From my perspective the highlight of yesterday’s “Meet The Press” was Hugh Hewitt’s straightforward take down of Maria Shriver on Planned Parenthood. But based on coverage, the highlight was Ben Carson’s statement that he would not “advocate” a Muslim for POTUS. (Watch the next video after the one just linked to see for yourself.) I have not had an opportunity to watch the clip, so I do not know if it includes Hewitt’s response when questioned by Todd about Carson’s statement, but I watched the show and Hewitt stood firmly on Article VI of the constitution.
Now some background. Way back in 2006, after two segments on The Hugh Hewitt Show discussing Mitt Romney’s Mormonism and its affect on his candidacy, Lowell Brown and I partnered up to establish Article VI Blog. From then until earlier this year, when Hugh asked us to join this blog, we worked very hard to track various “religious tests” for office. The most notable of which was, of course, the hyper examination of Mitt Romney’s faith, particularly in the ’08 cycle. If you dig through the archives of our blog you will find example after example after example of people precisely testing Romney’s faith to determine if he is a suitable candidate. This test was applied most especially by the left-leaning media.
The Article VI high horse on which the left-leaning media has set itself in response to Carson is so inconsistent with its former treatment of Romney as to give one a case of intellectual whiplash.
Consider that CNN, The Atlantic, ThinkProgress, and The Daily Beast, among many, many others, have all cited Article VI in responding to Carson. Where were such citations in the ’08 cycle? If they appeared at all they appeared as disclaimers at the end of long pieces in which Mormon theology and history was examined in proctological detail. And yet the average leftie that comes on the Hewitt show has not read or has only skimmed The Looming Tower, which describes in detail the development of the branch of Islam that has created so much violence in our modern world.
The most alarming thing about these contrary considerations of Article VI is what it reveals about the people making them. In the end, the beef against Romney and his Mormonism was the deep grounding in social conservatism that Romney’s faith gave him. No one was more dismissive of Romney and his faith than Andrew Sullivan on his pro-LGBT agenda march through blogging. Interestingly, to my knowledge no Mormon has ever hung a homosexual, but that seems to be beside the point. Mormons are here and violent Muslims (a subset of the religion taken as a whole) are over there somewhere, where the liberal mindset does not concern itself.
And that is the problem. Things over there have a way, as 9-11 so dramatically and fatally illustrated, of coming here. While a Muslim is not a priori, as Carson seemed to indicate, disqualified from office, any such candidate would certainly be worthy of scrutiny to the same or even higher levels than that to which Romney and his faith were subjected. And yet the media seems unwilling to conduct even the most cursory of examinations of Islamic belief.
In other words, in the mind of the left, Article VI arguments are only worth making when it suits their agenda. That is dangerous territory. It is law of convenience or whim that spells the difference between legitimate governance and tyranny.