 |
| Gimme that old time religion? |
Opportunistic political panderers from both parties, along with special interests are having a field day attacking Ben Carson for saying he does not believe Islam is consistent with the Constitution, and that he "would not advocate that we
put a Muslim in charge of this nation. I absolutely would not agree with that.”
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
your religious denomination being a Satanist should disqualify you from serving in office."
Jeb Bush: "The former Florida governor believes
an individual’s faith being a Satanist is irrelevant to seeking the White House or any public office..."
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
Muslims Satanists."
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
Muslim Satanist president, he did not directly address the issue and answered the question more broadly." (Kasich being a weasel-wording equivocator...? Say it ain't so!)
Bobby Jindal:“If you can find me a
Muslim Satanist candidate who is a Republican, who will fight hard to protect religious liberty, who will respect the Judeo-Christian heritage of America ... I will be happy to consider voting for him or her.”
Rand Paul: "...did not indicate he would have any objections to a
Muslim Satanist president in an interview on CBS Sunday."
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
Muslim Satanist president and I think it is just wrong.”
Carly Fiorina: "When host Jimmy Fallon asked Fiorina if she was affirming that she would be fine with a
Muslim Satanist president, she confirmed, 'Yes, I would be fine with that.'”
Bernie Sanders: "I am very disappointed that Dr Carson would suggest that a
Muslim Satanist should not become president of the United States."
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-
Muslim Satanic bigotry. Hate is not an American value. #diversityisourgreateststrength. It’s sad to see the party of Lincoln being led by candidates who choose bigotry against
Muslim Satanic-Americans over 'united we stand.’”
Lincoln Chaffee: “Regarding Dr Carson’s statement that a
Muslim Satanist shouldn’t be president, Article II Section 1 of our Constitution clearly states the qualifications for the presidency. Dr Carson should discontinue his campaign based on making such an uninformed and discriminatory statement that a
Muslim Satanist shouldn’t be able to ask American voters to have the freedom to make that decision.” (First of all, Carson never said that, and second of all, who seriously gives a damn what Lincoln Chaffee has to say about anything?)
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...?
