Finally he's talking some sense

Republican candidate for the Presidency Ben Carson appears to understand the deadly threat that Islamist ideology poses to the ideal of republican government:
Ben Carson said that he doesn't believe a Muslim belongs in the White House. 
'I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation,' Carson said during an interview on 'Meet the Press,' according to a transcript. 'I absolutely would not agree with that.' 
Host Chuck Todd was getting Carson's reaction to the controversy that has plagued Donald Trump's campaign in recent days over whether the billionaire should have corrected an attendee at a town hall forum who called President Obama a Muslim and 'not even an American.' 
The question posed to Carson was whether the faith of a presidential candidate should matter. 
Carson said it depended on what that faith is. 
'If it's inconsistent with the values and principles of America, then of course it should matter,' said the neurosurgeon-turned-politician. 'But if it fits within the realm of America and [is] consistent with the Constitution, no problem.' 
Todd then asked if Carson believed that Islam was consistent with the Constitution. 
'No, I don't,' Carson said. 'I do not.' 
While Carson said he didn't believe a person who practices Islam should be elected president, he was more open to Muslims serving in Congress. 
'Congress is a different story, but it depends on who that Muslim is and what their policies are, just as it depends on what anybody else says, you know,' Carson continued. 
'And, you know, if there's somebody who's of any faith, but they say things, and their life has been consistent with things that will elevate this nation and make it possible for everybody to succeed, and bring peace and harmony, then I'm with them,' Carson said.
I cannot admit to following the latest Presidential circus election particularly closely. I'm firmly of the opinion that this country is past the point of no return, that its collapse as a sovereign entity is assured within a generation, and that whoever the next President is, whether Demoblican or Republicrat, will use the Constitution as a useful substitute for 4-ply toilet paper.

That is not to say that I have been completely unimpressed by what at least a few of the candidates have been saying. Donald Trump, for instance, has been talking a very solid game on immigration. Whether he would actually follow through on it if elected is an entirely different story, of course, but he's saying the right things.

I've also been pretty impressed by his plans regarding gun control- which appears to be heavy on the guns and light on the control. Exactly how it should be. I still do not think he is any kind of principled conservative, and I seriously doubt that he will maintain his hardline positions if he gets the Republican nomination, but the great thing about his candidacy is that he is holding the Establishment's feet to the fire- and they really don't like it.

Dr. Ben Carson, on the other hand, is clearly a moderate in most regards. He apparently isn't a big fan of the Second Amendment when it comes to "semi-automatic weapons"- i.e. most guns with magazines and chambers. His opposition to law-abiding citizens owning such weapons would be all fine and dandy if we lived in an era of single-shot, muzzle- or breech-loading firearms, since such weapons wouldn't exist and he'd be talking nonsense. But they do exist, and in the hands of the vast majority of people who aren't complete morons or stark staring lunatics, they are perfectly safe.

He is, however, talking sense with respect to Islam and why a Muslim should NEVER be put in the Oval Office.

Let's be very clear about this. Islam is not, and has never been, any form of "religion of peace", no matter what its advocates claim- at least, not as you and I understand peace. It is not friendly to the concept of representative elections. It is not consistent with any of the founding values that created this country.

The President is supposed to uphold, preserve, and defend the American Constitution. That is, nominally at least, his entire job. He swears an oath on the Bible to do so on his first day on the job. (I realise that this is an ideal that almost every President, ever, has fallen short of. Including St. Reagan of the Right, for whom I have immense respect.) This means that his authority is derived from enumerated powers granted to him by those who elected him, and that his allegiance is owed to secular authority, according to a pact that he has made with the people with the Almighty as witness and judge.

Within the Islamic understanding of jurisprudence and politics, no secular authority is capable of judging a mullah, who is basically a law unto himself. The only authority to which said mullah owes allegiance is to an Arabic moon-god who Muslims call the One True God, Allah. Within Islam, secular authority is to be distrusted as unreliable and dangerous, while the will of Allah, as revealed through the "prophet" Mohammed, is the be-all and end-all of Man's existence.

This country was built upon principles embodied in the Declaration of Independence, the second paragraph of which starts with the following immortal words:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
(And people wonder, after reading those magnificent lines, why I regard the Declaration and the Constitution to be practically Holy Writ... I mean, it's really not that hard to figure out.)

Equality does not exist within Islam- actually, it doesn't exist anywhere below God's eyes, but Islam doesn't even bother with the sensible notion of equality before God, and specifically enshrines inequality, before their god, as one of its basic principles. There is a very clear hierarchical structure of rights within Islam, with free-born Islamic Arab men at the top. (Yes, the hierarchy IS that specific.)

The concept of "just powers from the consent of the governed" is non-existent within Islam. All "just powers" come from Allah within that ideology, so the head of government is never a secular authority but a religious one.

The idea that the people have the right to abolish government if it becomes too heavy-handed or dangerous to them is not only repellent to Islamic ideology, it is considered outright blasphemous:
Quran (18:26) - "Allah...  makes none to share in His Decision and His Rule" 
Quran (45:21) - "What! Do those who seek after evil ways think that We shall hold them equal with those who believe and do righteous deeds,- that equal will be their life and their death? Ill is the judgment that they make." 
Quran (5:44) - "Whosoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed is among the disbelievers" 
Quran (39:9) - "Are those who know equal to those who know not?" 
Quran (4:141) - "...And never will Allah grant to the unbelievers a way (to triumphs) over the believers." 
Quran (63:8) - "...might (power) belongeth to Allah and to His messenger and to the believers;" 
Quran (5:49) - "So judge between them by that which Allah hath revealed, and follow not their desires, but beware of them lest they seduce thee from some part of that which Allah hath revealed unto thee" 
Quran (12:40) - "...Allah hath sent down no authority: the command is for none but Allah..."
This is not "cherry-picking", this is the reality of the book that Muslims the world over hold to be sacred as the final revelation of eternal truth.

Remember that, as I stated above, when an American President is sworn in, he is supposed to recite his Oath of Office with his hand placed upon a Bible. I realise that if a Muslim were elected as President, he would probably insist on using a Koran for the same ceremony, which would openly contradict the traditions and founding ideals of this nation, but let's leave that be for the time being. If such a thing were ever to happen, and a Muslim were sworn in as President by reciting his oath while touching a Bible, then according to most Islamic traditions he would be guilty of apostasy.

The penalty for apostasy within Islam is clear: death.

No matter which way you look at it, no matter how you try to cut it, Islam is not and never will be compatible with the founding values of America. It is an alien ideology, utterly hostile to concepts like free will, the ancient Rights of Man, or the notion of an individual, personal relationship with a loving, benevolent, rational Creator who has sworn an unbreakable Covenant with Mankind.

That Covenant is the basis on which the entire Constitution is built. The Framers knew full well that men are Fallen, and built a Constitution informed by Scripture and the timeless insights that the Bible offers into human nature. Into that Constitution they built a framework of government designed specifically to hold Man's worst instincts at bay, while giving free citizens the opportunity to live their lives as they see fit.

Islamists would respond to this line of argument by stating that Islam provided the world with a Constitution- the world's first, they argue. They call it the Constitution of Medina.

There is a huge problem with this argument. That "constitution" was not built from the bottom up like the American one was. It was dictated from the top down by the "prophet".

And that is before we get to the other really big problem with the Islamist claim. The Constitution of Medina is NOT the world's first. If anyone can lay claim to that title, it is likely (though not certainly) the Spartans. The Great Rhetra, passed down by Lycurgus the Law-Giver through oral tradition, is the constitution by which Spartan society lived and died for nearly a thousand years. The most that can be said about the Constitution of Medina is that it was possibly the first written constitution.

It just isn't a very good one.

In every possible way, Islam is completely incompatible with secular democracy (a concept I also have little patience for, but that's another story), limited government with enumerated powers (a concept for which I have enormous respect), and the virtues of freedom and religious tolerance that are enshrined in the American Constitution.

So Dr. Carson, despite his many and manifest flaws as a candidate for the Presidency, is correct. Under no circumstances can, much less should, a Muslim EVER be given the powers and responsibilities of the Presidency.


Popular Posts