Are Some Religions Superior to Others? Who Cares!

Over the weekend, I saw the media screeching petulantly that Ben Carson apparently thinks Muslims shouldn’t be elected President of the United States, because apparently Islam is incompatible with the principles of the Constitution. This comes on the heels of yet more outrage about Trump refusing to correct some drooling conspiritard in New Hampshire, who screeched about Obama being a Muslim, and not American, and…. something. (I try not to pay too much attention to Trump, because a) he’s kind of nauseating, b) he’s immature, spoiled, and narcissistic, and c) he’s a douchebag.)

But back to Carson. I’m not a fan. He sounds like a nice enough guy – probably too nice to be in politics – but he’s also ignorant on policy, is a piss poor public speaker, and downright SUCKS on guns and free market issues. Sure, he NOW claims it was just political inexperience talking when he claimed that the right to own a semi-automatic weapon depended on whether someone lived in a rural or an urban area, but you know what? A guy who doesn’t even comprehend what a semi-automatic firearm is, clearly doesn’t understand the original intent of the Second Amendment, spews complete dumbassery on the topic, and then tries to backpedal when called on his ignorance, is not someone I want leading this country. I’m not particularly fond of his economic protectionism and support for increasing the minimum wage, either. It shows a lack of understanding about basic economic principles and free markets. Stick to neurosurgery, Dr. Carson.

But what I think of Carson is irrelevant for the purpose of this post. I’m more curious about his contention that a Muslim should not be elected President (Congress is apparently OK – never mind that the Speaker of the House is second in the line of succession should anything happen to the President). He claims that Islam is incompatible with the values and principles of our constitution and of America, and for this, CAIR is now shrieking that Carson should withdraw from the Presidential race, which kind of proves Carson’s point, n’est-ce pas?

Here’s the thing. Why should ANYONE care what religion our President chooses to exercise? Aren’t we conservatives always talking about shrinking the size of government? Aren’t we always advocating a government that does not intrude on people’s personal lives? So why should we make a religious test part of whether or not we support someone for President? Why should the President’s personal religious beliefs be an issue?

I mean, I get it. It’s not like Sharia doesn’t influence legislation in a number of Muslim countries. Hell, it’s a source of legislation for many of them that governs everything from prayer to personal relationships to sexual intercourse, and that’s clearly unconstitutional here in the United States. But then again, there seem to be some here in the United States who don’t have a problem with Judeo-Christian beliefs being imposed on everyone via government force. I don’t see any good reason why a government – ON ANY LEVEL – should be involved in personal relationships between consenting adults. And yet Kim Davis and the current crop of politicians that supports her are certainly doing exactly this. They seem to be OK with her refusing to do her job and with her discriminating against those with whose relationships she disagrees using her government position – BECAUSE OF HER FAITH.

I don’t care what religion you are. If you believe gay marriage violates your faith, don’t marry a person of the same gender. If you believe that you shouldn’t eat meat on Fridays or that you shouldn’t eat bacon, you are free to lead a miserable baconless existence. No government should be able to stop you. If your religion dictates you must birth as many children as possible, and both parties in a marriage agree it’s a great idea, you’re free to turn your vagina into a clown car and have those 19 kids. Can’t drink alcohol? Then don’t. Your God tells you that you shouldn’t drink coffee? By all means, don’t drink it then.

But the moment you stand up and proclaim that you want the tenets of your personal faith to be a part of America’s legal code – the moment you start yammering about changing the Constitution to reflect the word of the “living God,” you’re done. Yes, I’m speaking to you Huckabee. Go away!

I tell you what. I would rather vote for a Muslim presidential candidate who respects the law, respects the Constitution, understands and respects free markets, and protects our fundamental rights without trying to rewrite the Constitution to reflect his or her personal religious beliefs than a Christian who thinks it’s his or her personal duty to save us all by imposing Biblical principles on society at large via government force.

And yes, I’m aware that deception against non-Muslims is permitted and encouraged in certain circumstances. So I would wonder if Taqiyya would rule the candidate’s mindset when he or she proclaimed respect for the Constitution and commitment to the principles of limited government and free markets. But frankly, I’m also aware that politicians lie through their teeth regardless of faith. This has, unfortunately, become an all too common assumption when it comes to American politics, and certainly not limited to Muslims.

All this aside, my bottom line is this: I couldn’t possibly care less how you worship. I don’t care if you kneel on a rug five times per day, go to church on Sundays, attend synagogue on Fridays, or Buddhist temples on whenever you choose. I don’t care if you celebrate Yule, Christmas, or Hannukah.

Celebrate. Be happy. Commune with your deity of choice. Just leave the rest of us alone.

28 responses

  1. I can’t help but fervently agree, for all the reasons you cite. Upvote, like and +1.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Now, why do I get the feeling that you and I agree on quite a bit?🙂

      Like

    2. It certainly looks to be the case!

      Liked by 1 person

    3. Crap….my workstation took a crap and I logged in with old WP creds…..

      Like

    4. Trying this one more time…apologies for cluttering up the joint with old credentials.

      Like

      1. No worries. I approved it anyway.🙂

        Like

  2. Amen.

    “…turn your vagina into a clown car…” Heh.

    Like

  3. Hmmm…disagree. And for the very religious freedom reasons you cite.

    Islam & Judaism share a common theological problem: they both proclaim a theocracy as a part of their religious system. Judaism fixed this fairly well by creating new ways to see the theocratic elements more widely. Moderate Muslims do the same.

    But the vast majority of Muslims still embrace a fundamentalist understanding of the Koran as it relates to Sharia. For most Muslims, imposing their legal code on others (especially non-believers) is a huge part of their religious duty. It’s why ISIS is butchering Christians and why Saudi Arabia stones women for adultery…after they are raped by a man (the woman provoked it, you see.)

    I’m not advocating we prohibit anyone from public office by law, since that violates the Constitution. But I would no more elect a normal Muslim as President than I would a Hindu to run McDonalds.

    Mandated veggie burgers anyone?

    -Jim+

    Like

    1. Using the analogy of Muslims understanding of Shari’a and the Koran….with the recent Kim Davis issue….would not a fundamentalist Christian or Jew have similar issues in carrying out [or being associated with] lawful duties that violate the Bible?

      Like

  4. Consider this .. those that we call radical Muslims are the true followers of their faith, if living by the teachings of the Qur’an is the measure.
    I know .. what about all those drag them out and stone them commands in the Pentateuch?
    For those of the Jewish faith, I have no answer.
    For those who are Christian, Christ stated he was the fulfillment of the law and left us with two “commandments”.
    Love God greater than ourselves and do to others as you would have them do to you.
    I do concur there is no Constitutional restrictions and believe all who are qualified have a right to pursue the Presidency regardless of their faith but I personally would have difficulty voting for one who was practicing Islam.
    Guess I’m a bigot ..

    Like

  5. Not necessarily. My objection to “gay marriage” isn’t based on religion, but on the utter nastiness that gays insist on rubbing in my face. You see, gays made it VERY clear what it is they do for sexual recreation a long time ago–probably the only group on the planet that self-identifies according to what bodily orifice they choose for recreational sex. The fact is, I DON’T CARE what you do for sexual release and I DON’T want you to rub my nose in how you do at every turn. Marriage is the foundation of civilization BECAUSE it is the foundation of forming families. Gays, by their very nature, are INCAPABLE of “forming families” except by twisting the meaning of the word. History tells us that no successful society has EVER sanctioned gay “marriage.” Those who have “tolerated” public displays of gay sexuality haven’t lasted very long either. Religious precepts have little to do with it. The Greeks and Romans both began their decline when they started openly approving of homosexuality and the subsequent “feminization” of Greek and Roman men. Personally, I don’t think I’ll EVER understand how anyone can become sexually stimulated by the sight of some guy’s hairy ass as opposed to the beauty of the female form in all it’s infinite variety…even while I acknowledge that a few others do so.

    And, before you take me to task, I understand that gays actually believe that “it’s about more than sex.” However, sex IS a quite large component of what it means to be “gay.” Every society on the planet recognizes marriage as an emotional and legal union between a man and a woman. Even in societies that recognize and sanction “plural” marriages, EACH union is between one man and one woman. The man may marry several women, but the woman ONLY marries her husband–not the other wives.

    Like

    1. Who is rubbing anything in your face? Citations, please.

      Also, homosexuals don;t do anything not commonly done by heterosexuals.

      Like

    2. Really? You’ve been living in a deep mine for the past 30 years??? YOU may stick your pecker or tongue in a pile of shit and think it’s “fun,” but no heterosexual of MY acquaintance does.

      Like

      1. Do you often discuss with your friends what they do with their wives in the bedroom?

        Like

        1. No Nicki, but I’m exposed to what gays do in THEIR bedrooms every time I turn on the TV, go to a movie, take a stroll down some street where there’s a “gay pride” parade going on or talk to my great-grandchildren about what they learned in school that day. Gays are the ONLY group who self-described based solely on what bodily orifice they chose for sexual recreation.

          Like

        2. You are wrong, crazy wrong. But there’s no convincing you of that, because you seem to think that it’s the orifices that matter.

          You said your hetero friends don’t engage in anal sex. I would like to know how you know this.

          Like

  6. If anyone wishes to know what possible difference a president’s religion might mean to the average voter in terms of honesty, integrity, descent intentions, and morality, one only look at Obama.

    Case closed.

    Like

    1. Are you trying to claim that his failure as a President has everything to do with his religion? I beg to differ.

      Like

    2. By all accounts, professing and evidence….Obama is a Christian [versus the claims that he’s a Muslim]. I’m not sure what your point ends up in being….unless it’s that religion bears no reflexive relation whatsoever in the performance of one’s duties. In which case, I would agree.

      Like

  7. i am a Christian. However, i think that is possibly one of the least important qualifications needed for our next president. Honesty, compassion, high moral character, these may be good things to look for but being a Christian certainly doesn’t automatically mean that the person has these things.

    There are many other things that are much more important to look for in our next president. i have spoken to my wife about this more than once, how the job is becoming almost a 2 person job. There is just so many parts to it these days, that 1 person has a tough time handling it, at least competently.

    I understand that trying to split the job is never going to work, but i am just saying that the job is such that we have to look at more than just whether someone fits our religious profile, or even our political party to decide if they should get our vote.

    Like

  8. Article VI of the Constitution precludes any religous test for office. However I sincerely doubt that a Muslim could honestly take the oath to support the constitution,

    Like

  9. Ben Carson was probably expressing his opinion on this issue, which he is entitled to do. And despite his obvious weaknesses like the 2nd amendment, he is correct on this. Besides the concept of Taqiya, allowing lying to non-Muslims, mainstream Islam teaches a verbatim interpretation of the Koran which commands all manner of nastiness in the aim of spreading Islam to the whole world. It specifies decapitation, hostage taking and ransoming, and states that Allah will forgive misdeeds committed in the name of Islam. I would encourage everyone to buy and read a translation of the Koran and form their own opinion of weather they want a follower of those Sura to be president. It is truly different from any other mainstream religion.
    While no religion should be barred from any office, a person’s stated beliefs are of course vital to their suitability for that office. Should we elect a Nazi or Communist to be our president?

    Like

    1. Of course, he’s entitled to express his opinion. That’s not the point. Communism and Nazism are not religions. They are political ideologies, which is completely different.

      Like

    2. On most points the difference between religions and political ideologies is semantical. The issue is whether someone who espouses a belief system completely enathema to our Constitution is fit to hold the office of President, whose oath requires them to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” It matters not whether that belief system is Nazism, Communism, or Islam. We must disagree on this.

      Like

      1. If someone espouses said belief in the confines of their home/church/bathroom/whatever, I wouldn’t care. Abide by the constitution, and you can be the biggest prick on the planet in private.

        Like

    3. Nicki, I agree that Communism and Nazism are not religions, but Islam is different, in that it is a whole encompassing system that governs everything in life, in all spheres. It is a political ideology disguised as a religion.
      Islam is wholly incompatible with the concepts of free speech, free association, and the free exercise of religion, just to name a few. Given the realities that are taqiya, and all that flows from it, the world of any Muslim is not to be trusted. As a result, any adherent to this ideology is automatically unqualified to hold the office of President of the United States.

      Like

      1. As I said – I know all this, which is why I mentioned the fact that it is the basis for jurisprudence in many Muslim nations. That’s also why I mentioned taqiyya. I disagree about any Muslim being unqualified. Taqiyya refers to self preservation, so that’s in the eye of the adherent as well. Anyone can lie for any reason. By that logic everyone should be disqualified.

        As I said – believe anything you want. Just don’t use government force to impose it on others.

        Like

    4. …..in that it is a whole encompassing system that governs everything in life, in all spheres.

      Ironically similar to Dominionist ideology here.

      Like

%d bloggers like this: