I have just a short comment on Ben Carson’s recent flap over his statement that in essence a Muslim should not occupy the White House.  To begin, his comment was ripped out of context.  He had argued that a Muslim who supported Sharia Law would not be fir for president.  But in addition, he attempted to clarify his remarks on Monday:

“If someone has a Muslim background and they’re willing to reject those tenets and to accept the way of life that we have and clearly will swear to place our Constitution above their religion … I would then be quite willing to support them.”

This is what I would have said the first time.  And I probably would have been even clearer, something to the effect that “I could not support a candidate who did not sincerely believe that the United States Constitution was the fundamental law of this polity, and whose meaning should be understood in light of its original context and Framers’ intentions, as far as recoverable.”  This is not to say a person cannot hold to a more fundamental law and be required to exercise his/her conscience at some time.  But that is a personal decision, to be made with the expectation that that person cannot impose his scruples on everyone else.  In other words, that person cannot intend to block the operation of the Constitution or advocate and work for fundamental change away from the American legal/political system, which is predicated on the consent of the people through the Constitutional document itself.

I realize this has ramifications for Christians also.  Should we advocate changes in law or political institutions that would oppose at least a prevailing interpretation of the Constitution?  I believe we can do so and on occasions ought to do so.  But here are two differences: (1) we should do that within the existing framework for such changes as established by the Constitution and (2) our existing Constitution is at base already not inconsistent with Christian principles, meaning that it already comports with much of what we would advocate.

Sharia Law on the other hand is a system of law clearly opposed to Western legal notions and specifically would oppose by definition the Constitution, especially where it touches on the issue of rights and justice.

Having said all this, Ben Carson surely learned lessons.  First, always be careful what you say as a political candidate. The news media will not be kind.  In fact, the media may well be looking for weaknesses on which to pounce, and in some sense, making those weaknesses up by the way it reports.  Second, Carson should, just for its own sake, choose his words more carefully.  Nuance is necessary sometimes, though not always helpful to a candidate.

Still, in the end, Carson raises a very important issue, worthy of discussion.