Designated Terror Group CAIR Targets Ben Carson over Comments Regarding Islam and the Constitution
On Sunday’s “Meet the Press,” GOP presidential candidate hopeful Dr. Ben Carson answered a question by Chuck Todd, which has started a media frenzy and drawn the attention of CAIR (Council on American Islamic Relations). Because of Dr. Carson’s response, CAIR demands the nation’s political leaders repudiate the statements and withdrawal of Dr. Carson from the presidential race. CAIR’s National Executive Director, Nihad Awad, accused Dr. Carson of not knowing the Constitution, “which clearly states that ‘no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office’.”
Todd asked Dr. Carson, “Should a president’s faith matter; should your faith matter to voters?”
Here is Dr. Carson’s response:
It depends on what that faith is. If it’s inconsistent with the values and principles of America, then, of course, it should matter. But, if it fits within the realm of America and consistent with the Constitution, no problem.”
In the follow-up question, Todd asked, “Should [do]you believe Islam is consistent with the Constitution?”
Dr. Carson stated, simply, “No. I do not. I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation. I absolutely would not agree with that.”
The media is obsessed now with candidates and their stance on Islam, whether Obama is a Muslim or Christian, and if candidates would vote for a Muslim since Donald Trump did not “correct” a town hall meeting attendee asking a question who declared Obama was a Muslim.
First of all, it was not Donald Trump’s place to correct the person asking a question and making a statement regarding Obama’s faith. Obama is charged with correcting public perception about his religious beliefs should they be incorrect. If many Americans believe Obama is a Muslim, it is because Obama frequently holds events in the White House related to Islam, quotes the Qu’ran frequently, misinterprets the Bible, and berates, marginalizes and condemns Christianity. Obama may say he is a Christian; but, his actions indicate otherwise. Add to the fact that Obama has 1,063 + documented incidents of lying, lawlessness and criminal behavior to the mix and it’s anyone’s guess as to who or what Obama actually is. One thing is clear — Obama’s actions and behavior are “inconsistent with the values and principles of America, do not fit within the realm of American, and are inconsistent with the Constitution.”
Carson’s statement is spot on the bull’s eye. Islam is incompatible in every way with the Constitution of the united States of America, our laws, our values and our way of life. A Muslim cannot serve their Great Satan Allah and abide by societal laws that are not Sharia law.
Because of his statements, Carson drew the attention of CAIR whose director has dashed toward the media to demand Carson withdraw from the presidential race and wave the Constitution in America’s face.
Let’s look at the tenet of the Constitution that CAIR director Nihad Awad flouted.
Article VI, paragraph 3 of the Constitution of the united States of America states:
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. [Emphasis mine.]
Exactly to what were the founders referring when citing a “religious test?” To understand the “religious test” clause, we first need to review the meaning of the freedom of religion clause in the First Amendment.
As many are not aware, Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story clarified the First Amendment and the freedom of religion clause writing, “The real object of the First Amendment was not to countenance,
much less to advance Mohammedanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity, but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects and to prevent … the exclusive patronage of the national government [to any particular Christian denomination].”
As we see, the freedom of religion clause applied exclusively to Christianity whereby the national government would not “establish” any particular Christian sect as its “preferred” denomination. During the founders’ time and before the Declaration of Independence, the American colonies, under British rule, followed English law — one being the Corporation Act of 1661. It was one of three acts requiring an individual to swear an oath of fealty to the doctrines of the Church of England, not God, in order to hold public office. The founders “had no objection to biblical qualifications.” Their objection centered around government officials being forced “to swear allegiance to codified doctrines of an established church.”
In looking at the different denominations of Christianity and their doctrines, there are at times no reconciliation between them. For example, some Christian churches maintain baptism is necessary with others maintain it is symbolic only. Those upholding baptism chastise the ones who do not and vice versa. If the founders permitted a religious test, it would place government in the position of determining which sect of Christian doctrine would be correct. Moreover, whichever “denomination” managed to gain a representative majority in the government, the majority would possess the power to “define all other denominations as non-Christian and force them out of the political arena.”
Oliver Ellsworth, one of the drafters of the Constitution and third Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, explained the meaning of “religious test.” According to Ellsworth, “a religious test is an act to be done, or profession to be made, relating to religion (such as partaking of sacrament according to certain rites and forms, or declaring one’s belief of certain doctrines,) for the purpose of determining whether his religious opinions are such, that he is admissible to public office.”
Ellsworth contended, “In short, test laws are utterly ineffectual: they are no security at all … If they exclude any persons, it will be honest men, men of principle, who will rather suffer an injury, than act contrary to the dictates of their consciences. If we mean to have those appointed to public offices, who are sincere friends to religion, we, the people who appoint them, must take care to choose such characters; and not rely upon such cob-web barriers as test-laws are.”
Ellsworth’s statements do not support a secular government or government void of religion either. Rather, the statement declares the people are responsible for placing men of good religious character in office. The people sitting in government offices today, who are enemies of Christianity, the tenets of our founding, and our values and principles, are a direct result of “we, the people” placing these charlatans in office.
Comments and statements by other founders and officials during the time can be read here.
It appears Nihad Awad misinterpreted the “religious test” clause and has chastised Dr. Ben Carson for his individual God-given right of free speech protected under the First Amendment of the Constitution of the united States of America. Isn’t that what Islam teaches — lies and deception? Awad is doing nothing more than attempting to intimidate Dr. Carson into retracting his statements, “apologizing” to the Muslim community, and attempting to dictate speech in this nation by silencing opinions.
Dr. Carson owes no apology to any Muslim or Islam or anyone else for that matter. His opinion is his opinion. However, he based his opinion on fact. Islam is incompatible with our Constitution, our nation’s values and principles, our laws, and Christianity. Period. Anyone who has read the Qu’ran or parts of it know that to be the case. Anyone paying attention to Sharia law practiced by the followers of Islam know it is rife with injustice and antithetical to the Constitution.
Americans need to learn the founders’ meanings of the clauses present in the Constitution being used to subvert our government, our way of life, our values and our principles, not to mention our laws, in order to commit insurrection against this nation. As long as Christian Americans, as a whole, remain silent, splintered and unwilling to fight for the principles of this nation, this nation stands to be lost to those like Awad who pervert the meaning of the Constitution to support their nefarious activities. Our nation stands to engage in a war with Islam inside our borders due to the illegal importation of these “aliens” by this administration should we refuse to “ramp up” our opposition.
Regardless of whether anyone agrees with Dr. Carson’s platform in his bid for the GOP presidential nomination, one has to support Dr. Carson’s God-given right to freedom of speech and the right to voice his opinion.
*Article by Suzanne Hamner