Worldview Dis-qualification

While honesty may still be the best policy, in today’s conservative-hostile media climate, unguarded honesty certainly won’t keep one out of hot water.  Dr. Ben Carson recently found himself facing the ire of liberals and the politically correct movement when questioned on his views concerning  faith in the public arena.  In a Sunday morning "Meet the Press" interview, moderator Chuck Todd asked Carson, an Evangelical Christian, whether a president's faith should matter to voters."

In response to the question, Carson sensibly replied that he does believe a president's faith should matter, "depending on what that faith is."   Adding, "If it's [a president's faith] inconsistent with the values and principles of America, then of course it should matter," he said, but "If it fits within the realm of America and is consistent with the Constitution, I have no problem."

In the inevitable follow-up, ‘gotcha’ question, Todd pressed him as to whether he believed “that Islam is consistent with the Constitution?”  The good doctor forthrightly replied, “No, I don’t, I do not.”   Continuing, "I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation. I absolutely would not agree with that."

Dr. Carson was essentially saying that a candidate’s worldview matters.  In fact, it matters a lot.  Unfortunately, he did not insist on being given time to explain the fine points of Sharia law, the consequences thereof, nor the obligation thereunto by devout Muslims - an obligation which would create seismic tremors throughout our society and judicial system.  Certainly as a candidate addressing an issue touching on religious liberty, Dr. Carson could and should have been more nuanced and clear about the conflict of worldviews involved.  But as it was, the usual suspects were soon in line a dozen deep blasting away at Carson.

At the front of that line was Nihad Awad, the National Executive Director of Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) who in a press conference the next day demanded that Carson “withdraw from the presidential race” for holding those beliefs, claiming, “he is unfit to lead because his views are in contradiction with the United States Constitution."

Really?  It probably would have bolstered Awad’s already tenuous credibility had he read the Constitution before attempting to bludgeon Carson with it.  Dr. Carson has the same rights as any other person (including Awad) in this country to draw conclusions about the suitability of candidates for public office (freedom of thought), publicly express his beliefs about those candidates (freedom of speech), and then to vote - or not vote - for his preferred candidate (suffrage).  Clearly Awad isn’t well versed in either the laws of this country or for the matter, the rules of logic.

Mr. Awad simply didn’t like what Carson said and wants to shame him into shutting up.  Please forgive me if I find it ironic that CAIR – which is basically an apologist group quick to defend radical Islamic terrorists and to denounce anti-Islamic-terrorist efforts – is invoking our Constitution that guarantees both freedom of speech and religion while enshrining universal suffrage.  Especially since in almost every – if not all – countries with Muslim majorities, the citizens enjoy none of those freedoms.

In Sudan, Saudi Arabia or almost any predominantly Muslim country, do you think he would be allowed to vocally criticize the country’s leadership?  If Carson was in Iran, just how long would he be allowed to claim the Supreme Leader of Iran unfit to lead before he was arrested, brought up before some kangaroo Islamic court as an infidel, and very likely beheaded?

In a Monday night Facebook post, Dr. Carson clarified his position.  "I could never support a candidate for President of the United States that was Muslim and had not renounced the central tenant of Islam: Sharia Law."  He continued, "I know that there are many peaceful Muslims who do not adhere to these beliefs.  But until these tenants are fully renounced... I cannot advocate any Muslim candidate for President.”   Later on Fox News, he equally applied his logic to non-Muslims, saying ”If, for instance, you believe in a theocracy, I don't care if you're a Christian. If you're a Christian and you're running for president and you want to make this into a theocracy, I'm not going to support you. I'm not going to advocate you being the president."

But despite his best attempts to educate the voters or explain his view, in the eyes of the politically correct crowd, the damage was done, the point scored in their favor, the horrifying verdict rendered:  Carson is an intolerant bigot.

As Christians we do walk a fine line.  We need to hold firmly unto our convictions, but we also don’t want to needlessly offend our neighbors who don’t share those convictions.  But selecting a president is no trivial task.  We have a unique system of self-government.  As citizens, we are entrusted with the responsibility and duty not only to have an understanding of the unique and precious system that we have inherited – a government of the people, by the people, for the people as Lincoln famously said – but also to be fully informed about the motivations and views of the person who will set the direction and lead our country for the next four years.  The worldview of that person is vitally important.

Personally, I am neither a politician nor influential leader so thankfully my words and nuances won’t ever be analyzed to the extent that the Presidential candidates are subjected to.  I would readily vote for a black man, an Asian woman, or someone committed to their Jewish faith – if, I agreed with their positions on the issues and thought they were solidly grounded in the Judeo-Christian ethic.  This is not simply an issue of identity politics.

It should be of great concern to thoughtful citizens that there were those who voted for Obama simply because he is black – with little understanding of his (in my view) radical influences and ideas.   It should be equally troubling that there are those who have indicated they will vote for Hillary Clinton – or Carly Fiorina for that matter – simply because she is a woman – without regard to her history or policy proposals.  As Christian citizens, we need to be more responsible than that.

Much like Carson, I too can’t imagine supporting or voting for a theoretical Muslim candidate for president of this country.  The frame of reference is too dis-similar, the worldview differences are simply too great.  Nor could I support someone whose worldview accommodates abortion (such as past candidates Barry Goldwater, Gerald Ford, or Rudy Giuliani), despite any other truly admirable qualities.  That said, I wouldn’t vote for a self-avowed socialist, such as Bernie Sanders, and for that matter, I wouldn’t – and didn’t – vote for someone who does not describe himself as a socialist, but in my view, is one nonetheless:  namely Barack Obama.  It is simply a matter of worldview.


Dr. Carson is right.  Worldview matters.

10/13/15 Addendum:  I just happened to locate the following quote from John Jay.  Jay, as you will recall, was one of the country's founding fathers and the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court:

Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty - as well as the privilege and interest - of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.

Hmmm... Who do you trust to have a greater understanding of Constitutional law?  Nihad Awad, CAIR's apologist for Islamic extremism, or John Jay, our country's first Chief Justice.