Ben Carson is trying to portray his stance on Muslims and Sharia law as defending the United States Constitution. But by making the argument for the separation of mosque and state but not church and state, he is showing his own hypocrisy.
As a Muslim intellectual living in the West, I have always marveled at the durability of the idea of secularism. For a civilization that boasts considerable sophistication, in most areas, to assume that politics and religion constitute two separate realms is uncharacteristically naïve.
In the name of transparency, I voice three things: One, I've spent more time with the Bible open before me than any other book. I would not be who I am today, whether for good or ill, apart from the book.
There was a second reason why the Founders feared that bringing religion into politics would have a divisive effect on our young nation -- the rise of political and religious opportunists, who would inflame political issues to further themselves.
Religious organizations receiving federal contracts can no longer discriminate against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender employees. Some question whether President Obama has gone too far. Others question whether he has gone far enough.
One bit of minor calendar news before we get on with it: for the next two weeks, this column will be on hiatus. Instead, it will be pre-empted by our annual awards columns where we note the notable and laud the laudable from the past year.
The problem is, of course, that such prayers seem an obvious affront to the governmental neutrality toward religion that Supreme Court precedent interpreting the Establishment Clause of the first amendment requires.
Critics question whether insurance should cover health-care treatments of questionable efficacy. There is potentially a bigger problem that few people have noticed -- the proverbial elephant in the room.