A few people have been arguing that Trump’s tolerance of anti-Muslim bigotry will kill his campaign at last; I doubt it. If so, though, shouldn’t Ben Carson be washed up?
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.
The first amendment to the US Constitution:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
It’s also in article VI of the body of the Constitution:
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
I guess Carson hasn’t read it, if he thinks he can claim that someone holding a particular religion can be prohibited from holding office.
Although it is an interesting idea — I think Christianity, as a religion, is incompatible with the Constitution. Can we tell all the presidential candidates to go home now?
Is this Carshit’s way of attacking his fellow cand who say, “if it’s in the constitution, it’s wrong and I won;t follow it!!! Gawd is the higher LAW” [lookin at Hucky]
*ahem*
I agree, , but only where “it’s” refers to the POTUS’s style of thinking. To categorize religions thusly is disagreeable.
So do Republicans consider the founding fathers hallowed or not?
They need to make up their minds. Talk about flip-flopping.
I think it a near certainty he has read it. Whether he understood it is another question…
Isn’t it standard Republican fare to all but deify the constitution as some abstract ideal of Americana while flagrantly ignoring its actual provisions, especially where those provisions offer protection to social groups they despise?
Ah, yes, the American values of xenophobia, bigotry, and hatred, displayed so proudly now by the Rethugs. Death to the need for political dog whistles.
Since *Carson’s* religion is incompatible with the Constitution, that should clear thing up nicely.
To be fair, it is not clear if he is saying people shouldn’t vote for someone whose religion is incompatible with the Constitution, or if it should be disallowed somehow. I have no problems at all with the former.
Oh, I think he perfectly understood the text’s meaning.
The “problem” is that there’s still stuff that right-wing hacks can’t candidly say, like:
“The constitution should be abolished and replaced by a set of arbitrary rules meant to ensure the eternal hegemony of patrician bloodlines over the plebs.
In a perfect world I would be a Priest-King and everyone else would be my servants and occasional fucktoys.
Dissenters should be tortured to death, their agony filmed and put online so everyone know that you don’t fuck with me without suffering dire consequences.
King Gilgamesh is my hero and I want to be just like him when I grow up.”
So instead they try to portray their egomaniacal ambitions as principled positions.
Carson appears to be getting advice from Sam Harris?
I think Bernie Sanders could stay … he isn’t Christian (Wikipedia article says he’s Jewish).
Donald Trump doesn’t think he’ll go down because he has friends who are Muslims.
The excerpt is from a CNN interview on the “State of the Union” show hosted by Jake Tapper.
“I have friends who are Muslims.” [head meet desk]
Next, Carson will say he has friends who are Muslims.
So WhiteAmericans should be put in prison? They have some radicals doing things. Boone, McVeigh, etc.. So Trump’s “logic” says that all whiteAmericans must be thrown in jail immediately.
pfft, clearly he puts no thought into it before he speaks, letting random words tumble out..
Ah, but you see, Christianity is not a religion, but a personal relationship with God, or so I’ve been told repeatedly. Therefore, the prohibition against a state religion does not count, and only means you cannot tell people which specific type of fundamentalist Southern Baptist they must become. See? Equal religious freedom for all.
And we should probably be honest: Tump isn’t going down. His racism, sexism and general bigotry are endearing him to the core Republican voter, and only alienating the establishment types who control funding. Since he doesn’t really need funding from them, he continues to do quite well. Lee Atwater was wrong: people were not happy with the abstractions, but would rather have their candidate say the slurs openly and directly. Therefore, Trump is their man.
PZ:
Nope. We have to have someone to save us from the scourge of Sharia Law and the militant gays.
I think just about every religion claims at one time or the other that it isn’t really a religion in the sense that all other religions are. Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus all have spokesmen that make this claim.
But religion isn’t incompatible with the U.S. constitution so far as I can see. So long as one can swear truly an oath to uphold the constitution then one can be president (if elected). But Christianity also prohibits giving “false witness” too, if I recall from my younger days when I was part of that sect.
How can Carson swear an oath to uphold the constitution when he has advocated precisely violating that constitution? He would certainly be bearing false witness and therefor in violation of his own alleged creed.
But logical contradictions don’t seem to bother these people.
Because GOD.
More on the who-is-a-Muslim question:
In addition to the interview with Jake Tapper (comment 9), Trump did an interview with Chuck Todd today:
When questioned by Chuck Todd, Trump also blew the dog whistle again that Obama is a Muslim, but he did it in his a slightly different sneaky way:
The excerpt above is cross-posted from Moments of Political Madness Thread
Ben Carson saying of President Obama’s statement that he is a Christian, “I believe that he is. I have no reason to doubt what he says,” is another weasel-worded response. It leaves room for those that already think Obama is a liar to nod their heads and say, “That’s what Obama says, but we know the truth.”
The far rightwing of the Republican Party is equating “Muslim” with “evil” and/or with “un-American.”
Christianity calls for a theocracy ruled by royalty directlly in opposition to the Constitution. Honest Christians should stay out of politics – not that that will stop Carson, Huckaberry or any others.
I would vote for Muslim Andre Carson long before I would vote for Ben Carson.
I think this Carson would make a better candidate.
http://images.zap2it.com/assets/p184953_b_h3_aa/queer-eye.jpg
It’s not entirely clear from those quotes whether they refer to a personal opinion or a legal position. There is a difference between legally prohibiting a Muslim from taking office, and simply not voting for one.
I appreciate that most Republicans tend to assume their opinions should have the force of law, but there’s an important distinction there.
Hmmm, not that different from what Sam Harris claimed:
“Is it possible to believe what you must believe to be a good Muslim, to have military and economic power, and not to pose an unconscionable threat to the civil societies of others? I believe that the answer to this question is no” (End of Faith, 152).
Ian King, #19
The two sentences he said by themselves without any context don’t imply it, but an anti-Muslim Republican candidate saying those sentences do.
I think there’s little doubt that if there was a referendum on the legality of Muslims being allowed to become president, Carson would vote no.
Methinks Sam and Carson stereotype too much. Given the Republicans bad habit of wanting to bomb every country they disagree with, I would be asking them the same question.
Islam is misogynistic and homophobic, so yes, as a voter, I would be reluctant to vote for a Muslim for president, unless he or she persuaded me that his or her religion would not form the basis for policymaking. There is no right to be president, and as a voter that’s more of a risk than I would be willing to take. There are plenty of Christians I won’t vote for either, for the same reason.
And before anyone pipes up about how awful Christianity is on women’s and gay issues, first, that’s changing the subject. We are talking about Islam, not Christianity. Second, as awful as Christianity is, how does that make Islam any less awful? And third, I see Christianity at least starting to moderate on women’s and gay issues; I don’t see Islam doing so.
eeyore, #23
Actually, you’re changing the subject. Carson is saying no to “a Muslim” as president. He means no Muslim at all. You’re saying something completely different.
That’s not saying the same thing as “I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation. I absolutely would not agree with that.”
Second, we have two Muslims in Congress already, neither of whom have done anything even close to imposing their religious views on the country as our Christian theocrats have and continually vow to do.
Some responses from the other Republican loons:
Way to take a stance, asshat.
Cruz wins this one. Got to score extra patriot points by defending the constitution there too.
Jindal’s response is the worst.
Saad, yes, we do have two Muslims in Congress who have thus far not tried to turn America into a Muslim theocracy, but that may be because there are only two of them. If the Christian/Muslim ratio were to flip so that there were 500 Muslims and 2 Christians (or whatever the actual numbers would be) in Congress, then you probably would see attempts to Islamicize American politics.
The thing is, I trust no religion with power. I don’t put Muslims in a separate category from Christians or Jews or Hindus; I think that religion has consistently demonstrated that when it gets power, it abuses power, sometimes pretty horribly. And those who say that Islam is no threat to the United States are correct so long as Islam doesn’t achieve political power here. If and when it does, the results will not be happy, so it is in the best interests of Americans to keep Islam from gaining political power here. It’s not benign; it’s an evil, evil world view, and we ignore that at our peril.
From what I can see, it is even difficult for “christian” Republican candidates to be approved by the rightwing base, let alone by their twisted version of whatever the Founding Fathers said.
Ben Carson was dropped from a pastor’s conference for having christian beliefs that deviated too much from those of the pastors.
Talking Points Memo link
And we all know what happened to Mitt Romney when he tried to fit mormonism into christianity.
Lots of right-wingers have attacked or questioned President Obama’s christianity, but Mike Huckabee went a step further:
So Obama is now “anti-Christian”?
Erick Erickson, Faux News star, said this today: “And oh, by the way, Barack Obama talked about his Muslim faith. Not that he’s a muslim, mind you. The man is a secularist.”
Traditional Islam originated in and has most often been embedded in a patriarchal culture that has historically been and is now misogynistic and homophobic (along with the cultures of practically all other pre-modern societies if we’re talking historically). But it’s no more true to say that Muslim piety and practice is ineluctably misogynistic and homophobic than that the Christian faith as practiced and believed by at least some of its adherents is. Are Muslims who adopt modern, secular values and lifestyles hypocrites? Are they not real Muslims? If you say the Quran, I say the letters of Paul, what’s the difference?
I see major blocs within Christianity in the midst of a massive reactionary backlash against precisely such moderation. Do you not see the problem here, and why the distinction you want to make is Islamophobic? You are allowing Christianity nuance and diversity but you insist on understanding “Islam” as a monolithic structure which must either totally exclude or universally embrace its non-homophobic and non-misogynist elements.
CJO, the difference is the sheer number of Muslims who actually put the nasty parts of the Quran into practice, versus the relatively small number of Christians who do. Yes, you can find pockets of Christians here and there who actually think homosexuals should be killed, that selling children into indentured servitude to pay off family debt is acceptable, and that women should learn in silence from their husbands. But within Christianity, those ideas are the lunatic fringe. Westboro Baptist makes news precisely because they are so outlandish by mainstream Christian standards; their Muslim equivalents in Saudi Arabia would be par for the course. And I see that backlash you mention as mostly the last, dying gasp of a world view that is on its way out.
That’s not true of Islam. The really nasty parts of the Quran are still mainstream in much of the Muslim world. Go to the Middle East — where I lived for three years — and start asking around; virtually everyone you meet will tell you that of course homosexuals should be thrown from the roofs of buildings and husbands should beat their wives into submission.
No, Islam is not a monolith, any more than Christianity is. There are such things as moderate Muslims. They just don’t seem to have much influence within Islam because they are such a minority.
Culturally, Islam is probably about where Christianity was about 400 years ago. I suppose we can wait for it to have a Renaissance, like Christianity did, though that may take a very long time. Or, we can simply point out what a vicious, vicious world view it has and seek to de-fang it. So here’s the question: If you could go back in time to pre-Renaissance Christianity, when it was still burning witches and castrating homosexuals and otherwise putting St. Paul’s views into practice, what would your strategy have been then? You think the better thing would have been to wait around for it to modernize, or seek to chop it off at the knees? I favor the latter strategy; for both of them.
Citation needed.
What you say sounds like you are Islamophobic. Until you have the same response to a person without knowing their religion, you do have a problem with their religion.
The Muslims I know aren’t Jihadists. They are regular people, even the devout.
I still fear local Xian thugs much more than any Muslim terrorist, as they are next door. Tim McVeigh, etc.
Oh, I would not say that most Muslims are terrorists. I would say that Islam is arguably the most homophobic and misogynistic institution on earth, and there’s no way that any other institution even partially as homophobic and misogynistic would get the kind of free pass from the left that Islam does. Stop defending the indefensible, Nerd; Islam is indefensible. Yes, Christianity is too, but so what? Do the sins of Christianity somehow make Islam less homophobic and misogynistic than it is? Is there some atrocity olympics in which Timothy McVeigh compensates for Muslims tossing gay people off buildings, or practicing female genital mutilation, or sending suicide bombers into each other’s mosques?
Apply the same standard to Islam that you would apply to any other institution that encourages homophobia and misogyny. That’s all I ask.
eeyore
American College Football?
I do. And I disagree with you. Lose your Islamophobia. It isn’t welcome here. We know better.
eeyore:
You don’t even bother to ask yourself about the societies these religions inhabit. Christianity has lost most of its teeth in Europe and the Americas, in the past 200 or 300 years. That does not mean that dog doesn’t still feel like biting you. It just can’t do so nearly as successfully as it used to. It sure as shit still fucking tries. Christianity, taken as a whole, has not gotten appreciably better since the Enlightenment. In fact, predominantly-Christian states have gradually become more secular. But they are also vastly more powerful than any Islamic state — so which actually causes more harm? How exactly do you think you can tell?
Indeed, let’s apply the same standards to Islam. What exactly do you believe has happened (if you know a single fucking about it), in the aftermath of Christian Europe colonizing, destroying and/or enslaving the rest of the fucking planet? Do you think that’s been good for those societies? Do you think it gave them good reasons to welcome with open arms, a modern (and still European-dominated) industrial and capitalist life, with good things like science, democracy, and all the rest? How much trouble do you think it was for us to settle on the systems we’re using now, which we came up with very gradually on the basis of our own preexisting traditions and institutions? Do you think there was a little bit of conflict? Why would you expect that process to be so much easier and faster for people who aren’t even in that sort of position?
What makes you attribute this to Islam, instead of facts about the various societies (which are numerous and not at all alike) where Islam happens to be the majority religion? It isn’t even one “institution,” just like Christianity isn’t, so could you at least get your facts straight about that? Which flavor of Islam is “the most homophobic and misogynistic institution on Earth”? Do you even know a single fucking thing about it or any of the others? Do you know anything about people who are Muslims? Have you ever spoken with one about anything interesting? Do you know about their governments, their history, our history … or anything at all besides this bigoted fucking bullshit?
I mean for fuck’s sake, just for a tiny hint of the homophobia in Christian societies, I was thinking about Turing again the other day…. The guy was a fucking genius, as well as a war hero against the fucking Nazis by my reckoning, who wasn’t hurting anybody, but really take a hard look at what Christianity did. Imagine what might happen if you put Christianity in some place that isn’t quite as comfortable and privileged as fucking Britain. Put it in the middle of nowhere with no resources, no education and no genuine chances, and let it go Lord of the Flies on everybody there if it wants to. How fucking terrifying would it be then, not just in terms of homophobia and misogyny but on all accounts? How the fuck do you know? Do you actually know a fucking thing about what you’re saying?
Nerd, do you really think that calling someone an Islamophobe is worthy of any other response than a big raspberry? I’m just as much an Islamophobe as you and others here are Christianphobes for saying nasty things about Christianity. Suppose a Christian or Christian apologist showed up here and called you a Christianphobe; what would your reaction be? Probably the same as my reaction when you call me an Islamophobe.
Consciousness, I have already agreed that Christianity is bad news too, but as you point out, it has also largely been de-fanged in most of the West, so it’s not the threat that Islam is. If it ever got political power in the West, I have no doubt a lot of the nasty stuff would come back, which is why I also oppose political power for Christianity. But you know what? We’re not talking about Christianity; we’re talking about Islam. It’s as if we were having a conversation about misogyny in college fraternities and somebody piped up, “Well, it’s not their fault so much as that of the larger society.” OK, granted, the larger society contributes to the problem, but why exactly are you so keen on making sure that homophobic and misogynistic organizations are treated fairly? Why is it so important to you that misogynistic and homophobic institutions not be called out on it?
And that’s what makes absolutely no sense to me. I never said there weren’t other factors at work too, but can you really claim that Islam isn’t misogynistic and homophobic? Are you telling me that it’s a paragon of egalitarianism? Because there’s no way that any other institution that treats women and gays as badly as Islam does would receive the concern for fairness from the left that Islam does. Why the concern that an organization that treats women and gays as badly as Islam does not be maligned, rather than screaming about its gay and female victims?
eeyore, #26
I also trust no religion with power, including Islam.
All else being equal, I’ll vote for an atheist over a Muslim every single time. All else being equal is the key here. That said, I’ll take a Muslim like Keith Ellison or Ahmed Aboutaleb (mayor of Rotterdam) for president over an atheist like Pat Condell or Richard Dawkins any day.
So the lesson we learn from this is that mere religious affiliation isn’t what counts at all. Thus statements like Carson’s “I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation. I absolutely would not agree with that.” are revealed to be bigotry and not genuine concern for religion encroaching on government. And we haven’t even touched upon how hypocritical it is for Carson to say that and ask any Muslim running for office to renounce Sharia law, while he himself openly promotes Christian law as his platform.
This is the other point I must take issue with.
Christianity in America did not become moderate on its own. It was met with resistance from secular law. It had no choice but to become moderate. Speaking out openly against interracial marriage became too inconvenient and impractical in the face of an improving society. That’s what made it moderate. The progress in civil rights was not made because of Christianity reforming (the Christian side is the anti-civil rights in each case). It was made because Christianity was kept at bay by tremendous efforts from activists and an almost secular government. You would be kidding yourself if you think there isn’t an ever-present threat of hundreds of mainstream Christian politicians to inject Christianity into American law. They even say so openly. They campaign on these platforms and they regularly win.
As things stand right now, and for the foreseeable future, the religion that is a threat to American government is Christianity, not Islam. This is why when we see people focusing on Islam as the great threat to American democracy, it’s an instant red flag for ignorance and bigotry.
Saad, I absolutely agree with you that Christianity did not moderate on its own; it was forced to. Left to its own, it would probably revert back. I have the same opinion of Christianity that I have of Islam.
That said, I don’t think Islam is going to moderate on its own either. It’s going to have to be dragged, kicking and screaming, into the modern age. Which is why I think Nerd and Consciousness are particularly unhelpful; their water-carrying for misogynists and homophobes not only doesn’t hasten the moderating process, it actually slows it down.
eeyore:
No, the nasty stuff is still there in the religion itself. It’s not like Jesus has left us and will come back someday. Instead, it doesn’t have the have same effects as Islam because of non-religious factors. You can’t coherently neglect those sorts of things in your analysis.
You have to be able to think in term factors other than religion, because in fact the world is not a simple or one-dimensional place. That’s my point, and that point applies to Islam just as well as it does to Christianity or any other religion. Illustrating these things with the example of Christianity does not mean I’m changing the subject. That’s meant to identify the scope of the problem, and where external non-religious things creep in and confuse people like you who aren’t thinking about this carefully.
I obviously want them to be called out on it. It makes no sense to say we should be treating anyone unfairly. You’re not treating anyone else fairly, when some are treated unfairly. You’re using different standards for different people, which is obviously not what “fair” means. This is why torturing a criminal is not “fair” — you actually give them a good and fair trial, respecting who and what they are at all times no matter what. If instead you wanted to tell me that fairness is not valuable at all, which is why it’s okay that these people specifically are treated unfairly (and presumably why everyone else can be treated that way too), then you’ll need to defend that point somehow.
I can certainly make fair criticisms of Islam, and for that reason no one can say I’m being unfair toward them, so they would be left dealing with my actual criticisms, which are based on actual facts instead of whatever tendentious assertions I feel like making. That seems rational to me, so what the fuck’s your problem now?
I didn’t say it isn’t, and I don’t need to say it isn’t in order to dispute your claims. You’re saying it’s the worst thing on the planet, perhaps the worst thing ever. For one thing, that requires comparison to other things, like religions such as Christianity. But you have a problem somehow as soon as that subject even appears tangentially, in the course of simply describing the setting in which Islam exists accurately, which makes your argument incoherent. But it also doesn’t mean we have to treat them unfairly. That is also ludicrous garbage that shouldn’t even merit a response.
You seem to think I (apparently I represent “the left” at the moment) care about a large and disconnected collection of particular things, like rights for gays and women and blacks and Asians and Hispanics and the poor and this special interest group and that one and somebody else, etc., etc., which have no underlying rationale or nothing really in common with one another. Or you’re simply assuming that I have no other concerns besides the two you mentioned. Among other things, I’m opposed to bigotry in general, for reasons I could certainly explain if it weren’t so fucking obvious, which is what you’re displaying here and which is what I’m currently criticizing. Of course that’s not Islam, so maybe you shouldn’t have entered the conversation, because that’s distracting us from the “real” problem that I ought to be criticizing. Then shut up and go the fuck away. You’re at best a distraction.
eeyore, #38
In the Muslim countries, yes, there’s a dire need for this. I was talking about Carson’s issue with America having a Muslim president. In the U.S., a Muslim running for office isn’t a cause for any special alarm unless they’re a theocrat like so many of our Christian politicians. I definitely wouldn’t vote for a candidate like that.
Saad, if I lived in Keith Ellison’s district, I would probably vote for him. (I unfortunately live in a Christian theocrat’s district, whom I do not vote for, but who keeps getting re-elected anyway.) I think we probably mostly agree and are simply emphasizing different points.
Consciousness, tell me something about Islam that’s actually good and positive, that would be a great loss to the world if Islam disappeared. Even if you can find something, will it be something that compensates for suicide bombings and killing little girls for wanting to go to school and kidnapping women as sex slaves and female genital mutilation and riots over cartoons and 9/11 and public floggings and beheadings for heresy? Because here’s my bottom line analysis:
On the positive/negative scale, Islam drops the negative side almost to the floor. I say again that it’s probably no different from most other religions in that respect, but the paucity of benefit it contributes is completely overwhelmed by the misery it causes. So slandering Islam is kind of like slandering the Ku Klux Klan: Even if a particular criticism is overblown or misplaced, the institution has so much legitimate mud on it that it’s hardly worth arguing the point. If someone comes along and says “the lynchings reportedly committed by the KKK are overstated by 10%”, even if true, will that really help the Klan’s reputation all that much? Again, the question will be, “Even if your point is technically true, why are you carrying water for a racist organization?”
Islam will stop being sexist and homophobic when it is forced to be, same as Christianity, because, as with Christianity, the sexism and homophobia are in the religion itself. Carrying water for it only delays the inevitable.
And yes, consciousness, there are other factors, including Western colonialism, that also contribute to the problem. Just as there are other factors that contribute to college fraternities being sexist and homophobic. Doesn’t mean Islam, or fraternities, aren’t responsible for what they do.
Ben Carson’s inanities about Muslims have increased his cash flow:
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/national/article36079707.html
Cross-posted from the Moments of Political Madness thread.
Ben Carson’s longer, and still stupid, explanation of his opposition to a Muslim president:
Carson made the comments on Faux News, in an interview with Sean Hannity.
Look, what he said was both bigoted and hypocritical. That’s a fact.
That said, I’m going to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume what he meant was that it should matter to voters, not in terms of making laws prohibiting it. I’m pretty sure that’s what he meant in my interpretation reading it.
And frankly, yes, if someone’s religious views contradict the values of the constitution, I won’t vote for them based on that. That’s why I won’t be voting for Ben Carson.