plays such an important roll in subverting the truth in order to achieve a political agenda, but that’s exactly what we have and because of it people who often express common-sense opinions are made to look like they are bigots.

Of course, being labeled a bigot is exactly what is happening to the mild-mannered neurosurgeon running for president. Regarding Carson, Krauthammer says, “Nor do I doubt that his statement about a Muslim president was sincerely felt. But it remains morally outrageous. And, in a general election, politically poisonous. It is certainly damaging to any party when one of its two front-runners denigrates, however thoughtlessly, the nation's entire Muslim American community.” It is true that Ben Carson’s statement is politically poisonous, but mostly due to ‘friendly fire’. Morally outrageous? I don’t think so. When the founders of this country stated that there would be no religious test I’m pretty darn sure they didn't have the religio-political institution of Islam in mind.  

Conservatives must learn to speak the truth regardless of who it offends; instead they often abandon their fellows to their political enemies and seek cover.