Never thought I say this, but.....!

                                   

     http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/ben-carsons-campaign-responds-outrage-over-comments-islam

       

        I never thought I'd say this; however,  setting aside the specific references to Islam, I think Carson has a (limited) point regarding religions which are inimical to the provisions of the Constitution by doctrine and/or  dogma. I also feel it appropriate to evaluate these religions in real time in the real world, and by the actions of their practitioners. We already have issues with "devout" (although narrowly so and ultra conservative in many cases) Christians who oppose essentially everything not Old Testament in nature.  This is in spite of the fact that a cornerstone of  Christian doctrine is that the true believer can be so, and function as such, in essentially any political/social system which allows freedom of worship.

        In reality,  there are numerous translations and interpretations of the Bible. On the other hand, unlike the Bible’s position in Christianity, the Quran is reckoned to be of direct divine origin. Believers in Islam have to obey not only God, but also Muhammad, his messenger. The law of Sharia intervenes in both religious and secular life, including penal punishments and judicial matters, as well as the acts of worship and family life and is an article of faith. Muslims are expected to accept the Quran as the word of God, and the Sharia as the regulator of society and daily life.

        The idea of a separate set of laws to which some are responsive and others not is not unique to Islam. Hassidic Jewish (and Amish, for that matter)  communities in America are, by and large, isolated and separatist in nature. The same is true of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, once headed by the presently incarcerated Warren Jefts. While they share certain attitudes re: status of women, legal issues, limitations on free speech, etc, these prejudices are  principally evinced  and  manifested by practice within the community, with no effort or desire to "inflict" (for want of as better word) these core beliefs on the outside community or nation. Both  also acknowledge with varying degrees of distaste, true, the sovereignty of civil law and government in their community. This is  manifestly different in many Muslim nations and groups in the present  day on several levels.

        The argument is easily makeable that the teachings of the Quran and the laws of Sharia stand in opposition to what most Westerners consider to be democratic ideals. Many Islamic political groups claim that the nature of the state is of secondary importance to the implementation of Sharia. These laws are not compatible with many of the principles of democracy: examples are the limitations on free speech, women’s rights, and minority rights. In contemporary practice of Sharia these conditions are simply not respected. So even though the Quran does not prescribe any particular system of government, the importance of Sharia is still an obstacle for introducing Western democracy in the Islamic world.  

        In essence, Western nations seem to have "grown out of" the notion that God chooses rulers, a concept honored  for centuries, although frequently  in the breach. In parallel fashion, the influence of the elite in religious majorities declined and essentially vanished from the governing process.  In doing so, the corollary  seems to have been to reduce to an inconsequential degree the belief or practice that religion has a place in modern civil government or social structure outside the personal/familial/congregational level.  

        Some American far rightists, pandering to what would seem to some, myself included, to be  an undereducated, politically malleable and naive fundamentalist Christian voter bloc, would re-inflict the yoke of religious intolerance and "doctrine become law" upon those of us who aren't their co-religionists. Fortunately for the rest of the body politic, the Constitution, brilliantly drawn by a bunch of  30-something lawyers 226 years  ago, stands as a bulwark against this erosion of Government free of the biases of those who believe in the supernatural.

        A Christian or a Buddhist, Atheist, Agnostic or "mainstream" (a generalization , true)  Jew has no "real" (the Kim Davis disclaimer) inherent conflict built into their religion which places  their  beliefs at odds with the secular obligation placed on governmental officials by the Constitution  of the United States.

        I have maintained and will continue to maintain that Ben Carson is a well meaning, medically talented   doctor with extremely limited expertise outside the narrow confines of medicine. Some of his statements regarding  other  issues have been and, I'm sure, will continue to be verging on the moronic. I consider him to be philosophically and objectively crippled by his own extreme evangelical and fundamentalist Christianity. Having said that, I also feel that, whether from subjective ignorance or informed  reason, he puts forth a reasonable proposition here which, at a minimum, bears discussion. 

       while acknowledging that there are those in the Muslim world who are not as rigidly fundamentalist as the majority, I would encourage anyone who is interested to look around and see how many of those liberals are governing any nation state. Those states which are not under Islamic law (Turkey, for one)  are subject to constant infighting among their own people over the issue. Others like Syria and Iraq were the personal domains of Saddam Hussein or the Assad family, ruling as tyrants. Pakistan is a hopeless hodge-podge of generals struggling to keep order while maintaining control over their own fundamentalist Islamist  malcontents.

        Unlike Christians who are encouraged (at least in the Bible) to "render unto Caesar,"  historically regarded as meaning be a good citizen under whatever system you may find yourself, a devout Muslim, by almost any interpretation one cares to make in the vast majority of the Islamic world, would be forced into a sort of doctrinal  "kobiyashi maru"  (for all you Star Trek fans). This not necessarily an inherently anti Islamic point of view. A devout Hassidic Jew would have the same problem, so would a  person of Amish belief. The difference, of course, being that neither the Hassid or the Amish person would ever run for national office in the United States, or even think it appropriate to do so.