Marcus Brown
[email protected]

Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson has come under fire for a statement made during Sunday’s airing of NBC’s “Meet the Press” in which Carson stated that a Muslim would be unfit to be president of the United States. Carson has attempted to explain his initial statement, which was “I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation. I absolutely would not agree with that,” given the considerable backlash the statement has garnered. With some time to ponder ways to spin what was originally an ignorant sentiment, Carson has now tried to explain that the issue causing him concern is not religious affiliation but rather order of priority when discussing religion and responsibility to public position.

Given the founding principle of religious freedom in this country and the corresponding lack of religious mandate for presidential candidacy, it is not surprising to see that Carson’s statement was not well-received. Carson has attempted to clarify his statement by explaining his concern is that a Muslim candidate could potentially have conflicts between her or his allegiance to the Constitution or constituents and her or his allegiance to religious teachings.

In a Facebook post on Monday night, Carson states that “I could never support a candidate for president of the United States that was Muslim and had not renounced the central [tenet] of Islam: Sharia Law.”  However adequate some find this revised response, the problem is not Carson’s answer but rather the question he thought he was answering.

Regardless of the actual question, the question Carson was answering was whether or not he would be comfortable with a president who held the ideologies of the purported enemy. Islam is not viewed as a legitimate religious practice but as a radical ideology motivating extremists to inflict harm upon the country much in the same way as communism was viewed during the Cold War. It is the equivalent of asking if someone sympathizes with a Marxist school of thought versus if they are a so-called “commie.” This distinction appeals to the lowest common denominator of the American public fueled by fear, ignorance, or both turning clocks into bombs and religion into hate.

Carson was quick to reference aspects of the religion that if strictly followed would not be acceptable in present society, as though Islam is the only religion guilty of atrocities and practices no longer deemed socially viable committed in its name. Statements such as the one made by Carson distract from the fact that it is not the religion but the intent of the individual that needs to be judged.

Retroactive rationalizations can be made to justify ideas spouted out from a place short of true understanding and acceptance, but the underlying messages of intolerance remain transparent. Adherence to faith, the Constitution, or any other ideological monolith does nothing to disguise the misguided intentions of the practitioner. For that reason alone, the criteria for leading this country will never be based on a religion, and acceptance of this imperative would be more in line with what is actually outlined in the Constitution than Carson’s original statement.