Just the thought of America having a Muslim president is unthinkable.
In listening to today’s mindless media, you get that idea that it is possible to separate religion from politics . . . but more than that, that the secular atheistic mind should be the umpire of all religious disputes. However, it is not possible to separate one’s core religious values from the dog-eat-dog world of backroom government.
In Pat Buchanan’s excellent article on “A Muslim President? Was Ben Carson Right?” he had these excellent thoughts:
“Beliefs matter. “Ideas Have Consequences,” . . . is it now impermissible to question a candidate’s beliefs about God, man, and the state, and about whether his religious convictions might affect his conduct in office? . . . A man’s religion is a part of who he is . . . If Mormons still championed polygamy and declared that blacks could not be Mormons, would it be illegitimate to raise that issue?
Should a Quaker who believes in “turning the other cheek” not be pressed on whether his faith disqualifies him to be commander in chief?
If an Evangelical running for president believes the “end times” are at hand, would it be un-American to ask of the Armageddonite if his religious beliefs might affect his decision on war in the Middle East?
Islam means “submission.” And a believing, practicing, devout Muslim believes in submission to the teachings of the Prophet.
That means not only following the dietary laws and fasting during Ramadan, but adhering to the tenets of Islam on the modesty of dress in women, praying five times a day to Mecca, and treating false faiths like Christianity as the great heresies that they are.
Anyone recall a collective protest from the Islamic world when that Afghan convert to Christianity was facing an executioner’s ax?
Islam instructs its adherents not only on how to live their lives, but also how to organize their society.
Is Sharia consistent with the U.S. Constitution? Would not a Muslim presidential candidate have to reject Sharia for America, i.e, apostatize? And what is the penalty for apostasy in the Quran?
Would it violate the spirit of the Constitution to ask of a Muslim candidate whether he agrees with the Quran on the proper punishment for homosexuals, adulterers and thieves?
From the Maghreb to the Middle and Near East, in almost every society where Islam is the dominant faith, repression appears the rule.
Of the near 50 nations where Islam is the majority religion, where is the constitutional republic that resembles our own?” (Pat’s Column, September 25, 2015).
Thank you, Pat, for clarifying that it is impossible to separate a man’s religious faith from how he conducts his affairs on this earth. And, make no mistake about it, even the most liberal, secular, atheistic news reporter has religious values and operates from his nuclear belief system. None can claim neutrality or to be free of bias. None!
So, enough of this nonsense that a secular government is the best government! It is neither possible more desirable to have a man in office that doesn’t govern from his tree of his faith. Separation of faith and state is a political ploy by secularists designed to eliminate those who honestly confess their allegiance to the Christian faith.
As to a man’s beliefs about God, an inquiry of faith was requisite for political office under God’s law-order.
Exodus 18:21 Moreover, look for able men from all the people, men who fear God, who are trustworthy and hate a bribe, and place such men over the people as chiefs of thousands, of hundreds, of fifties, and of tens.
Unfortunately, America has no religious test of faith, and consequently, many of our national leaders are bottom-feeding, scum suckers guided by values proceeding from their own navel.
The question, then, is not whether a man’s religion will guide his administration, but what religious faith we want guiding a man elected to public office: Fabian Marxism, atheism, Zionism, Armageddonite Christianity, Papalism, Mormonism, Homoeroticism, Cabal Islam or true Christianity. Anyone who thinks that having a Muslim president is good or consistent with this country’s Puritan ethic is a few cards short of a full deck.
Dr. Brook Stockton,
Recent Comments