Carson rhetoric on Muslims baseless
September 28, 2015
During a recent interview with NBC’s Meet the Press, Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson claimed that he “absolutely would not agree with” putting a Muslim president in charge of the United States. Later, he said religion could be “probable cause” for domestic surveillance, before lambasting the religion of Islam as being un-American. Carson’s statement reflects concerns of the general public’s concerns about the possibility of a Muslim leader; for years, people have been questioning President Barack Obama’s religious practices, suggesting that he is secretly a Muslim. Perhaps to their disappointment, none of those conspiracy theories were proven to be true, but the visceral reaction to the mere possibility of having a Muslim president reflects the deep-seated Islamophobia that still runs through American politics.
Despite Carson’s appalling remarks, the Constitution clearly states that religion should not be a qualification for any elected officials. Everyone, including Obama, is free to choose any religion, and their right to do so is protected by the Constitution. The real threat to the constitution is Tea Party demagoguery against Muslims and their hostility towards the very freedom they claim to “protect”. For years, those pundits are continuously misleading the American public into focusing on the president’s religious affiliation, which is the last thing to which people should pay attention. Focusing on more important issues, such as economic development, social security and education, is what a responsible citizen and voter should do.
The fear of a Muslim president also reflects the extent of Islamophobia in our society. When one of John McCain’s supporters labeled Obama an “Arab” during his rally, John McCain responded “no” to her, and said that Obama is “a decent family man.” Senator McCain had done a good job in telling the truth that Obama is not a Muslim — or an “Arab” — but on the other hand, his suggesting that being a Muslim is inconsistent with being a “decent family man” is inappropriate, to say the least. Bigots and ungrounded hostilities towards the Muslim community has been growing constantly during recent years, and especially during election seasons. Contrary to what Peter King says, there are not too many mosques in this country; rather, there are too many politicians such as King and Sarah Palin conflating Islam with violence and using the same old rhetoric to slander Muslims to appeal to people’s emotions. These acts Islamophobia should neither be blindly accepted nor ignored.
The president surely can be a Muslim and that does not matter. What matters is the president’s ability to bring positive changes to the nation. What matters is society’s inclusion and acceptance of different cultures that may be drastically different from its own. What matters is, as educated and responsible citizens, our affirmation of the self-evident truth that “all men are created equal,” regardless of what they believe in.
Opinions expressed on the editorial pages are not necessarily those of WSN, and our publication of opinions is not an endorsement of them.
Email Haomiao Han at [email protected].
Alli • Dec 7, 2015 at 2:07 am
As much as I disagree with what Carson said, considering I know many wonderful Muslims who fully understand the concept of separation between church and state, I can’t help but feel Carson’s words were a product of analysis. If you look at the countries currently governed by Muslims, almost all of them use Sharia law as a governing force. This permits the death penalty for homosexuality, women who do not adhere to the incredibly strict dress code, and those who reject Islam. There is also severe punishment for pre-marital sex, and domestic abuse is not only allowed, but expected.
Kim Cheol Ang • Nov 9, 2015 at 6:00 pm
I am also an Asian student, and I must say, both the article and some of the comments’ arguments strike me as a bit generic at best and extreme at worst. Arafat may be too biased in one extreme, but you are too biased in yet another.
I personally do not believe a pagan should become this country’s next President because I think many polytheistic beliefs are primitive and incompatible with modern society. Nor do I support a theistic Satanist become the next Head of State either. Does that make me bigoted against Satanists? Perhaps, but I do not think that I will change my opinion any time soon.
Basically, I personally think that we SHOULD support a Muslim President — but only IF the religious beliefs are kept completely separate from the political sphere. After all, when will China see its first Muslim President? Not any time sooner, I would wager.
P.S. This is an article which may possibly interest you:
http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27476868
Haomiao Han • Oct 6, 2015 at 12:05 am
@ Arafat –
Firstly, I would like to clarify that I am not affiliated to any religion.
I would be appreciate if you could give me the specific source why Islam considers “infidels are second-class citizens who are not entitled to the same freedoms as Muslims” and why Islam does not allow “individual freedoms,” because I do not see any of it in any credible source.
Speaking of KKK, I do admit that nowadays certain extremists groups such as al-Qaeda and ISIS increasingly resemble the behaviors of KKK. However, that does not mean that *muslims* are like the KKK members – keep in mind that KKK members considered themselves as Protestants according to Wikipedia. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan) Do we say that Protestantism is a “hate-filled religion?” Absolutely not.
And finally, my point of writing this article is not trying “point an Islamic country that [I] defines as worthy of admiration,” but rather to speak out the truth. The reason why I was trying to defend Islam is that more and more people including you, Dr. Ben Carson, Rep. Peter King and former Governor Sarah Palin, are making baseless accusations towards Islam and trying to discriminate against the Muslim community, just as I said in the article. What Dr. Carson said is in a direct contradiction of the U.S. Constitution, and what you do is threatening the very freedom – freedom of worship according to President Franklin Roosevelt’s “four freedoms” – you claimed to protect. Think about it – this simply does not make any sense at all.
A devout Muslim – or one who is devout in any religion – can legally be the president of United States. Period.
Arafat • Sep 30, 2015 at 8:00 pm
Islam is akin to the KKK in many ways. (Can I write this or are my freedoms not respected in this regard?)
Islam, like the KKK, is a supremacist and hate-filled “religion” for whom all others are deemed of unequal worth. Muslims routinely torture and kill those who do not live up to these ideals {sic}. Muslims throw gays off of buildings. Muslims stone women to death. Muslims kidnap Christian children and forcibly convert them to their master “religion”.
They do all this in the name of “Allah” and in accordance with Sharia law. Why would anyone defend Islam as Han is doing? Can Han point to an Islamic country that he defines as worthy of admiration?
Arafat • Sep 30, 2015 at 7:55 pm
Islam is inherently in conflict with our Constitution. Islam is inherently against equal rights for all people. Under Islam infidels are second-class citizens who are not entitled to the same freedoms as Muslims. Under Islam individual freedoms are not allowed, Islam is all about submission of the individual to Islam’s group think. Sharia law is unconstitutional.
Carson is correct: A devout Muslim cannot legally be our president. Of course he could be an Ayatollah if he so desired.