Here is how the dominos lined up:
First Trump is asked a question from the audience: “Do you support shutting down the Muslim training camps spread across the United States?”
Trump pretty much blows off the question by saying: “Yeah, we’ll look into it; we’ll look into a lot of things.”
Then Trump is criticized by most of the media for not lecturing the questioner on his “Islamophobia”.
Republican candidates piled on with their criticism of Trump for not defending Islam with one exception: Carson.
Carson declares that he would absolutely not favor a Muslim President, unless perhaps he disavowed Sharia (Islamic law).
In response, Cruz lectured that the Constitution does not allow a “religious test”, therefore an Islamic President is not and should not be prohibited and would be just peachy as far as our Constitution is concerned.
OK. That is the rough sequence. Do you see anything wrong with this picture so far?
I’ll point out several things:
1. Trump was right not to chastise his questioner about our “Muslim problem.” In fact, Trump previously stated we have a Muslim problem. And that is definitely true.
2. The media did what the media does: It blindly and foolishly defends all things Islam.
3. The other Republican candidates, except Carson, showed their George Bush-iness: They came to the defense of Islam (Bush: “Islam is a religion of peace”) and criticized both Trump and Carson for their statements or non-statements about Islam.
4. Carson came closest to “getting it” about the joys of a Muslim president. While he did not claim any Constitutional prohibition of a president holding to an Islamic faith, he said a declared Muslim would be bad for this country because Islamic Sharia conflicts and is incompatible with our Constitution. That is all good and true. But he equivocated somewhat by adding “…unless the Muslim candidate disavows his belief in Sharia.” So, apparently Carson believes that a Muslim whose belief system incorporates the doctrine of “taqiyya” (lying or dissimulation to defend yourself or hide or promote your faith) can simply say “I don’t believe in Sharia” and everything will be cool with that Muslim. That is “Islamo-lite”. Cain almost gets it, but omitted the taqiyya part.
5. Then there is Cruz: Islamo-ignorant. [See “Update” below as to whether Cruz is ignorant of Islam or is being deceptive about Islam.] As part of his pile-on against Carson, he ridiculed Carson’s statement by declaring that “religious convictions should have no bearing on one’s fitness for the Oval Office.” He said, “You know, the Constitution specifies there shall be no religious test for public office and I am a Constitutionalist.”
News flash to Cruz: Our Constitution never intended a belief system like Islam to be a “protected religion.” Cruz demonstrates his ignorance of Islam by suggesting it is merely a religion, just like all other religions, worthy of respect and all the protections our Constitution has to offer.
No Cruz, Islam is not like “all other religions.” It is different from all other religions. Islam is an all encompassing belief system; an all encompassing lifestyle. Islam has not only a religious component, but woven in throughout is a legal component, economic component, political component, social component, and military component. Sharia is not just its legal component but all other components are woven into Sharia. These are not separable from what Islam is. And what makes Islam even more unique from all other world religions, except the religion of politics, is its “taqiyya” component.
This last gem, taqiyya, makes it nearly impossible to discern the “good Muslim” or “apostate Muslim” from the full-bore, strap-the-bomb-to-my-chest devout Muslim.
It appears that Carson has a way to go for a full appreciation of the joys of Islam. But Cruz has even a longer way to go since he believes that a deceptive fascist belief system like Islam is protected by our Constitution.
UPDATE: A friend of mine, a Cruz supporter, told me that I was too hard on Cruz in this blog. He said he knows Cruz believes a lot more about Islam than he is revealing. If that’s the case, why isn’t Cruz telling us what he knows about Islam? For the same reason ACT for America refuses to publicly admit that Islam, not just “radical” Islam, is the threat. It remains politically incorrect (I call it political cowardice) to call out Islam for what it is. Both Cruz and ACT for America believe that telling the truth about Islam will be bad for their message – people will call them names like “Islamophobe” and “bigot” and “hater.” To these scared rabbits, truth is a liability. That is a shame. That is why I distanced myself from both ACT and Cruz. In the long run, in spite of the mockers and name callers, truth wins out. Concealing the truth furthers the cause of evil. Ignorance of truth is redeemable; the truth can be learned. Willfully misrepresenting known truth is a whole other level of dishonesty.