Cleverly written to advocate for positions that Ms. Mantha (I assume) supports. For instance, there is no religious dogma in the Adventist faith that requires belief in manmade climate change. Their call (if true) for carbon reduction legislation is a political position, not a position of dogma, same as regards the 2nd amendment. No candidate is required to formally reject each and every secular position of leaders of their faith.

It’s such a tiresome tactic, Ms. Mantha. Take some statement from somewhere, take it to an absurd conclusion by some twist of logic, and then demand a candidate formally reject the original statement. As in 2012, a candidate that opposes Obamacare has to prove he doesn’t really want to push elderly ladies off a cliff in a wheelchair. It’s beyond tedious.

It is sufficient that any candidate, Dr. Carson included, declare their acceptance that the Constitution is the fundamental law of the land, and that the written laws are to be faithfully executed by the President. (Which Obama does not feel obligated to do, let’s be frank.) If that includes dealing with questions about his faith, that is legitimate. JFK had to answer for his Catholic faith. A Muslim would have to as well.

I see no double standard here. It is a clear tenet of Islam in the Koran that religious law (Sharia) is the fundamental law, superseding all secular laws. Any Muslim candidate maintaining that belief can’t very well honor the Constitution faithfully. One can’t hold that position and at the same time faithfully adhere to the President’s oath of office. Any Muslim truly rejecting that position is not thus disqualified. Don’t make more of this than it is.