 |
| Gimme that old time religion? |
Thinking they've found a prime "Gotcha!" to exploit, people who ignore the Constitution whenever they find it an impediment are dragging out the First Amendment Establishment Clause, and the Article VI prohibition on religious tests. The thing is, Carson never said there oughtta be a law -- he merely stated what he made clear was his personal viewpoint, and last I checked, we're still allowed to have those, even if some might take offense and issue fatwahs.
Here's the thing. Were a Muslim to be elected president (and yes, I know some will say one already has been), if he did not hold Shariah "law" above the secular as the "supreme Law of the Land," prevailing worldwide Islamic thought would brand him an apostate. And this is the person who would appoint an Attorney General, Supreme Court Justices, and... Again, there can be no law against those positions being filled by the "faithful," so whether or not you're OK with that is up to you. But as with all the politically correct uproar following Carson's response, the devil is in the details, because the implication is that anyone not OK must be a xenophobe, an extremist, a bigot...
Since we're talking about religions, do you think there'd be such an uproar if Carson had opined he wouldn't feel comfortable with a chicken-sacrificing Santeria practitioner in the White House?
Hell, let's cut to the chase. Let's talk about an ancient and established religion, one that is recognized by the government, one with practitioners throughout the land, and one that involves itself in vigorous legal and outreach actions centered around all kinds of Constitutional issues, including, as a plus for those who value "progressive" causes, women's reproductive rights and same sex marriages.
I'm talking, of course, about Satanism.
I'm also talking about moral and logical consistency, which means if the "outraged" rival candidates and pundits are going to exhibit any, they have to agree that they could support a Satanist for president, and condemn as intolerant anyone who would venture that they are disqualified by "virtue" of their religion.
If what everyone in the field is professing truly reveals their unwavering principle that religion doesn't matter, they should have no problem publicly agreeing with consistent substitutions. Whether such a candidate would have a chance is not the point. And would the establishment candidates decry that as unacceptable intolerance?
Let's test some convictions, shall we? How would these alterations to on-the-record statements of conviction fly with the respective campaigns?
Marco Rubio: "I personally do not believe that
Jeb Bush: "The former Florida governor believes
Lindsey Graham: “[Carson] is not ready to be Commander-in-Chief. America is an idea, not owned by a particular religion ... [he]needs to apologize to American
Ted Cruz: In trying to navigate a minefield, Sen. Cruz got it right that the Constitution prohibits religious tests as a matter of law, which, as we've already noted, is irrelevant to what Carson actually said. Cruz should now weigh in on if he'd have issued a different statement had Carson said he "would not advocate that we put a Satanist in charge of this nation."
John Kasich: "Although Kasich did not say he would have a problem with a
Bobby Jindal:“If you can find me a
Rand Paul: "...did not indicate he would have any objections to a
Donald Trump: "Would I be comfortable?" (Well, would you be?)
Mike Huckabee: "I don’t think we ought to just disqualify from somebody because of his or her Satanist faith."
George Pataki: "You know, they said the same thing back in the past, you couldn’t have a Catholic president, you couldn’t have a Jewish president, you couldn’t have an African American or a women president and now Dr Carson is saying you can’t have a
Carly Fiorina: "When host Jimmy Fallon asked Fiorina if she was affirming that she would be fine with a
Bernie Sanders: "I am very disappointed that Dr Carson would suggest that a
Hillary Clinton: "Hail Lord Sata... uh, not really, but she did tweet:
Martin O'Malley: “American people are better than latest Trump/Carson/GOP anti-
Lincoln Chaffee: “Regarding Dr Carson’s statement that a
Lest anyone think this comparison for the sake of establishing consistency is insulting to Muslims or Satanists, and God forbid I'd ever want to do that, I'd presume to think the latter would agree that the candidates ought to extend to them comparable recognition to their beliefs. As for the Islamic community, I'll offer them the most respectful acknowledgement I can: Equal treatment.
So how about it, fellas? Can I put you on record as agreeing with and embracing this change?
And maybe getting some of your high ranking religious leaders to endorse it...?
8 comments:
sure, I'd like to see an avowed Satanist run for president. he'd be the first *honest* one for sure. hasn't just about every president in recent decades participated in the sketchy rituals at Bohemian Grove?
David, you have absolutely nailed it! We've all got to have standards, and Ben Carson has his. He's just honest enough to say what his standards are. (And I agree with him on this one.)
The real problem, of course, is in granting legitimacy to Islam, as though it were a religion, like any other.
It is not.
It is, like it or not, a complete socio-political philosophy that is incompatible with the laws of our nation.
There is no other "religion" that requires global domination at the point of the sword.
David,
Are you saying that a Muslim could become POTUS? As noted above, the principals are totally inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution. There may not be a required religious test, but as John Adams stated, "Our Constitution was made for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." Was he referring to only those believers in the Christian religion?
HinMO
If there's a Constitutional impediment to any of that which can lawfully override the Establishment Clause, it has not been settled by any court that I'm aware of. Ultimately, it will either be decided by a moral and religious people or by the other kind.
They worship Molech. So we've already had at least two of those, the Bushes.
Too bad Carson backpedaled and wussed out on his original statement. He actually went up in the polls after making it. Would've gone up further if he had learned something from President Trump and doubled down.
"second of all, who seriously gives a damn what Lincoln Chaffee has to say about anything?"
True. But I'm sure the Log Cabin Club is all ears, and Wayne LaPierre's good buddy David Brock.
Post a Comment