Althouse: "I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation. I absolutely would not agree with that."

September 20, 2015

"I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation. I absolutely would not agree with that."

Said Ben Carson on "Meet the Press" this morning.

69 comments:

cubanbob said...: I never watch these political shows anymore so I don't know the context of the question and response but simply put a Muslim in the White House at this time isn't a good idea.
Carson is right in stating the obvious.; 9/20/15, 12:45 PM
Eric the Fruit Bat said...: My concern would be the traffic problems every time the presidential motorcade pulls over to the shoulder so the president can get out and pray toward Mecca.; 9/20/15, 12:49 PM
Ann Althouse said...: The context was asking him about Trump's not correcting a man who seemed to advocate ousting all Muslims from the country which led to a question whether a candidate's religion was a relevant consideration in deciding who should be President, then an outright question whether he thought a Muslim could be President. Carson gave a very clear no to the last question after answering the question about whether religion should be taken into account to say only if the religious beliefs were inconsistent with qualifications for President. So, inferentially, he was saying: all Muslims have beliefs that make them unacceptable as President. He wasn't asked and didn't specify what those beliefs were.

It's kind of a throwback to the 1960 election when many people thought that Catholics had some beliefs that were disqualifying.; 9/20/15, 12:54 PM
MathMom said...: Carson is correct. Muslims consider all forms of government and religion to be subservient to sharia. They believe sharia must be followed before the Constitution. Therefore, no, a Muslim should not be president.; 9/20/15, 1:02 PM
cubanbob said...: @Althouse, why was Carson asked that question to begin with if not for a gotcha? Why is Carson supposed to answer a question about Trump not 'correcting' a man who seems to be advocating ousting all Muslim's from the country? I have yet to hear Hillary, never mind Obama repudiate Bill Ayers or the race grifter's like Rev. Wright or Sharpton. Are Republicans to held to a different standard? Has anyone yet seen Kerry's discharge papers? Ayers the radical communist terrorist and Wright and Sharpton the ant-white and anti-Semitic are acceptable for someone to associate with who is running for president but Trump has to be damned for not lecturing an audience member. As for Carson's statement about a Muslim in the White House, just exactly is it what you are opposed to in his statement? Lets not beat around the bush, Islam isn't a Western cultural or political belief system and truly observant Muslim wouldn't be able to separate his or her's religious beliefs from the job. There is no separation of Church and State in Islam. As for 1960, since when were the Kennedy's actually observant Catholics?; 9/20/15, 1:15 PM
Fernandinande said...: Well, duh.

It's kind of a throwback to the 1960 election when many people thought that Catholics had some beliefs that were disqualifying.

No, it's just recognizing the obvious: Islam is incompatible with civilization.; 9/20/15, 1:20 PM
William said...: I've seen Keith Ellison on a number of talk shows. I've never heard anyone ask what his views are on gay marriage. I wonder if there is anyone in the MSM who believes that an evangelical Christian can be President or even be able to host a Sunday news show.; 9/20/15, 1:21 PM
rhhardin said...: There are Muslims who secretly turn in their radical brethren, which is pretty brave, considering that there are no secure government files and Islam is basically organized crime.; 9/20/15, 1:25 PM
machine said...: "Muslims consider all forms of government and religion to be subservient to sharia. They believe sharia must be followed before the Constitution."

Oddly familiar...; 9/20/15, 1:36 PM
averagejoe said...: For a brain surgeon, Carson doesn't seem all that bright.; 9/20/15, 1:45 PM
jimbino said...: Why not a Muslim appointment to SCOTUS. That would break up the Roman Catholic-Jewish axis, but so would the appointment of a Deist, a Mormon, a Hindu, a Buddhist, a Protestant or even, god forbid, an atheist or humanist.; 9/20/15, 1:46 PM
viator said...: "No Muslim could become president in a secular regime, for in order to pledge loyalty to the constitution, a Muslim would have to abandon part of his belief and embrace the belief of secularism which is practically another religion. For Muslims, the word religion does not only refer to a collection of beliefs and rituals, it refers to a way of life which includes all values, behaviours, and details of living."

"So how are Muslims to approach the modern trend of separation of religion and state? The basic belief in Islam is that the Quran is one hundred percent the word of Allah, and the Sunna was also as a result of the guidance of Allah to the Prophet sallallahu allayhe wasalam. Islam cannot be separated from the state because it guides us through every detail of running the state and our lives. Muslims have no choice but to reject secularism for it excludes the law of Allah." Dr. Ja`far Sheikh Idris

Dr. Jaafar Sheikh Idris is considered one of few Muslim Scholars of this era who comprehended the knowledge of Islam and Western Ideologies. He authored many articles and research papers. He visited many countries around the world where he lectured in Arabic and English.

Dr. Jaafar Sheikh Idris was born on 15th June 1931 in Port Sudan, Sudan. He grew up in the city of Port Sudan where he completed his elementary and secondary school. In addition to the modern school system, he studied Quran in traditional Quranic schools. He also studied Fiqh, Hadith and Arabic Language under traditional teachers in the city and studied Aqida with Ansar al-Sunnah group. He finished his high school in Hantoob High School, in Al-Jazeera province, one of three high schools in the country then. Admission was very hard but he made it due to his high academic records. After that he joined University of Khartoum where he completed his education and traveled to London for post graduate studies..

Consultant for various Islamic Organizations around the world.
Chariman of the founding council of the American Open University.
Professor of Islamic Studies and Director of the Research Center of The Institute of Islamic and Arabic Sciences in America.
Professor of Islamic studies, Departments of Aqida, Dawa and Information, Imam Muhammad Ibn Saud Islamic University, Saudi Arabia. Taught graduate courses of Aqeedah (Islamic Creed), Theology and Contemporary Ideologies.
Associate Professor of Islamic Studies, Dept. of Islamic Culture, Riyadh University.
Lecturer, Department of Philosophy., University of Khartoum; 9/20/15, 1:47 PM
Anonymous said...: Neither would I.

Dr. Ben for president.; 9/20/15, 1:53 PM
Mary Beth said...: Were we fighting Catholics in 1960? It would be more like deciding whether to vote for a German American Bund member instead of FDR. Or a communist at any time, but especially during the Cold War.

I bet there are a fair number of people now who would be happy to see a US president taking (at least some) orders from the Pope.

Did the interviewer ask what other parts of the Constitution Dr. Carson doesn't like?; 9/20/15, 2:17 PM
virgil xenophon said...: MathMom, Cubanbob and viator point out the intuitively obvious. Next question, AA?; 9/20/15, 2:17 PM
Martha said...: Pundits openly questioned whether a Mormon could be President during the last presidential election. Mormons have that history of polygamy after all.

Gallup in 2012:

At 22%, Americans' resistance to electing a Mormon president, even one nominated by their own party, is exceeded only by their opposition to electing someone who is either gay or lesbian (32%) or an atheist (49%). By contrast, less than half as many, 10%, say they would not vote for a Hispanic, and fewer than 10% would not vote for a nominee who is Jewish, Baptist, Catholic, female, or black.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/148100/hesitant-support-mormon-2012.aspx; 9/20/15, 2:18 PM
Hagar said...: My understanding is that the Koran very positively state that if you question any part of the Koran, you are not a true believer and will suffer everlasting damnation.

If that is so, then this is not a question of "some Muslims having some beliefs."; 9/20/15, 2:18 PM
Hagar said...: The Kennedys are Catholics and Richard Nixon was a Quaker.
Islam does not allow for such behavior.; 9/20/15, 2:20 PM
Gabriel said...: People are free to choose their religion. Islam is not a race. To some extent your religion says something about who you are, that's why Reverend Jeremiah Wright was an issue for Obama. And people are free to vote against whomever they wish for any reason they wish.

If Ben Carson said there outta be a law against Muslims being President, that's invidious and he's not suited to be President. If he were to say an evangelical Christian or a Mormon is not a good choice for President, then the media would fete him like they did John Huntsman (perhaps I left a few letters out of that verb). Salon is always going on about how religion disqualifies Republicans from being fit for the Presidency.

The only winning move is not to play.; 9/20/15, 2:40 PM
harrogate said...: "Muslims consider all forms of government and religion to be subservient to sharia. They believe sharia must be followed before the Constitution."

To which machine wresponded: "Oddly familiar..."

Yes. That's why regardless of the religion, what people around here call "lightweight" often translates to Sane.; 9/20/15, 2:41 PM
Michael K said...: "It's kind of a throwback to the 1960 election when many people thought that Catholics had some beliefs that were disqualifying."

No, it's a recognition of the nature of Islam, which means "submission" not "Peace."

If you really don't get the difference, I'm glad my kids are not in your law school.; 9/20/15, 2:50 PM
Hagar said...: Even the most "heavyweight" Christian denominations send out missionaries, seeking to gain converts.
Islam sends armies of conquest, and the choices are convert, secondclass citizenship with extra taxes and other liabilities, or: "Die Infidel!"

And the middle option has not been much favored after WWII. Christians and Jews have been getting very scarce throughout the Middle East, and there are reasons for that.; 9/20/15, 2:55 PM
sunsong said...: This isn't Carson's only extreme view. He's got some real problems with lack of humanity. I assume that's why the extreme right likes him so much. He rejects and excludes all the right people...; 9/20/15, 3:16 PM
Real American said...: I wouldn't put a satan worshiper or athiest in there either.; 9/20/15, 3:22 PM
Bay Area Guy said...: We shouldn't some blanket law against having a Muslim as President, but as a purely practical matter, Yes, we don't want a Muslim bound by Sharia law to run our great country, thank you very much.; 9/20/15, 3:36 PM
Hagar said...: Well, I think we do have an atheist "in there." And there is nothing new about that, going back to Thomas Jefferson.

Militant atheists are obnoxious, but an atheist, as such, is not scriptually obligated to try to make you join his faith - or lack of it. A Moslem is.; 9/20/15, 3:40 PM
JD said...: When asked by whose authority Kim Davis called upon when denying the issuance of marriage certificates, she answered, " God's authority". How is that different than a radical Muslim's outlook?; 9/20/15, 3:51 PM
eric said...: How Dr. Carson answers this supposed controversy will say a lot about his readiness to be President.

I hope he answers this by doubling down and going further than he has gone, rather than apologizing and backing down. Maybe when he's asked, "Did you really mean to say....." respond with, "Yes, but also, we shouldn't even allow more Muslims to immigrate to the USofA." and then when that starts a firestorm, double down again and say, "Well yes, but we really should start removing all Muslims from the USofA." etc.

Then we can watch sunsongs head explode.; 9/20/15, 3:59 PM
eric said...: Blogger JD said...
When asked by whose authority Kim Davis called upon when denying the issuance of marriage certificates, she answered, " God's authority". How is that different than a radical Muslim's outlook?

This is religion 101.

It differs because the Muslim god, Allah, wants to kill the homosexual. The Christian God, Christ, wants us to love the homosexual and tell them no, we're not going to accept their sin, we're going to repudiate it and tell them they can find forgiveness and salvation.; 9/20/15, 4:00 PM
Hagar said...: Kim Davis said her God forbid her to issue marriage liceses to same sex couples and sign them with her name.

That is quite a bit different from "you submit or die, infidel!"

Judaism and Christianity have long ago (in terms of our lifetimes, anyway) given up on the more horrendous statements in the Old Testament and say that those are just allegorical, or whatever.

Islam is stuck on the Koran as finalized sometime around 700 A.D. and such re-interpretations are not permitted.

Some Moslems have softened their stance over the centuries, but then it has hardened again in the last couple of centuries with the rise of the Wahhabists, etc.
There are reasons why the old Jewish and Christian communities in the Middle East have emptied out.; 9/20/15, 4:03 PM
Hagar said...: In fact, it looks to me like the LGBT crowd's attitude is much more like "submit or die, infidel!" than Kim Davis' is.; 9/20/15, 4:13 PM
victoria said...: I am far less disappointed in Ben Carson for his views on having a Muslim in the White House than i am so so disappointed in him for his lack of veracity concerning the bull crap that Trump was advocating against vaccinations. He knows that vaccination of children is a huge issue and the vaccination deniers got a boost during the debates. He should have forcibly and succinctly cut Trump down for the sheer ignorance and inaccuracy of his "statements". Shame on you, Ben Carson. i expect that idiocy from Trump, not from you.

Vicki from Pasadena; 9/20/15, 4:35 PM
Once written, twice... said...: The GOP has become the party of pathetic hillbillies. The 2016 elections will be an electoral bloodbath for the Republicans.; 9/20/15, 4:40 PM
Guildofcannonballs said...: When did Trump advocate against vaccines? Was it when he said he believes in vaccines and had all of his children vaccinated?

Saying vaccines should be spread out isn't the same as advocating against them.

Maybe Vicky and sunsong had all the vaccines in one shot, proving Trump's point. Like the uncircumcised, they know they are wholly inadequate and seek to project that feeling onto others.

Or maybe reprehensible lies about an enemy are considered okay if/as it is in service of a greater cause.; 9/20/15, 4:49 PM
harrogate said...: "It differs because the Muslim god, Allah, wants to kill the homosexual. The Christian God, Christ, ...."

Irrelevant. Neither Allah nor Christ represent, nor should they represent, final authority in US law. People were waving a lot more crosses than constitutions at the K. Davis rally, one notices.; 9/20/15, 4:51 PM
Guildofcannonballs said...: I think the State should mandate Soma* and female-Viagra shots for all females over 18 years old.

Otherwise many of these helpless little strumpets could be asexual manic depressives, which hurts society. The tragedy of the commons is monogamy, but only in women or girls under 42 years old.

Just as long as the State forces the chemicals into the bodies I will be okay.

*Brave New World Soma only; 9/20/15, 5:00 PM
eric said...: Blogger harrogate said...
"It differs because the Muslim god, Allah, wants to kill the homosexual. The Christian God, Christ, ...."

Irrelevant. Neither Allah nor Christ represent, nor should they represent, final authority in US law. People were waving a lot more crosses than constitutions at the K. Davis rally, one notices.

It's not irrelevant to someone who asks the question, "How is that different." Now they know how's it's different.

As to what should represent final authority in US law,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

I suppose our founders decided that the final authority wasn't English law, but God.

Eventually you have to decide which is higher in your own life, God's authority over you, or the Governments.

I side with Kim Davis.; 9/20/15, 5:04 PM
John Stuart Mill said...: As a Muslim who was born in Pakistan, perhaps I can provide some perspective. Muslims, like Christians, come in all shades of faith: many believe the Quran literally, many have little idea what the Quran says, and most pick and choose what to believe literally and what to ignore. This is even more true of Muslims in the USA because they tend to be more secular and more likely to be Western-educated. We have Muslims who are judges, lawyers, scientists, etc. and they all conform to the traditions and principles of their professions. So, for instance,a judge in a U.S. court is not going to be influenced by sharia law. He wouldn't be in that profession to begin with if he held fundamentalist beliefs about the sharia. Only people on the fringes of Islam hold such beliefs.

How many Christians today truly believe they can sell their daughter into slavery (Exodus 21:7); or that a person who works on the Sabbath must be put to death (Exodus 35:2); or that they can purchase male and female slaves from neighboring nations (Levictus 25:44). I can understand enslaving Mexicans but Canadians also? That does not sound right.; 9/20/15, 5:19 PM
harrogate said...: Shorter Eric: there's nothing wrong with theocratic rule so long as they are the theocratic rules to which Eric subscribes.; 9/20/15, 5:31 PM
eric said...: How many Christians today truly believe they can sell their daughter into slavery (Exodus 21:7); or that a person who works on the Sabbath must be put to death (Exodus 35:2); or that they can purchase male and female slaves from neighboring nations (Levictus 25:44). I can understand enslaving Mexicans but Canadians also? That does not sound right.

To find out what Christians truely believe, you'd have to look at their actions. What percentage of Christians are selling their daughters into slavery? What percentage are putting people to death based on the Sabbath? How many are purchasing male and female slaves?

On the other hand, it sure seems like a lot of Muslims are following Islam to the letter of the law. There are entire nations, based off of Islamic law, that are putting homosexuals and women to death for breaking the rules of Islam.

So, no matter your interpretation of what you might think Christians believe, look at our actions. Look at the nations based on Christianity vs the nations based on Islam.; 9/20/15, 5:32 PM
Roughcoat said...: I don't want any more Ivy League graduates in government and the Supreme Court. The Ivies have really screw this country up. I am not being facetious.; 9/20/15, 5:32 PM
eric said...: Blogger harrogate said...
Shorter Eric: there's nothing wrong with theocratic rule so long as they are the theocratic rules to which Eric subscribes.

I'm opposed to theocratic rule, even if it were supposedly Christian theocratic rule.

Even though Democracy has it's troubles, I prefer the Democratic Republic that we have as opposed to the other forms of government.

However, even a Democratic Republic can get it wrong.

As an example, slavery in the south was wrong and many Christians helped with the underground railroad. I don't think those Christians supported theocratic rule just because they opposed slavery, do you?; 9/20/15, 5:34 PM
Hagar said...: I take it you are not from the North=west Territories, Mr. Mills?; 9/20/15, 5:35 PM
harrogate said...: "On the other hand, it sure seems like a lot of Muslims are following Islam to the letter of the law."

Here we appear to have reached an accord of sorts. The best case scenario is not "following the letter of the [religious] law." Absolutely. That would be "lightweight religion," in the lingo of this blog tho. What people seem to miss is that the "lightweight" is a feature not a bug.; 9/20/15, 5:50 PM
dbp said...: "So, inferentially, he was saying: all Muslims have beliefs that make them unacceptable as President. He wasn't asked and didn't specify what those beliefs were."

There are other possible inferences one could make: It has nothing to do with their unique beliefs--one may just think that a majority Christian nation ought to be governed by a fellow Christian. There are other places where I would hope and expect the president be like most Americans. Most of us are proud of our country, we should not have (another) president who is ashamed to be an American.

One should note that while people did openly speak of JFK having dual loyalty between the Vatican and the USA; he was elected president.; 9/20/15, 5:53 PM
Paco Wové said...: "How many Christians today truly believe ..."

Wow, so modern Christians aren't Old Testament Jews? What a shock! Who would have known.
J. S. Mill, I think you need to update your theological understanding of modern Christianity a bit.

As commenter eric and some other guy said, "By their fruits you will know them". What is done is more important than what is said.; 9/20/15, 5:53 PM
Hagar said...: Sorry to be flip, but Mr. Mills, can you imagine a Benazir Bhutto anywhere between Pakistan and the Atlantic Ocean?; 9/20/15, 5:56 PM
Twelve said...: A Muslim president? First let's settle on whether to expel them from the hemisphere. On the reverse of this question they are expressing themselves definitely, unmistakably, and near enough to unanimously. I'm undecided as to whether we should run them off but I expect them to force the choice between that and following Europe down the tubes. Toleration shouldn't require suicide.; 9/20/15, 6:05 PM
JCC said...: @ John S Mills -

So a strictly observant Muslim would probably be self-disqualified from serving in a civil government, based on an interpretation of the Quran that only God's law may be obeyed, and that - in effect - democracy seeks to replace God's law with man's law? Or is this a more radical interpretation, limited to fringe groups? Seriously asking.

And in your examples, I don't know of anyone - not even the most fundamental of Christian sects - who would read those passages from the Old Testament and take them as authority to do any of those things. But obviously, there are substantial number of Muslims who, for instance, are adherents of Sayyid Qutb, who, while not quite mainstream, is not exactly out in the boondocks either. Qutb does preach a very violent version of Islam, especially toward his fellow Muslims with whom he disagrees concerning religious matters.

Our long time neighbors were an observant family from Pakistan, who, sadly, felt it was too dangerous to go home again. They were at risk from more extremist religious groups, and also from criminal gangs who saw them as rich Americans suitable for kidnapping for ransom. Both husband and wife were highly educated and secular. They were very unhappy with what was happening in their country.; 9/20/15, 6:20 PM
sinz52 said...: Mary Beth said: "It would be more like deciding whether to vote for a German American Bund member instead of FDR."

How about just a German-American president instead of FDR?

Because we almost had one. Wendell Wilkie, who ran against FDR in 1940, was of German descent. Does anybody here think he would have sided with Hitler over America?

The vast majority of German-Americans were both patriotic and loyal. For the GOP to have refused to nominate Wendell Wilkie solely because he was of German ancestry would have been bigotry.

And I don't see why that's impossible for Muslim Americans too.

We conservatives are NOT supposed to be doing identity politics like the Left. We always say that each person should be judged as an individual.; 9/20/15, 6:47 PM
Mark said...: "Sorry to be flip, but Mr. Mills, can you imagine a Benazir Bhutto anywhere between Pakistan and the Atlantic Ocean?"

You do realize that Indonesia probably has more Muslims than all the countries included on your example, right?

People forget that by a large margin, Indonesia is the largest Islamic population on Earth; followed by India.; 9/20/15, 7:26 PM
Brando said...: No one's religion disqualifies them for the presidency, full stop. What matters is the president's belief in the Constitution and how their personal beliefs relate to it.

I'll give Carson the benefit of the doubt that he was just not ready for this question. But if he doubles down it'll be very disappointing.; 9/20/15, 7:31 PM
Scott said...: Here is the full text of John F. Kennedy's speech about his Catholic faith and the secular nature of the role as President.

If a Muslim would make a similar declaration, they might be worthy of consideration as a candidate for President. And making such a declaration might provoke a similar fate, albeit for different reasons. But it would truly be a profile in courage.; 9/20/15, 7:31 PM
Hagar said...: No, Mark, the question was "between Pakistan and the Atlantic Ocean" for a reason.; 9/20/15, 8:23 PM
Bob Loblaw said...: There are a bunch of different schools of thought within Islam when it comes to the proper role of religion in government. It's probably not fair to say we should never have a Muslim president. But it's fair to say "A person who agrees with Khomeini's interpretation of the Koran with respect to government should not be president."; 9/20/15, 8:48 PM
Fernandinande said...: Brando said...
I'll give Carson the benefit of the doubt that he was just not ready for this question. But if he doubles down it'll be very disappointing.

Carson doubles down on no Muslims in the White House; 9/20/15, 10:30 PM
Lydia said...: I wonder if Carson would reconsider in the case of Captain Humayun Saqib Muazzam Khan, a Muslim awarded a Bronze Star and a Purple Heart after his death in Iraq in 2004, were he still alive and had political aspirations.; 9/20/15, 10:40 PM
traditionalguy said...: When Carson puts it that way, the Sharia could help with the heavy traffic in DC since then women could not drive cars.

And we could blend in slavery getting around the 13th Amendment by calling it penal servitude for the crime of being an infidel in public. Then chain gangs can help rebuild the infrastructure.

Carson is just too old fashioned.; 9/20/15, 11:11 PM
averagejoe said...: Roughcoat said...
I don't want any more Ivy League graduates in government and the Supreme Court. The Ivies have really screw this country up. I am not being facetious.

9/20/15, 5:32 PM

Hear, hear! I would much prefer a patriotic Muslim president who loves his country and its citizens, than another Ivy League progressive who hates Americans and thinks the US should be more like Europe.; 9/20/15, 11:46 PM
rhhardin said...: We stopped fearing Catholics when they started shining their shoes.; 9/21/15, 5:40 AM
Robert Cook said...: John Stuart Mill:

You make a valiant effort to bring context, information and reason to the conversation, but you must know that many of the nitwits here aren't amenable to accepting or processing new information and adjusting their preconceived biases accordingly. They're not here to have a conversation, but to be affirmed in their ignorance.; 9/21/15, 7:19 AM
Robert Cook said...: "...one may just think that a majority Christian nation ought to be governed by a fellow Christian."

Why? Why would a non-Christian president not be as suitable to be president as a Christian? Especially considering the ghastly lot we've been afflicted with for the past several decades, all of whom are purportedly Christian--(and all exceeded in their ghastliness by everyone who appears to be running to succeed Obama, also all purportedly Christian)--why would you think a president's particular religious affiliation--or lack of affiliation--would render that person any less fit to serve?; 9/21/15, 7:27 AM
gerry said...: We stopped fearing Catholics when they started shining their shoes.

Yeah, I thought we were over what-religion-is-the-president when we elected John F. Kennedy.; 9/21/15, 8:44 AM
Anonymous said...: We stopped fearing Catholics when they started shining their shoes.

Yeah, I thought we were over what-religion-is-the-president when we elected John F. Kennedy.

******************

Yes, I suppose we were "over" that, up until September 11, the rise of a hostile Iran, jihadist bombers and Isis all swearing to destroy us...

Now we Muslims here in the US who seek to supplant our law with sharia. And we're supposed to just shrug and say it's just politics?; 9/21/15, 9:49 AM
Peter said...: " slavery in the south was wrong and many Christians helped with the underground railroad. I don't think those Christians supported theocratic rule just because they opposed slavery, do you?"

1. Assume Jesus was not who he said he was.
2. Assume you could buy or build a time machine, and use it to murder the infant Jesus.
3. Could you then come back to the USA, or would you come back to a world (at least a Western world) that was radically different?

It seems obvious that Western culture is what it is in large part because, historically, it has been overwhelmingly Christian. Today it is increasingly secular, yet the historical role of Christianity in shaping the culture persists.

Try another thought experiment: Charles Martel lost he battle of Tours, Islamic forces were not stopped in Spain but proceeded to Western Europe and England into the Umma. In such a world, would the USA exist? The Enlightenment? How different a world would it be? Ignoring the industrial revolution, would anything like the French Rights of Man, or the US Bill of Rights, exist?

The point is, Christianity may appear to be increasingly irrelevant to contemporary Western culture, yet it surely was far from irrelevant in creating it in that neither Western Europe nor the USA would be anything like what they are had it never existed, or had those practicing it been conquered in past centuries. To ignore that is, I think, to be profoundly ignorant of how the contemporary world came into being.

The die-hard secularist insists that all religions are equivalent because all are equally wrong. Yt this is a profoundly a-historical and deeply ignorant PoV, as religions are very different in their beliefs, practices, worldview and in their effects on the wider culture.; 9/21/15, 10:19 AM
Steve said...: What I find most interesting about the reaction to Carson's comment is that the people who are most exercised about it are the ones that would never vote for Carson based upon his religious beliefs, who knew that how old the Earth is was so important in a Presidential candidate. Liberals and atheists don't have to be consistent.

Conservative Christians would do the best under Sharia law. Career women, women seeking abortions, and gay men would have a terrible time.; 9/21/15, 11:05 AM
Unknown said...: Peter makes a fine case and it reminds me of a comment Malcolm Muggeridge made on a public TV channel many years ago (maybe 40 years?). The discussion was about a man named Bronowski who narrated a condensed history of the political and industrial world (I remember his dead flat glasses glinting in the studio lights as he spoke, very distracting). Muggeridge chuckled as he said (something like) "Poor old Bronowski, he recounts all these political changes, inventions, social developments and never mentions the Christian Religion which made it all possible". Ignoring the religious effect was a startling ommision and it reveals the contemporary mind that would be more likely to worship Steve Jobs than Jesus.; 9/21/15, 4:25 PM
RonF said...: Mark:

"People forget that by a large margin, Indonesia is the largest Islamic population on Earth; followed by India."

I am involved in the Boy Scouts of America, and have been for over 30 years. I've had a chance to go on a couple of international trips. I ask the kids "What country has the most Scouts in it?" They usually guess the United States, or maybe England. "Nope. We have about 2 million Scouts. Indonesia has 6 million on the books and they think another 6 million that are in the program but whose paperwork has never made it into the central office. We all think of 'Scouts' as all-American. But there are probably more Muslim Scouts than Christian ones world-wide."; 9/22/15, 9:02 AM
RonF said...: And at one program I went to in Japan I got a picture of a Pakistani Scout and an Indian Scout shaking hands.; 9/22/15, 9:03 AM