Car­son right on Mus­lim pres­i­dent

The Washington Times Weekly - - Letters To The Editor -

I would sus­pect that a few mil­lion peo­ple agreed with Repub­li­can pres­i­den­tial con­tender Ben Car­son’s re­cent com­ment that he would not ap­prove of a Mus­lim pres­i­dent. And why would he? Pure and sim­ple, Is­lam is not so much a re­li­gion as a form of re­li­gious gov­ern­ment. The laws of Mus­lim coun­tries are based on Sharia law, which is in di­rect con­flict with the Amer­i­can Con­sti­tu­tion and our rules of law. Our laws do not in­clude the tenets of any par­tic­u­lar faith, and that is as our Found­ing Fathers in­tended it.

Although Amer­ica was founded on Judeo-Chris­tian prin­ci­ples (the Ten Com­mand­ments) and is pri­mar­ily a Chris­tian na­tion, all be­liefs are ac­cepted here — as long as they do not at­tempt to change our laws. Given that there are mil­lions of Mus­lims liv­ing as Amer­i­cans with loy­alty to this coun­try, there are far too many who adamantly and pub­licly pro­claim their plan to take over Amer­ica, in­stall Sharia law and fly the black flag of Is­lam over our White House. Why would we al­low this to hap­pen?

As for those who as­pire to hold public of­fice, I would in­sist be­fore be­ing al­lowed to run they be made to pledge al­le­giance to Amer­ica and take an oath to up­hold Amer­i­can law. I also sug­gest they be made to take their oath of of­fice on a Bi­ble. (This oath and al­le­giance must be re­quired of all in­com­ing “refugees,” too.) Come to think of it, though, we’ve al­ready been there and done that. How is it work­ing out for us? PA­TRI­CIA STEB­BINS East Sand­wich, Mas­sachusetts

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.