Ben Carson says no Muslim should ever become US president

Sep 22, 2015

Fox News

By Martin Pengelly

The Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson has said no Muslim should be president of the United States of America.

In an interview with NBC for broadcast on Sunday morning, the retired neurosurgeon said: “I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation. I absolutely would not agree with that.”

Carson’s discussion with Meet the Press host Chuck Todd centered around controversy that arose this week when Donald Trump – the real-estate mogul keeping Carson in second place in the pollsfailed to correct an audience member at a New Hampshire campaign rally who said President Obama was a Muslim.

The audience member also appeared to advocate the forcible removal of Muslims from the US.


Read the full story by clicking the name of the source below.

31 comments on “Ben Carson says no Muslim should ever become US president

  • He thinks that America is a Christian country.

    I don’t care how much science he has done in the past – he’s an idiot.

    It just goes to show that it is possible to be an intelligent moron.



    Report abuse

  • In all fairness to Mr. Carson he stated that the US was founded on christian principles, which is debatable since it seems the founding fathers were concerned with the influence of the church over their new country.



    Report abuse

  • I know Carson is a Christian, yet his stand-alone answer won my applause. He spoke of approving a president’s religion held consistent with upholding the constitution by which I presume he meant the rule of U.S. law-not Sharia Law. Answering the question from a secular humanist point of view, there would be no substantive difference from Carson’s wording: “I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation. I absolutely would not agree with that.”

    Islam makes no distinction between the state and religion. The Caliph or his equivalent is both the head of state and the religious leader charged with enforcing Islamic Sharia Law. There is no such thing as secular law or civil society. Legitimate citizenship requires the profession of faith. Historically, people of different faiths, notably Judaism and Christianity or so-called “people of the Book,” have been permitted to live and work in Muslim countries on the condition they pay an infidel tax. Strictly prohibited from proselytizing they are constrained in their religious practices and consigned to 2nd class citizenship which periodically exposes them to very harsh treatment depending on the political mood of the times. Muslims also strictly police each other for signs of heresy, blasphemy or apostasy, offenses punishable by the sectarian powers-that-be by imprisonment, flogging, or death.

    Regarding the United States or the United Kingdom, I hope most citizens would say: “I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation. I absolutely would not agree with that.”



    Report abuse

  • I don’t think anybody with delusions of a ghost in the sky watching over us, or any other form of mental instability, should be allowed to run for office.
    People who believe in myths and fairy stories are dangerous, to put someone like that in power is irresponsible.



    Report abuse

  • Islam makes no distinction between the state and religion. The Caliph
    or his equivalent is both the head of state and the religious leader
    charged with enforcing Islamic Sharia Law. There is no such thing as
    secular law or civil society.

    Since Carson’s comment–and the reaction–is all over the internet right now, I’ve seen this line of reasoning already. I have to wonder how much faith (for want of a better word) you have in our Constitution and the other two branches of government, should a Muslim somehow get into the White House.



    Report abuse

  • Islam makes no distinction between the state and religion.

    Oh dear!

    The definition and application of secularism, especially the place of religion in society, varies among Muslim countries as it does among European countries and the United States.

    5.1 Secularist movements by state
    5.1.1 Turkey
    5.1.2 Lebanon
    5.1.3 Tunisia
    5.1.4 Egypt
    5.1.5 Syria
    5.1.6 Iran
    5.1.7 Pakistan

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_secularism

    Regarding the United States or the United Kingdom, I hope most
    citizens would say: “I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in
    charge of this nation. I absolutely would not agree with that.”

    Regarding the United States or the United Kingdom, I hope most citizens would say: “I would not advocate that we put a Muslim or Christian or Buddhist or Satanist…etc.. in charge of this nation. I absolutely would not agree with that. I would want a forward thinking realist” (Fixed)



    Report abuse

  • The definition and application of secularism, especially the place of religion in society, varies among Muslim countries as it does among European countries and the United States.

    Sure it does. Spain under the inquisition perhaps came closest to establishing a theocracy in Europe: Encyclopedia Britannica: (1478–1834), judicial institution ostensibly established to combat heresy in Spain. In practice, the Spanish Inquisition served to consolidate power in the monarchy …

    Europe settled its religious conflicts between protestants and Catholics in the Thirty Years War during the 17th century (1618-1648). The civil wars between Shia and Sunni Muslims are being settled today. Extremist Muslims, jihadists complicate the struggles by targeting the infidel west with terrorist attacks today.

    Even the liberal Joe Lieberman who ran as Al Gore’s vice presidential candidate was an anomalous supporter of Bush’s war in Iraq. Many assimilated American Jews still feel an overriding loyalty to the tiny Jewish State of Israel and despite their generally dovish inclinations bitterly insist on hawkish intransigence to the Iranian nuclear deal. Take this niche example of mixed ethnic identity and loyalty and magnify it on the geopolitical scale of the shifting alliances and armed conflicts in North Africa, the Middle East, Central Asia and the Indian sub-continent all driven by Islam, the last great barbarism of religion on the planet with nearly 2 billion adherents. Throw a “neutral” American Muslim president into the mix and you might as well throw a match into a pool of gasoline.



    Report abuse

  • It depends so much on the specific Muslim individual.

    I would be concerned about any discernably “devout” follower of any religion (Romney as a Mormon, for example), but we all know that many (hopefully most?) Americans are “nominal” whatevers, and do not necessarily let their religious affiliation (which is primarily cultural) determine what their political, social, economic, etc. beliefs and decisions will be.

    I think it’s reasonable to expect most Americans (and particularly those who would be inclined to run for high political office) to be able to keep their “church and state” separate. Those who cannot usually tip their hand at some point in the selection process and disqualify themselves, because although the Constitution may prohibit “religious tests”, the public uses them freely.



    Report abuse

  • I hope most citizens would say: “I would not advocate that we put a Muslim or Christian or Buddhist or Satanist…etc.. in charge of this nation.

    Well distilled Olgun. This isolates the issue. In 2015, making decisions without evidence, or worse, in direct contradiction of evidence is no longer acceptable… On any subject. I don’t care what the head of state believes in private, but in public, it’s rational evidence based decision making, or I will invoke my own rational evidenced based decision making, and refuse to vote for this person.



    Report abuse

  • Agreed David R Allen and Olgun,

    I share Melvin’s concerns about Shiria Law. However I also have similar concerns about Roman Catholicism, and Evangelical Christianity. If the Muslim in question was very moderate, prepared to state clearly like Kennedy that their religion would be kept out of political decisions then there is no reason they should not stand. The likes of Maajid Nawaz would be perfectly fine as a president for example. Perhaps we could close the circle by saying the degree to which we are comfortable with any religious head of state is inversely proportional to the degree to which said candidate takes seriously the more fundamentalism interpretations of their holy book?



    Report abuse

  • Whatever you read about Islam does not necessarily reflect reality in the Muslim world today. For instance, Tunisia is a Muslim society that has a secular constitution and a long history of religious tolerance that has fully and easily incorporated it’s Jewish and Christian minorities. Of course we’re not even talking about a Muslim society here. You’re talking about the thousands of Muslim American citizens who have lived in our secular society their entire lives and who would no sooner advocate abrogating the constitutional separation of church and state than you would. Suggesting that a Muslim president would somehow be something to fear is like fearing a Christian president would advocate bringing back the witch trials.



    Report abuse

  • The barbarism you cite, Melvin, exists in a brand of militant Islam only. Your argument that a “neutral” American president would be incendiary, disturbingly ignores the thousands and thousands of Muslims fighting against ISIS and the like, let alone those peaceful Muslims who have been killed or displaced by the radicals. Do you think that the majority of Christians wholeheartedly agreed with the inquisition, witch trials, crusades?



    Report abuse

  • The barbarism you cite, Melvin, exists in a brand of militant Islam only.

    Where in history or on the doctrinal spectrum did/does Islam cease to be militant and become peaceful? After the 1,000th lash administered to a blogger pursuant to an order by the supreme court of Saudi Arabia, after the commutation of a death sentence handed down by a Pakistani court to a mentally retarded girl for defacing a Q’uran, after the last heretic in a row of kneeling captives gets the ISIS bullet in the back of the head. Yes, we can make fleeting judgements about good Muslims fighting bad Muslims only to be forced to reverse those judgements the next day. To paraphrase a hippie slogan from the 60s: Islam is not good for men, women and children and other living things. In its original flavor Islam is authoritarian, misogynist, atavistic and cruel. Islam lite practiced by official or de facto refugees who have ‘resettled” in the west may feel liberating to some and less satisfactory to others who deplore the permissive, impious and democratic society that surrounds them.

    A Muslim winning the White House, only in a perverse exercise of imagination, could not make tough decisions in the national interest for the foreseeable future. Amid the ceaseless blood bath unfolding in the region, a voice in the back of his head would remind him which side his sectarian ancestors fought for and the consequences of betraying them.



    Report abuse

  • Perhaps we could close the circle by saying the degree to which we are comfortable with any religious head of state is inversely proportional to the degree to which said candidate takes seriously the more fundamentalism interpretations of their holy book?

    Ahh Reckless, well devined. We need to condense this down to a maths like equation. For each Head of State (HOS)

    ACB = Acceptability Rating

    HOS = Insert Religious Brand (Each brand gets a rating from innocuous to toxic)

    D = Degree

    F = Fundamentism

    ACB = HOS (inv) D x F (I think)

    If the ACB is a positive number, then that HOS would be acceptable. If the ACB is negative, then a negative vote is required.

    Australia just got rid of an ACB negative rating Prime Minister who let his catholicism influence his policies.

    As per above. It’s not the brand of religion that is the problem, it is the degree of enforcement of said religion.



    Report abuse

  • Firstly I would say that Carson’s opinions on anything are fairly irrelevant as he has zero chance of getting elected. However it’s vanishingly unlikely that the American electorate would vote for a muslim in today’s climate for any public office never mind Potus. Of course where I differ is that Carson thinks Potus should be a christian whereas I think anyone who believes in supernatural sky pixies should be banned from public office by default. I mean, how well did that work out with Bush and Blair? Pretty catastrophically.

    As for Trumpeter, he apparently appeals to what I call “the teenage streak” in the American psyche. The wild frontier mentality thing that still lingers on. However he displays his real character in dribs and drabs and it’s not pleasant. He refused to answer Colbert last night on whether Obama was born in the USA having made such an ungodly fuss about it for most of Obama’s first term. Just the tiniest display of either honesty or contrition that the question was long settled and he’d been wrong from the start was clearly too much for him. So maybe the next question should have been “how much is honesty a requirement for the office of President?”

    If he answers it is then he excludes himself and if he answers it isn’t then he looks like an insane person.



    Report abuse

  • 16
    voiceofarabi says:

    I think…. No one who believes pray and talk to fictitious “friend” or “God” should be allowed to participate in any activities that are meant to be for Adults…. and that’s all activities.., drinking, driving, having sex, etc etc….

    Never mind about being the leader of a superpower, who are already raping the world…



    Report abuse

  • 17
    voiceofarabi says:

    Hi Melvin,

    You are mixing Islam with Saudi Arabia…….

    I am not defending Islam or any religion for that matter, but what you are saying above is like saying “Hitler was Christian, and no Christian should ever be allowed to hold office.)

    Saudi is so far from Islam, that it makes Europe closer to islam than Saudi… if anything… Saudi is closer to haredi jews than main stream islam, and many people know that Haredi Jews as sooooo far from mainstream jews.

    p.s. Saudi funds many countries to follow their brand of islam, including Pakistan, Gulf States, etc etc.



    Report abuse

  • David R Allen
    Sep 23, 2015 at 2:07 am

    As I see it, there are two problems with religious political leaders.

    1)Fundamentalists habitually and assertively, use the utterly flawed “faith-thinking” for making decisions, and get widespread support for applying these flawed decisions, from fellow faith-thinkers who share their indoctrinated cognitive biases – or just share an irrational “faith-thinking” mentality!

    2)Those whose faith is compartmentalised in parallel with evidence-based rational thought, can flip from reason to faith-thinking without warning, when pressures or faith-triggers affect them.



    Report abuse

  • Reckless Monkey

    Purely in the interest of clarity, balance and understanding, could your concern be manufactured? The battle between muslim and jew being the cause?

    SOME Muslims see the west adapting Jewish laws and want their say as well, regardless of whether they are saying the same thing or not.



    Report abuse

  • This is probably the only time I will ever agree with Ben Carson on anything. Everyone is making far too much of his statements. Islam more than a religion. It is an entire system of government. The notion of separation of church and state is heresy. When Muslims live as a minority, they have to ignore half of Islam. and tolerate separation of church and state.
    Many will be happy with this, but others will try to impose Shiari’a and other political aspects of Islam on their home country. That is one reason why I would never vote for an orthodox Muslim (or for a Dominionist Christian for that matter who have similar beliefs.) Voting for people who support separation of church and state is no more wicked that voting for people who support action on climate change (even though that excludes fundamentalist Christians).



    Report abuse

  • I don’t advocate putting anyone in charge of a nation that is more interested in dogma than the running of the government. Which in this case pretty much includes every single Republican running for office.



    Report abuse

  • He stated that islamic principles are against the USA constitution. Therefore a devout muslim cannot be president as they would not be able to follow, in good faith, the ideals of the American constitution….



    Report abuse

  • Absolutely Roedy. Islam is a public religion. It demands the public space. It has no truck with any kind of secularism. A pious muslim always brings their religion into every aspect of their lives. Is this haram or halal? And if it is haram – out it goes….. book, picture, science, building, animal, person or idea…… expunged from history. There is no innovation in islam.



    Report abuse

  • Denise
    Sep 23, 2015 at 8:43 am

    He stated that islamic principles are against the USA constitution. Therefore a devout muslim cannot be president as they would not be able to follow, in good faith, the ideals of the American constitution….

    “Good Faith” to the fundamentalist is following dogma.

    Kim Davis and Huckabee, have sworn oaths to uphold the constitution and the law, but seem to have no problem of conscience, with wilfully defying any parts they do not like!



    Report abuse

  • Actually, he said he would not support a candidate with a theocratic mindset, in later clarifying remarks, regardless of the religion. Anyone can run, but he wouldn’t support someone who would let religion inform decisions rather than the rule of law. Our founders could have been deists, Hindus, or anything else, but they wanted a government based on law (a Republic), not based on a church/religion. Very new concept. Some Americans don’t get that. I’m an atheist. I’m a constitutionalist. I’m a Libertarian. I WON’T vote for anyone who’s religion will interfere with those principles, but I am sick to death of political correctness.



    Report abuse

  • This Carson bloke seems to be is a bit of a twerp; where do they find them?

    Where ever national leaders carry religious baggage they are likely to let it effect their alliances and decisions, from which it follows that if they are religious they need to keep it to themselves; fat chance!

    Although it has to be said that Tone Blair kept his religion under his hat; we should be grateful for small mercies I suppose.



    Report abuse

  • Let’s not be stupid.

    When Ben Carson says no Muslism should be allowed to be presidents, he is not saying that no Muslisms should be allowed to be presidents (who is that misterious Muslism who is running, anyway?).

    He is saying that no non-Christians should be allowed to be presidents.



    Report abuse

  • There are examples of theist presidents trying to inflict theocracies on whole populations!

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-34477875

    Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has broken his silence over the mob killing of a Muslim man rumoured to have eaten beef.

    Hindus and Muslims should fight poverty and not each other, he told a campaign rally in Bihar.

    So the Hindu government leaders plan to “fight poverty” by banning beef eating, while protecting sacred cows as they eat crops and deprive the people of food!

    Mr Modi had been under pressure to condemn the killing of Mohammad Akhlaq, who was beaten to death last month.

    Hindus consider cows sacred and slaughtering the animals is banned in many states.

    Mr Modi’s government wants a nationwide ban, but beef is consumed by Muslims and other religious minorities in India.

    He is trotting out the usual false dichotomy which is seen in the view through faith-blinkers!

    “Hindus should decide whether to fight Muslims or poverty. Muslims have to decide whether to fight Hindus or poverty.

    So depriving poor Muslims of beef and allowing sacred cows to eat their crops is “fighting poverty! – and in no way provocative (allegedly)!

    But his comments come on the same day that members of Mr Modi’s BJP party beat a Muslim politician in the Kashmir state assembly after he served beef at a private party.

    Opposition leader Omar Abdullah led a walkout, asking afterwards: “Do I assault everyone who eats pork or alcohol?



    Report abuse

  • I see Ben Carson has been showing off his delusional gun-nut credentials!

    http://www.timesofisrael.com/ben-carson-blames-gun-control-for-the-holocaust/
    Ben Carson blames gun control for the Holocaust

    Presidential hopeful says fewer people would have been murdered by the Nazis if citizens were armed

    CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer was challenging Carson over claims in his latest book that gun control has historically been a predicate for tyranny.

    In the same interview, Carson also said that arming kindergarten teachers would help prevent school shootings.



    Report abuse

Leave a Reply

View our comment policy.