Rand Paul to Ben Carson: There’s no religious test in politics

[mello]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/09/21/rand-paul-to-ben-carson-theres-no-religious-test-in-politics/

[hells_unicorn]

On a factual level, Rand Paul is completely correct, there is no religious test that is called for in the U.S. Constitution. While I have a bit more sympathy to Carson's position on this particular point, this will not look good for Carson and I'd say that from a practical standpoint, Rand is on the right side of this issue and will benefit from it among the general electorate.

[65fastback2+2]

On a factual level, Rand Paul is completely correct, there is no religious test that is called for in the U.S. Constitution. While I have a bit more sympathy to Carson's position on this particular point, this will not look good for Carson and I'd say that from a practical standpoint, Rand is on the right side of this issue and will benefit from it among the general electorate.

I agree with Rand's position, and it is the right position.

But it is a position that will hurt him, unfortunately.

Too many people fear-monger the muslims. My dad is constantly going on about "did you hear about sharia law in Michigan and now its in Texas?!"

[Batman]

Rand has solidified my support. Hefty donation forthcoming.

[jaymur]

Might as well ask the candidates if they think a Kardashian should be president


On a factual level, Rand Paul is completely correct, there is no religious test that is called for in the U.S. Constitution. While I have a bit more sympathy to Carson's position on this particular point, this will not look good for Carson and I'd say that from a practical standpoint, Rand is on the right side of this issue and will benefit from it among the general electorate.

[Batman]

Might as well ask the candidates if they think a Kardashian should be president

Or a Hispanic or a gay person?

[jaymur]

or a jewish person or a handicapped person or how about an actor (Reagan) or a woman, what about a person less than 4 feet tall for president? It's a pointless line of questioning. If 30% of the public was in favor of a person representing a particular group, then it at least be a more valid question. For a long time, people couldn't consider the idea of a divorced president or an unmarried president. I'm tired of this idea we need to elect people of different groups, so that after Obama, Hillary (a woman) was the next step in the country evolving.


Or a Hispanic or a gay person?

[RonPaulMall]

On a factual level, Rand Paul is completely correct, there is no religious test that is called for in the U.S. Constitution. While I have a bit more sympathy to Carson's position on this particular point, this will not look good for Carson and I'd say that from a practical standpoint, Rand is on the right side of this issue and will benefit from it among the general electorate.

I'm not really sure he is correct on a factual basis with respect to Carson though. Carson never said that Muslims should be forbidden by law from holding office (which is what Article VI is all about). He merely said that he would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation. He's not saying they can't run or should be forbidden from holding office. He's just saying we shouldn't elect them. No different than saying we shouldn't elect a Nazi or a Pedophile and certainly not inconsistent with the Constitution. We are free to elect whomever we want. Americans didn't elect a Roman Catholic as President for nearly 200 years and to date Kennedy is still the only Roman Catholic who has ever been selected.

[specsaregood]

I'm not really sure he is correct on a factual basis with respect to Carson though. Carson never said that Muslims should be forbidden by law from holding office (which is what Article VI is all about). He merely said that he would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation. He's not saying they can't run or should be forbidden from holding office. He's just saying we shouldn't elect them. .

Keep in mind that this is the entirety of the answer by Randal in that article,


"Article VI of the Constitution says there won’t be a religious test," Paul said in an interview. "I think the answer is that simple."

Hell it doesn't even cite where or when the interview was, just some nebulous "an interview". I don't see him attacking carson or bringing up the subject. We don't even know the exact wording of the question he was asked that elicited that response.

Anybody have video or know which "interview" that comes from?

[liveandletlive]

no surprise this theocrat is spewing this rhetoric. We are a secular nation whether Carson likes it or not. Also, I'd definitely vote for a Muslim who upholds and defends the Constitution in a heart beat. The Christians havent been doing a very good job.

[alucard13mm]

Good for general election, bad for republican election. Problem right now is making it to general...

[William Tell]

Good for general election, bad for republican election. Problem right now is making it to general...
Cruz actually said about the same as Rand.

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/ted-cruz-ben-carson-muslim-views/2015/09/21/id/692555/

[Matt McGuire]

I'm not really sure he is correct on a factual basis with respect to Carson though. Carson never said that Muslims should be forbidden by law from holding office (which is what Article VI is all about). He merely said that he would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation. He's not saying they can't run or should be forbidden from holding office. He's just saying we shouldn't elect them. No different than saying we shouldn't elect a Nazi or a Pedophile and certainly not inconsistent with the Constitution. We are free to elect whomever we want. Americans didn't elect a Roman Catholic as President for nearly 200 years and to date Kennedy is still the only Roman Catholic who has ever been selected.

Exactly. I don't know why everyone is going on attack mode over this. Get over it.

[hells_unicorn]

I agree with Rand's position, and it is the right position.

But it is a position that will hurt him, unfortunately.

Too many people fear-monger the muslims. My dad is constantly going on about "did you hear about sharia law in Michigan and now its in Texas?!"

It'll only hurt him if Trump doesn't implode or if people like your dad won't acknowledge that Cruz said the same thing. When there isn't a full out anti-Islamic candidate, people tend to gravitate to other issues.

Granted, I don't think this is the right position to hold, I'm not thrilled about the atheist that is currently president, nor do I look forward to living under the rule of a Muslim, Mormon, 7th Day Adventist, or any one of the other various cults out there. I seek after government that represents me, as does anyone else when all is said and done.


no surprise this theocrat is spewing this rhetoric. We are a secular nation whether Carson likes it or not. Also, I'd definitely vote for a Muslim who upholds and defends the Constitution in a heart beat. The Christians havent been doing a very good job.

We're not a nation, secular empire would be a better description of this country. A nation is a people who share a common culture, religion, and genealogy, the whole of what is called America has no such common ground. Geographically and politically, we are an empire, complete with the history of conquest.

Islam and Christianity, by fact of reality, can not exist in the same nation, one or the other will define a nation. Thinking that a nation can be multicultural is a socialist delusion, and the U.S. Constitution is antithetical to both Islam and Christianity, hence why folks as yourself rightly call it secular, though you wrongly attribute the status of nation to it.

[nikcers]

I think now I can at least empathize with you guys who are scared of muslim refugees coming here now. You compare them to pedophiles. If a bunch of pedophiles moved into my neighborhood people would be hiding their kids and not letting them near the schools. So you guys think they are going to strap bombs to themselves and blow themselves up in target while you are shopping or something right?

[erowe1]

This was a mistake for Rand.

Voters may consider the world views of the people they elect. They ought to consider their world views. And they are always going to consider their world views.

Rand could have taken the opportunity to stand up for the right of voters to do this and criticized Carson all at the same time.

The secular humanists who insist that everybody except for them has to leave their faith outside when they go into the voting booth are enemies of freedom. and significantly at this juncture, enemies of a pretty good-sized segment of Republican primary voters who Rand desperately needs.

[Jonderdonk]

I think now I can at least empathize with you guys who are scared of muslim refugees coming here now. You compare them to pedophiles. If a bunch of pedophiles moved into my neighborhood people would be hiding their kids and not letting them near the schools. So you guys think they are going to strap bombs to themselves and blow themselves up in target while you are shopping or something right?

They are migrants, and they must be referred to as such until it can be proven that they are refugees. You know that poor little boy who washed up on the beach in an ill-fated attempt to go to Europe? He was not a refugee. The family was living in Turkey under no imminent threat, and the father killed his entire family trying to get to Europe; this man is an opportunist, not a refugee.

We really have no way of knowing how many are truly refugees and how many are economic migrants... The MSM is propagating that they are mostly refugees, so I'm inclined to think the opposite :p

[nikcers]

They are migrants, and they must be referred to as such until it can be proven that they are refugees. You know that poor little boy who washed up on the beach in an ill-fated attempt to go to Europe? He was not a refugee. The family was living in Turkey under no imminent threat, and the father killed his entire family trying to get to Europe; this man is an opportunist, not a refugee.

We really have no way of knowing how many are truly refugees and how many are economic migrants... The MSM is propagating that they are mostly refugees, so I'm inclined to think the opposite :p

I tend to agree with you, I just was just trying to have an honest discussion. If people think they are pedophiles because of that Afghanistan story I can maybe understand. I was using a little hyperbole but also I was trying to have an honest discussion about what makes people hate those kinds of people other then the mainstream media and stuff.


Rand voted against the budget resolution that sent tax payer dollars to arm moderates in Syria. Then when the "moderates" used chemical weapons the Obama administration blamed Assad and wanted to bomb Bomb Syria. Rand took to the senate floor to garner support against bombing Syria. Now they have a bunch of economic migrants that the EU won't even take because they can't verify that they are from Syria and the US is trying to sell it as a humanitarian crises when we've ignored it for years.

So then the guy who was made a politician by calling Obama a Muslim and hating on economic migrants from south America wants to let them come here. This is indefensible, this is disgusting, it does nothing to solve anything it is just appeasing European countries because for every one we take in means they don't have to take them in or look like bad guys for putting them in camps. Trump tries to pretend he is a humanitarian but there are strings attached.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?481743-Trump-Bring-Syrian-refugees-here-vid&p=5996188&viewfull=1#post5996188
(http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?481743-Trump-Bring-Syrian-refugees-here-vid&p=5996188&viewfull=1#post5996188)

[Crashland]

Carson didn't propose having a religious test, so the left (and many on the right) are just attacking a strawman on this. It is absolutely valid to take someone's values and principles (which can be derived from their religion) into consideration as long as it is not made to be a legal prerequisite. Where Carson went off the rails though, was his generalization of Islam. Trump's base might be happy to just go "well the only TRUE form of Islam is contradictory to the Constitution!", but that is an ignorant and an arrogant presumption IMO. And a bit ironic that Christians would have any basis at all for claiming which version of a false religion is the most genuine.

[Batman]

or a jewish person or a handicapped person or how about an actor (Reagan) or a woman, what about a person less than 4 feet tall for president? It's a pointless line of questioning. If 30% of the public was in favor of a person representing a particular group, then it at least be a more valid question. For a long time, people couldn't consider the idea of a divorced president or an unmarried president. I'm tired of this idea we need to elect people of different groups, so that after Obama, Hillary (a woman) was the next step in the country evolving.

So you prefer we wait for demographics to change before the question is answered? I like it this way. Out in the open. If it's wrong today then its wrong tomorrow. If it's right today, then why wait til tomorrow to make things right?

It's quite a simple question and it isn't complicated. If they're not eligible to run for President then they aren't eligible to vote for President - or donate, for that matter.

[Southron]

Was the constitutionality ever in question? Did anyone propose an official religious test?

[Batman]

This was a mistake for Rand.


I think he did the right thing and he will be rewarded for taking a principled stand. All the islamophobes have already lined up behind failing candidates like Carson and Trump. Neither will perform in the top 3 in Iowa. Bush will take the same position as Rand. He's still the favorite to win the nomination.

[RabbitMan]

Good on Rand to come out in front and continue to paint himself as the reasonable guy with the common-sense views that also happen to be grounded in the Constitution.

He has got to stick with this and be the "Reasonable Tea Party" candidate.

[francisco]

Good on Rand to come out in front and continue to paint himself as the reasonable guy with the common-sense views that also happen to be grounded in the Constitution.

He has got to stick with this and be the "Reasonable Tea Party" candidate.

^^^THIS^^^ is the key

[r3volution 3.0]

Haven't read the article yet, but just a general point:

The Constitution prohibits Congress from passing a law that requires a religious test for office. It does not (contrary to what some pundits have been implying) prohibit voters from applying their own test, i.e. voting or not voting for someone on the basis of religion. I don't especially like defending Carson, but I understood him to be talking about the latter; i.e. he personally does not think a Muslim should be President, and would try to persuade other voters of the same. I happen to disagree with him on that point, but there's nothing unconstitutional in his position.

...the media's failure to make this distinction has been annoying me all day.

EDIT: Having read the article. Rand says there can be no religious test for office: absolutely right. But I don't think that's what Carson was calling for, so Rand's comment may have been beside the point. That said, the media doesn't seem to me making the distinction I noted above, maybe because voters won't understand it, so meh. Politics-wise, Rand got on the right side of the issue.

[nikcers]

EDIT: Having read the article. Rand says there can be no religious test for office: absolutely right. But I don't think that's what Carson was calling for.

Yeah I think it was possibly a personal dig against Carson. The guy doesn't go 10 words without bringing up god or his favorite book.

[PCKY]

Rand's answer on the Muslim question was perfect! Once again he goes straight to the Constitution for the answer... No blather...just straight up "not required". The bomb thing has him being sensible too. Love it!

[PCKY]

Yeah I think it was possibly a personal dig against Carson. The guy doesn't go 10 words without bringing up god or his favorite book.
Carson was talking about not being comfortable with a Muslim due to its incompatibility with the Judeo/Christian principles this country was founded upon. But, and this is important, if a President swears to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, and the electorate believes that he will, the Constitution ensures that he/she can be a couch worshipper.
I think Dr. Carson is dead wrong on this!

[PCKY]

I think he did the right thing and he will be rewarded for taking a principled stand. All the islamophobes have already lined up behind failing candidates like Carson and Trump. Neither will perform in the top 3 in Iowa. Bush will take the same position as Rand. He's still the favorite to win the nomination.
Actually, I think Bush will bring up Kennedy and the flack he took for being Catholic. He would need to read the Constitution to answer with it.

[PCKY]

Was the constitutionality ever in question? Did anyone propose an official religious test?
See my remarks below, but in essence Carson was by implying that being a Muslim automatically makes a person incompatible with the founders as they drew upon Judeo/Christian principles in drafting it.
Kennedy took flack from Protestants who were sure that the U.S. government would be some how run by the Pope from the Vatican.

[BGfree]

I'll never understand why Rand feels the need to express an opinion that has no political gain when he has the option to say nothing.

[Mr.NoSmile]

I'll never understand why Rand feels the need to express an opinion that has no political gain when he has the option to say nothing.

That could easily apply to the Confederate Flag or Kim Davis debate. Paul, like everyone else running for President, is a public figure and when comments or controversial issues arise, people will naturally want their views. Say nothing and they're seen as compliant or going along with something, even if the public disagrees with it. Silence can be deadly because it can easily be interpreted as agreeing with something potentially venomous, even if that's not the case. And, in the grand scheme of things, it equates to headlines.

[BGfree]

Say nothing and they're seen as compliant or going along with something.

It would have been much better if he was seen as going along with it. Regardless of what the propaganda box is saying, the vast majority of Republicans in this country are very much against having a Muslim President. Besides, it's a manufactured issue. There's no reason to participate in a question that's not being asked by anyone except the talking head propagandists on the idiot box.

[Crashland]

The way to answer this question is to pivot and go on about what you *are* looking for in a president. Someone who is willing and able to protect the Constitution and to maximize freedom for everyone. And if anything gets in the way of them performing that duty, whether it's their faith or their ego or their golf addiction, they aren't the best choice for president.