Tuesday, September 22, 2015


Alan Rappeport and Matt Flegenheimer of The New York Times say that Ben Carson is trying to "thread the needle" on the subject of Muslims running for president:
Since his initial comments on Sunday, Mr. Carson has sought to fend off accusations that he was promoting discrimination while refusing to walk back his comments. As the Republican candidate continues to face questions on the matter, we are tracing how he has threaded the rhetorical needle.
Carson would say he's not doing any such thing. I think he sincerely believes that he hasn't walked anything back at any time. I think he also believes he's said nothing offensive, and that all of his statements are perfectly compatible with American values.

Oh sure, first he said categorically on Meet the Press that Islam contradicts the Constitution:

So do you believe that Islam is consistent with the constitution?


No, I don't, I do not.


So you--


I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation. I absolutely would not agree with that.
Then he claimed, in an interview with Sean Hannity, that he opposes any theocrat:
... we do not put people at the leadership of our country whose faith might interfere with them carrying out the duties of the Constitution. So if, for instance, you believe in a theocracy, I don't care if you're a Christian, if you're a Christian and you're running for president and you want to make this into a theocracy, I'm not going to support you. I'm not going to advocate you being the president.
And he's said that he's perfectly okay with certain Muslims running for president -- while claiming that all of this is consistent and clear:
During a press conference in Sharonville, Ohio, Carson ... pointed specfically to his initial claim in the interview that he would have no issue with a Muslim who puts the Constitution and American values first, a statement he says "nobody heard."

"If people listened to that interview, they'll notice that I said that anybody regardless of their religion or affiliation, if they embrace American values and they place the Constituion at the top level, then I'm supportive of them," Carson said. "That was what I said first. That part, nobody heard."

... "Again, it seems to be hard for people to actually hear English and understand it."

"I said I would support anyone regardless of their background if in fact they embrace American values and our Constitution, and are willing to place that above their beliefs," Carson said before adding that, "Sharia Law is completely antithetical to Americanism."
How does all this fit together? I'll explain.

On Meet the Press, he categorically rejected the notion of a Muslim president because, to him, a Muslim is presumed guilty of being a theocrat until proven innocent. Proof of innocence, to Carson, is a showy renunciation of sharia law, which all U.S. Muslims are assumed to desire for America.

Other candidates -- or maybe just Christians and Jews -- have no need to make a great show of renouncing theocracy, because, to Carson, they're presumed innocent of wanting to establish a theocracy. You can trust Christians. You can trust Jews. You just can't trust Muslims. Not unless they swear they're not fifth columnists.

See? It's all simple, consistent, and not offensive -- right?


Ten Bears said...

They all, Jew, "Christian", Muslim, Morman, bow down to the same damned dog.

Anonymous said...

Carson's "reasoning" recalls a remark made by a friend of mine in high school, protesting that he wasn't a racist. "I'm not a racist!" he said. "I don't hate black people! I hate stupid people. And most black people are stupid!"

Joey Blau said...

And yet, Islam is a political as well as religious system. The Catholic Church started that way, and Protestant princes ruled many duchies in later times. We have here Christians that want to "recover" a theocracy, Dominuists (sp) But except for the right wing Christians such as Huckabee, most accept that we have laws under a democracy.

I don't think "good" Muslims believe that. If you are a watered down "cafeteria" Muslim fine, but they are even worse than fundies in trying to force social behavior to conform.

Anonymous said...

You've got this nonsense with Carson.

You've got the supposedly-sane Kasich saying that he wants to persuade disaffected Muslims who could be recruited by extremists by teaching them how much better Jewish and Christian values are. (He said so at the CNN debate)

And you've got Jindal saying:

"If you can find me a Muslim candidate who is a Republican, who will fight hard to protect religious liberty, who will respect the Judeo-Christian heritage of America, who will be committed to destroying ISIS and radical Islam, who will condemn cultures that treat women as second class citizens and who will place their hand on the Bible and swear to uphold the Constitution, then yes, I will be happy to consider voting for him or her."

So you want a Muslim who will fight hard to protect religious liberty but only as long as they take the Presidential Oath on a Bible. Great plan, Bobby.

It would be nice if the media would openly call Republicans the anti-Islam party. Most Republicans would wear that title as a badge of honor!

It's a rare point of agreement between left and right partisans -- Republicans are committed to fighting Muslims. Why is the press unwilling to honestly report something that Both Sides agree upon?

Grung_e_Gene said...

Darwin was the thrall of SATAN! - Ben Carson 2011