Authored by guest blogger Professor Jasmine Abdel-Khalik
When he announced his candidacy, Mr. Carson stated his belief that there are only a few criteria for the Presidential pedigree: (1) someone who believes in the Constitution; (2) someone who believes in their fellow man, loves America, and is compassionate; and (3) somebody who believes in, essentially, the Pledge of Allegiance. So perhaps it is logical that he referred to some of these concepts when asked by Chuck Todd on Meet the Press whether a President’s faith should matter. The answer was still surprising. Mr. Carson suggested that some faiths are more American, more consistent with the Constitution than others. Why? I don’t know because he didn’t say.
Responding to the follow up question of whether Islam is consistent with the Constitution, Mr. Carson said that it is not. That is an unequivocal statement. Perhaps you could spin his follow up statements to say that he was focused on who he could advocate for or agree with. But initially, he said Islam is not consistent with the Constitution. Again, why? I don’t know because he didn’t say. At this point, I would think any reason given would be specious at best and demonstrating religious intolerance or racism at worst, but I would at least know what he thought.
The press has focused on the statement that Mr. Carson would not vote for a Muslim President. Unfortunately, this point seemingly has resonated with some as Mr. Carson has said that money is pouring in after his Muslim comments.
But it’s the next answer that makes Mr. Carson truly inscrutable. When Mr. Todd asked whether he would ever consider voting for a Muslim in Congress, Mr. Carson’s answer is inconsistent.
"Congress is a different story, but it depends on who that Muslim is and what their policies are, just as it depends on what anybody else says, you know. And, you know, if there’s somebody who’s of any faith, but they say things, and their life has been consistent with things that will elevate this nation and make it possible for everybody to succeed, and bring peace and harmony, then I’m with them."
Now, I’m really confused. Congressional candidates who are Muslim should be evaluated on individual merits and actions just like anybody else, and by implication Mr. Carson could be persuaded to vote for the candidate, but Islam is inconsistent with the Constitution, and he would not vote for a Muslim President?
I would love to say that, if he thinks Islam can’t be consistent with the Constitution, Mr. Carson doesn’t understand Islam (and takes a terrible, Islamophobic position). I would hope that this is not Mr. Carson’s intended message, but that would require me knowing what he arguing and what he is misunderstanding. At this point, I have no idea.
I could speculate that he thinks the Presidency has more symbolic value and should reflect his religion or his interpretation of God. If that test were applied to him, then Mr. Carson may be in trouble because his specific religion is not the only or majority religion in America. More importantly, as others have pointed out, Article VI of the Constitution prohibits any religious test as a qualification to any office or public trust.
After the backlash against his comments began, he claimed that he said that many parts of Sharia law are not compatible with the Constitution. First, he did not say that originally. The transcript speaks for itself. But let us take that as true. As far as I am aware, no religion exactly parallels the provisions of the Constitution. And yet, we have always had Presidents.
Similar suspicions were raised against John F. Kennedy because he was a Catholic. Before his election, 150 Protestant ministers made the exact same intolerant demand that Mr. Carson has since made of any Muslim candidate – the candidate must repudiate his or her religion. In Mr. Carson’s case, he requires repudiation of Sharia law. In the ministers’ case, they demanded that JFK repudiate the Roman Catholic Church to prove his independence. Of course, President Kennedy won and became our first Catholic President, and none of these fears were borne out. In fact, we just saw the Pope speak to Congress in front of a Catholic, Democrat Vice President and a Catholic, Republican Speaker of the House; and it is pretty clear that they often do not agree. It now seems ludicrous to assume that a Catholic would be a puppet to the Holy Roman Catholic Church. Even when considering application of Catholic doctrine to individual practitioners’ lives, the results of a recent Pew Research Center’s poll of American Catholics demonstrates how independent we are.
So frankly, that returns me to Mr. Carson’s own words – albeit in the congressional context. Voters should select candidates based on who the person is as an individual and not judge solely on one’s religious affiliation. Why does he think that should be any different for a Muslim Presidential candidate? It should not be. And I would love to respond to Mr. Carson more specifically, but that would require him to understand what he’s saying. Maybe he was just revealing his deep seated prejudice against Islam. But even putting the most benevolent spin on his statements, one could charitably say that he doesn’t understand Islam, at least part of the Constitution, or our history. But he felt free to opine anyway. And that may be the most revealing point of all.