Some people should really not react to a sound clip edited to make it appear that Dr. Carson was advocating for a law banning Muslims from the Presidency.
Of course, Carson did not call for the enactment of a law disqualifying Muslims from serving in public office, which is what the religious-test clause actually forbids. He merely offered his personal opinion that it would not be wise for Americans to elect a Muslim president.
Krauthammer’s argument is more sophisticated and more dangerous — a bellwether of how progressive constitutional jurisprudence corrupts the thinking of even brilliant conservative analysts. He writes:
The Constitution is not just a legal document. It is a didactic one. It doesn’t just set limits to power; it expresses a national ethos. It doesn’t just tell you what you’re not allowed to do; it also suggests what you shouldn’t want to do.
Nonsense. If the Constitution is a “didactic” document, it is a damned poor one, since its objective is to limit government and maximize individual liberty. Despite the Constitution’s clarity in this regard, government has exploded in size and scope over the last century. Why? Because the “national ethos” — actually expressed by progressive scholars and jurists, not by the Constitution itself — has obscured a central truth: If the Constitution is in the business of making “didactic” suggestions, the “you” to whom they are addressed is the government, not the people.
The Constitution is not a pedagogical tool, teaching us values. It is a legal and political limitation on government’s intrusion into the realm of free thought and action. It is in that realm that we acquire values, knowledge, and common sense. Thus armed, Americans have been taking the belief systems of candidates for public office into account since the Constitution took effect in 1789. There is, moreover, a cottage industry of scholarship on how the religious beliefs of the framers and of presidents have shaped the course of American history. It would defy logic to ignore the patent connection between a candidate’s convictions and how he is likely to govern.
Dr. K, the Constitution is a legal document — a contract, between the governed and the State which they have authorized to govern them. If it contains any breath of a “national ethos” in its text, it was put there by people doing what they “shouldn’t have wanted to do.”
The only thing the Constitution argues against doing, is giving the government too much power.
Sharia law would meet the definition of “too much power,” in spades.
10> Carson says he wouldn’t vote for a devout Muslim for President
20> Krauthammer says penumbra of the Constitution forbids this sentiment
30> Poll of American Muslims shows most would dispose of Constitution
40> GOSUB “ConstitutionIsNotSuicidePact”, end
Same shinola, different day.
You’d think a compiler/interpreter powerful enough to parse natural language wouldn’t need line numbers…
Freedom of conscience? Dude that was, like, a hundred years ago!
Seems to me a Muslim that doesn’t believe in sharia law isn’t much of a Muslim, and a Muslim that does believe in Sharia law isn’t much of an American. Mixing the two is like mixing salt water with fresh water. Guess what happens.
[…] Darlene Click/Protein Wisdom […]
Seems to me a Muslim that doesn’t believe in sharia law isn’t much of a Muslim –
It is a rare thing, but there are some who want a reformation of Islam to rid it of stuff like Sharia, jihad & treating infidels as 2nd (or 3rd or 4th) class citizens.
I’ve read arguments by Muslims that sharia’s fundamentals pre-date Islam, thus making it pagan even by Muslim standards.
But then, its Muhammad worship is idolatrous too.
> but there are some who want a reformation of Islam<
good luck "reforming" a death cult. maybe jim jones might know sumthing?
There’s some “Christians” that want to reform Christianity to accept garriage too, but then they aren’t really practicing Christianity either.