Topic: Liberal Fascism
Republican presidential candidate Dr. Ben Carson got himself in trouble recently by opining that devotees of Islam are unqualified to serve as president of the United States. For this expression of bigotry he was roundly condemned, critics in the media and elsewhere emoting over “Islamophobia,” delivering finger-wagging lectures about the US Constitution’s stricture against religious tests as a qualification for political office, etc. And as you’d expect, many of Carson’s critics proudly proclaimed that they would never reject a presidential candidate just because he happens to be a Muslim.
It’s nice to know that liberals, progressives and leftists—let’s call them the broad Left—would be pleased and proud to vote a Muslim into the White House—provided, of course, that the Muslim in question supported abortion, same-sex marriage, the equality of women, separation of church and state, religious pluralism and so on. Of course, that a candidate who supported such things could actually be a Muslim is a highly debatable question that reveals two things: (1) Dr. Carson’s point was to some extent a valid one and (2) liberals, progressives and leftists are hypocrites.
Is it not obvious that a Muslim presidential candidate acceptable to the broad Left wouldn’t really be a Muslim at all? No, he’d be an apostate, eligible in the eyes of many faithful Muslims for capital punishment. Now a liberal who happens to be a Catholic can dodge the problem of the conflict between faith and ideology by saying: “As a private person I accept the teaching of the Church on marriage, abortion, etc.—but as a public servant I have to take a broader view.” This claim may be dubious as a matter of faith and morals. But the only authority wielded by the Catholic Church is moral authority; it has no power to fine, imprison or kill the backslider or the heretic. Indeed, the Church in America has for the most part been reluctant to wield even its moral authority in the cases where liberal Catholic politicians support abortion, same-sex marriage, etc.—say, by excommunicating Nancy Pelosi.
But Islam isn’t like that. The authority it claims is not just moral but legal, political—even economic. Islam is a religion but not simply a religion. It demands and in many parts of the world receives the power to order the whole life of the community. In countries where it holds such power Islam does not simply violate Western norms of human rights in practice—it rejects them in principle. Pluralism, whether secular or religious, is anathema to Islam. Democracy is inadmissible. Equality is nonexistent. Those are the realites of Islam.
In America, of course, Muslims constitute a small minority. They lack the power and, probably, the will to impose Islamic norms on the country as a whole. As citizens or legal residents they’re entitled to the free exercise of their religion, provided that the rights of others are not infringed upon thereby. There’s no reason to think that Muslims in America pose a threat to our democracy or our pluralistic society. Many of them are here, indeed, because of the oppression they experienced in their native countries.
How far, though, can Muslims participate in American public life while remaining faithful to their religion? In good conscience, could an American Muslim politician make a distinction between his private religious beliefs and his role as a public servant? As a county clerk, could she in good conscience issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples? As a soldier, could he in good conscience oppose fellow Muslims on the field of battle? The answers to these questions are not at all obvious. And Dr. Ben Carson’s critics are very anxious that they not be raised at all.
