The U.S. presidential is not until November, 2016, but it is full swing and has been since January. At this time (September 22, 2015) the Democrats have a hand-full of candidates but the Republicans have 16 candidates, 4 more potential candidates and 2 candidates who have suspended their campaigns. Among the current front-runners for the nomination are millionaire Donald Trump and neurosurgeon Ben Carson. Both have no experience in politics.
Could there be a more ironic backdrop to the debate over Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson's comments about Islam and the presidency? It rages as Pope Francis prepares to speak this week to the U.S. Congress, in a nation where Catholics were once banned from holding public office for fear their allegiance would be to Rome. Asked Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press" whether a president's faith should matter, Carson said, "I guess it depends on what that faith is. If it's inconsistent with the values and principles of America, then of course it should matter." Then, Carson added, "I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation. I absolutely would not agree with that."
Carson was, of course, expressing his personal view and did not call for barring Muslims from the presidency. But, many constitutional scholars say Carson's view is at odds with the design of the nation's founders. Such a sentiment would very likely have surprised Thomas Jefferson, who wrote in 1821 that Virginia's religious freedom law was meant to apply to "the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and the Mahometan," a term then used to mean Muslim, "the Hindoo and infidel of every denomination."
Says Akhil Reed Amar, a constitutional expert at Yale, "One of the most striking features of the Constitution is how it goes out of its way to insist that the federal government is open to persons of all faiths or no faith in particular." Article VI of the U.S. Constitution requires public officials to be "bound by oath, or affirmation, to support this Constitution." Then it adds, "But no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." At the time of the founding, a dozen states had already imposed religious qualifications for holding office, and some explicitly barred non-Protestants. New York required an oath disavowing allegiance to a foreign prince, meaning the Pope, to disqualify Catholics.
The Constitution doesn't define the term "religious test," and the Supreme Court has never ruled directly on what Article VI means, though it has referred to the provision as banning "religious oath tests." However, Oliver Ellsworth, a delegate to the Constitutional Convention who became the Supreme Court's third Chief Justice, wrote in 1787 that a religious test "is an act to be done, or a profession to be made ... for the purpose of determining whether his religious opinions are such, that he is admissible to a public office." And, John Kennedy, the first and only Catholic US president, referred to the provision during his 1960 campaign, saying advocates of a religious test "would work to subvert Article VI. If this election is decided on the basis that 40 million Americans lost their chance of being president on the day they were baptized, then it is the whole nation that will be the loser," he said.
While Article VI is seen as banning only religious oaths, the First Amendment's guarantee of religious freedom goes much further. In 1961, the US Supreme Court struck down any kind of religious standard for public office even a requirement to profess a belief in God. The court also acted in the case of Roy Torcaso, a man who sought appointment as a notary public in Maryland. The state constitution required "a declaration of belief in the existence of God" to hold "any office of profit or trust." Because he was an atheist, Torcaso refused to make such a statement, and his appointment was revoked. In ruling for him, the justices said "we repeat and again reaffirm that neither a state nor the federal government can constitutionally force a person to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion." The court ruled unanimously, relying on the First Amendment's guarantee of religious freedom. Taken together, says Yale scholar Akhil Amar, these constitutional provisions were "absolutely revolutionary. This is one of the biggest ideas in the Constitution, that we're going to have a system open to all.... In a nation founded by Protestants, the current US Supreme Court consists of six Catholics and three Jews, and two of the four men on Mt. Rushmore, Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln, were not... churchgoers." Finally, he notes that in the last presidential election, of the four candidates for president and vice-president, only one was a Protestant, Barack Obama. Joe Biden and Paul Ryan are Catholics, and Mitt Romney is a Mormon.
Carson came under fire for remarks he made on TVs “Meet the Press” when he said that he would not support a Muslim president. But the Republican presidential candidate’s answer and especially his follow-up responses are more than just a dashed-off opinion about a hypothetical president. They’re common talking points among many far-right activists in Carson’s political orbit, and are used to sow doubts about individual Muslims’ loyalty to the U.S. no matter how patriotic they might outwardly appear.
And, in an interview with The Hill after his “Meet The Press” TV appearance, Carson repeatedly brought up the concept of “taqiyya,” a concept in Shia Islamic law that’s historically given dispensation to Muslims to conceal their religion if they’re facing dangerous persecution. Carson defined the word as “a component of Shia that allows, and even encourages you to lie to achieve your goals. Because obviously if a Muslim was running for president, there would be a lot more education about Sharia, about taqiyya,” Carson said.
The implication was very clear. Even an otherwise politically acceptable Muslim candidate who embraces American values should be viewed as a potential extremist. And, the logical extension is that the average Muslim citizen may be suspicious as well. Carson’s campaign spokesman Doug Watts spoke about American Muslims in blanket terms on Sunday, telling NBC News that there is “a huge gulf between the faith and the practice of the Muslim faith, and our Constitution and American values.”
Carson’s theory of “taqiyya” is a popular idea in anti-sharia political circles. But Devin Stewart, a Middle Eastern studies professor at Emory University who has researched the history of the taqiyya, told MSNBC Carson’s interpretation was contrary to its historic use in Shia Islam, which was similar to other religions. Many Jews, for example, converted to Catholicism during the Spanish Inquisition under threat of expulsion or violence, but secretly maintained Jewish traditions in their home. Stewart also likened taqiyya to “mental reservation,” a doctrine invoked by some Catholics at points to protect the church’s adherents under Protestant rule as well as similar cases of Protestants hiding their religion to avoid Catholic persecution. “Singling Muslims out as duplicitous is unfair,” Stewart wrote in an email.
Anti-Islamic leaders like Frank Gaffney, who has been barred from the conservative gathering CPAC for accusing its organizers of being part of a radical Islamic conspiracy, frequently argue that Muslims who are outwardly fine with liberal democracy are using “taqiyya” to conceal their true views. Carson attended a summit co-hosted by Gaffney in Iowa this year along with Donald Trump, Texas Senator Ted Cruz, former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum, and Louisiana Govenor Bobby Jindal.
“Carson is perfectly happy playing footsie with people who have very extreme views about Muslims,” Heidi Beirich of the Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks extremism, told MSNBC. “This idea that Muslim loyalties lie somewhere else and that they can’t be trusted as Americans because their religion hampers their ability to be democratic or civilized. This is nothing new.”
The Anti-Defamation League, which was founded to combat anti-Semitism and other forms of discrimination, issued a statement from national director Jonathan Greenblatt on Monday denouncing Carson’s “deeply offensive” remarks.“Remarks suggesting that all Muslims follow extremist interpretations of Islam have no basis in fact and fuel bigotry,” Greenblatt said.
At a town hall meeting in New Hampshire, a questioner denounced Muslims as a "problem" in the U.S. and said President Obama is a member of the religion and was not born in the U.S., and asked "when can we get rid of them?" Donald Trump, a twice divorced Catholic, said only, "We are going to be looking at that and plenty of other things," As a result, a Trump spokeswoman was forced to issue three different statements clarifying his response.
Asked whether Trump should have corrected the questioner, Carson said: "I suspect that if he gets that question again, that's exactly what he'll do." He also said he'd have corrected a question like that if asked.
Ben Carson gave Donald Trump the benefit of the doubt on his decision not to correct a man who questioned President Obama's religion calling him a Muslim and questioning citizenship in New Hampshire At that time, Carson suggested that Trump simply misheard the question and would handle it differently in the future. "Certainly, one must always analyze the questions carefully. That's something I have come to learn, because sometimes you just go into answering mode without thinking about it," he said.