In defense of Ben Carson

Actually I like Ben Carson.  He seems like a nice guy.  During the last debate I was not quite sure whether he had just awakened from a nap or was about to take one, but he comes across as a decent man who certainly says what he thinks.  I mean this guy is a distinguished neuro-surgeon—which would surely qualify him as a scientific person—yet he says with absolute conviction that he believes in creationism and that evolution is a myth.  You can’t be more say-what-you-think than that.

What got him into big trouble was when he said on Meet the Press he would not want to see a Muslim in the White House.  Kabam!  All the other candidates, Republican and Democrat, immediately wrapped themselves in the cloak of self-righteousness and attempted to drown him in a tsunami of political correctness.   The Republicans waxed indignant declaring that he did not represent the pristine principles of their highly moral party and the Democrats said:  Ha! See what real bigots and racists the Republicans are!

To make matters worse, Ben would not back off, and in a subsequent interview with Yahoo News he said: “I do not believe Sharia is consistent with the Constitution of this country.  Muslims feel that their religion is very much a part of your public life and what you do as a public official, and that’s inconsistent with our principles and our Constitution.”

Well technically speaking he is absolutely right.  I will not subject you to a litany of just how weird Islamic Sharia is. You can Google that yourselves.   So, unless stoning your adulterous wife to death or killing your daughter for kissing a non-Muslim or giving me 80 lashes because I had a cocktail last night is something that appeals to you, I think you will find that there are some valid reasons to say that Sharia is not, in fact, “consistent with the Constitution of this country.”  But that same principle applies no matter what the religion happens to be.

Consider this:   If you take his second sentence and substitute “Evangelical Christians” for “Muslims” you can make a valid, rational comparison.  They, the Evangelicals, think that “their religion is very much a part of your public life and what you do as a public official.” 

All the Republican candidates have fallen over themselves trying to impress the public how Christian they are (see my blog of April 27, 2015 Republicans Running for Christian Ayatollah) and Jeb Bush quite blatantly admitted his Catholicism influences his political decisions.  Republican Presidential candidates are still bringing up whether Obama is a Christian or not.  For secularists like myself, who are adamant about the separation of church and state, I am alarmed at the insidious way religion is creeping into our civil liberties.

The current instances of Evangelical disruptions to our civil society—county clerks refusing to issue gay marriage licenses, threats to shut down the government over funding Planned Parenthood—are essentially encroachments of religion on civil government and, while not nearly so peculiar as Sharia, the concept is the same.  A religious sect—Evangelical Christians-- is attempting to make “their religion” “a part of your public life.” 

For me the question of a Muslim in the White House is a moot point.  I don’t really care what religion the President is.   The President’s religion itself is irrelevant to me, but imposing any religion’s laws or beliefs on all citizens is, indeed, not consistent with the Constitution. So Ben, you’re right on that point.