Dr. Ben Carson, a Republican candidate for president, was recently asked in an interview whether he believes Islam is consistent with the Constitution. “No, I do not,” he replied, “I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation.”
He later elaborated, explaining that while Muslims have the right to run for president, they would have to repudiate some of the basic tenants of Islam, particularly Sharia law, in order to uphold the oath of office for the presidency.
Carson is correct on most points, but one must be careful not to paint all Muslims with the same brush.
Article II of the Constitution lists just three requirements: “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”
But the fact that the Constitution is mute on sex, race, religion and ideology does not mean the voters are or should be blind to such characteristics. A Gallup poll conducted earlier this year found that 38 percent of Americans would not vote for a Muslim to be President.
Before we blame this on “Islamophobia” fostered by narrow-minded Christians, let’s consider the fact that the same poll found that 25 percent of Americans would not vote for an evangelical Christian, 18 percent would not vote for a Mormon, and 6 percent would not vote for a Catholic.
Among Democrats, 33 percent said they would not vote for an evangelical Christian, while just 27 percent said they would not vote for a Muslim. I’m not sure why Democrats are more favorable towards Muslims than they are towards evangelical Christians. It can’t be because Muslims are more socially liberal than Christians. Perhaps it makes them feel more “inclusive.”
Why are conservatives supposed to be blind to a candidate’s religion, race or sex? No one would argue that African-Americans were blind to Barack Obama’s race when 93 percent of them voted for him to be president in 2012. And Hillary Clinton regularly asks voters to consider her gender when she implores them to make her our first woman president.
But the question put to Dr. Carson was whether he believes Islam is consistent with the Constitution, not whether he thinks voters should be blind to a candidate’s faith. This is important, because the oath of office for the president states: “I do solemnly affirm that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will, to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” If one is unable to take this oath, then they are not qualified to be president of the United States.
When the colonists rebelled against British rule, they did not just reject King George; they rejected the theory of divine right that maintained that kings derived their authority to govern from God. The framers of the Constitution were very explicit in stating that the people have inalienable rights granted to them by God and they set about designing a government that would be based on the will of the people.
They established a Congress in which representatives chosen by the people meet and pass laws; an independent judiciary reviews those laws to ensure they are consistent with the Constitution; and an executive branch headed by an elected president faithfully executes those laws.
Thus, the church was separate from the state: individuals may be guided in their personal lives by moral convictions drawn from various religious teachings, but the government was to be guided by the will of the people.
The Bible tells Christians how to conduct their personal lives as the Torah does for Jews. Sharia law detailed in the Qur’an tells Muslims how to conduct their personal lives. But it goes further, telling them how their communities should be governed in civil and criminal matters. This creates a conflict between God-made law and man-made law that goes to the very core of our constitutional form of government.
“Modern” Muslims practice Sharia in their personal lives, but adhere to constitutional law in their public affairs. Turkey, for example, is a secular democracy. It has a population of 80 million that is 99 percent Muslim. Yet Turkey, like the United States, has a constitution, an elected legislative body that makes laws, an elected prime minister charged with executing those laws, and an independent judiciary that rules on the constitutionality of laws and abides by the European Court of Human Rights.
Orthodox or “Salafist” Muslims, on the other hand, believe sharia law should apply to both private behavior and public affairs, which requires Muslims to live under a theocratic government. Iran, for example, has some of the trappings of democracy — an elected legislature and an elected president. But instead of a supreme court that decides whether laws are consistent with the constitution, it has a court composed of clerics (mullahs) who ensure that laws passed by the legislature conform to Sharia law as spelled out in the Qur’an. God-made law always trumps man-made law.
America is, by design, a tolerant nation where it is OK to be different. We have Amish who adhere to a strict dress code that makes their appearance distinctive; orthodox Jews who wear yarmulkes and long beards; and in Southwest Louisiana, we have Pentecostals whose women are readily recognizable by their modest dress and hair styles.
Muslim-Americans have the same rights and liberties as other citizens; it is guaranteed to them in our Constitution. The government does not belong in our churches, synagogues or mosques.
There is no reason Muslims in America who want to practice their faith in their personal lives cannot do so, as long as their actions do not interfere with the rights of others. Ironically, this is the same issue facing Kim Davis, the Clerk of Court in Kentucky who was jailed recently for refusing to issue marriage licenses to homosexual couples. She has the right to practice her personal religious beliefs. But as Clerk of Court, she functions in a public capacity. Some liberals have said she should resign her office if her religious convictions will not permit her to carry out her public duties. This is no different than saying a Muslim cannot hold public office if their religious convictions will not allow them to carry out their official duties. Would a Salafi Muslim gleefully issue marriage licenses to gay couples? Would a Salafi Muslim preserve and defend the U.S. Constitution? I doubt it.
Comments are closed.