Carson way head of the curve. To clarify our dilemma:
The inevitable show down that has been brewing for generations is coming to a boil. The American people do NOT have clarity on this issue and what is equally as troublesome is neither do the pundits on Fox.
The Founders Fathers assumed Christianity in some form, but they wrote the Constitution broadly enough to include, rather exclude, religions of any sort from being mandated or excluded from Constitutional consideration in the application of the laws.
On the surface (superficial analysis is part of our problem), it appears that Carson may have erred with his comment excluding from consideration a Muslim as the President. On the other hand, he may have been ahead of the curve.
There is more to consider, which is what Carson, not being a seasoned politician (i.e., professional, PC practicing, liar), was doing.
The key to the analysis lies squarely on the subversion and perversion of language, in this case one word, “religion.”
The erroneous assumption made by Carson’s critics, including all those on “The Five” and other Fox shows, is that Islam is just one of many “religions,” as we know them, and as such, can be subordinated by Muslims in the execution of their duties of public office.
By taking this position one, especially Greg and Dana, have lost the clarity for which they are otherwise known. They have unwittingly become subscribers to the “PC Agenda,” (a widely circulated publication, which does not print any offensive words).
The error is the assumption that Islam would be subject to the concept of “separation of Church and state.” Such a concept is the antithesis of Islam. Islam demands all things are subordinate to the “religion.”
As it turns out, the “religion” is a misnomer for a sociopolitical ideology. Under Islam, there is no room for freedom of thought, speech, or actions. All things must work in perfect submission, compliance, and coordination for the bloody execution of those who step out of line.
Islam, as practiced by a “true believer” cannot allow, and must destroy, any teaching contrary to its teaching.
Christianity also has some strict disciplines, but does not mandate the destruction of others who do not agree. This is the difference between a comprehensive ideology and voluntary religion as understood by the Founding Fathers.
It would be constitutionally consistent to approve of a Muslim as President if he or she could and would treat his “faith” as a subordinate “religion.” But, Islam has no such admonishment as does the Bible which says, “yield unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s.”
Carson, operating on the evidence of behavior by both “radical” Islam and complicity of “peaceful” Muslims has assumed that a Muslim cannot adapt or operate under the principles of the US Constitution. (There are a few, however, who are striving toward this goal.)
Is there evidence to support Carson’s assumption?
This will bring up another entire debate, but the answer and evidence is, yes, “Obama.”
Whether a Muslim or not, Obama has arguably set-aside the Constitution to pursue his own agenda based on a personal ideology of his own, whatever that is.
Do we want a person with a questionable ideology making policy from a personal agenda?
It is bad enough that our policies are and have always been subject to any personal agendas, but a perverted ideology that allows for an “end-justifies-the-means” (tenet of Islam) tactic will result in a perverted Administration.
Do we not have this already? You already know the answer.
Unfortunately my arguments only push back the issue one more step.
What happens when the government itself becomes perverse and immoral for whatever reason? Are Christians compelled to “yield to Caesar?”
This then is the very same with which our Forefathers and Church leaders have struggled down through the ages. I direct you attention to a historical figure, Alvin York, and a literary work, “Murder in the Cathedral,” by T.S. Elliot.
No answer supersedes the moral base of the citizenry, hence the confusion, hence Carson’s insightful replay.