Carson moving from bad to worse in requiring renunciation of "the central tenant of Islam: Sharia Law"

I don't know enough about Muslim theology to evaluate Candidate Carson's grasp of it. But I do know enough about American history to detect an echo of a common anti-Catholic trope in his latest comments on the need for a Muslim president to renounce "Sharia Law."

A Facebook post on Carson's page states:

I was asked if I would support a hypothetical Muslim candidate for President. I responded “I would not advocate for that” and I went on to say that many parts of Sharia Law are not compatible with the Constitution. I was immediately attacked by some of my Republican peers and nearly every Democrat alive. Know this, I meant exactly what I said. I could never support a candidate for President of the United States that was Muslim and had not renounced the central tenant of Islam: Sharia Law.

Those Republicans that take issue with my position are amazing. Under Islamic Law, homosexuals – men and women alike – must be killed. Women must be subservient. And people following other religions must be killed.

I know that there are many peaceful Muslims who do not adhere to these beliefs. But until these tenants are fully renounced…I cannot advocate any Muslim candidate for President.

This kind of reasoning is out of the same playbook that once brought us "Catholics must obey a foreign potentate." I'm not the first to wish that all public officials would pay respectful attention to what our Popes have had to say about public affairs and to wish that all Catholic public officials would be appropriately obedient to Catholic social teaching as well. But to wish that is not to wish for something necessarily in conflict with an oath to the Constitution of the United States. There is a lot packed into "appropriately obedient" that would require unpacking before we can get to something like the claim that any good Catholic president would have to renounce obedience to the Pope before he could get Carson's vote.

Suppose someone were to argue: "I could never support a candidate for President of the United States that was Christian and had not renounced the central tenant of Christianity: Love your enemies. I could not support someone taking the oath of office as President who could not take the oath of allegiance required of naturalized citizens. And a Christian that follows the Gospel commands to turn the other cheek and to love your enemies cannot be trusted to preserve the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic."

Might we reasonably suspect that there is more to the bearing of Christianity on the public office of President than supposed by such an argument? Why think any less of the bearing of Islam on the public office of President than is supposed by Carson's claims?

Finally, theology, morality, and politics aside ... "tenant"?!?

The comment was on Facebook, but still: "Tenant" is a disqualifier.