The newest darling of the GOP, Dr. Benjamin Carson, has attracted controversy this week because of remarks he made while discussing marriage equality on FAUX NOOZ's Sean Hannity show. Here is what Dr. Carson said:
"Marriage is between a man and a woman. No group, be they gays, be they NAMBLA, be they people who believe in bestiality, it doesn't matter what they are. They don't get to change the definition."
Dr. Carson had been invited to speak at commencement at Johns Hopkins Medical in May; but after the above statement, where he lumps gays in with NAMBLA and BESTIALITY, a group of students is circulating a petition, asking that his invitation be withdrawn.
Some on the right are now saying the left is "going after" Dr. Carson. This is the usual response to hearing criticism when a right winger makes an outrageous remark, and it's hysterical falderol.
Dr. Carson has every right to say what he thinks about gays [that they're in a category with NAMBLA and BESTIALITY]. And those of us who take issue with that insult are perfectly within our right to criticize him for his denigrating remarks. This is exercising our free speech rights. No one's "going after" Dr. Carson. He entered the political arena, therefore, he is now subject to having his statements examined and criticized.
That's how it works.
Dr. Carson is wrong when he says this:
"What I was basically saying is that as far as marriage is concerned that has traditionally been between a man and a woman and nobody should be able to change that."
Marriage, even in the Bible, has also been between a man and several women; and in some cultures around the world, still is. Even fundamentalist Mormons still practice polygamy. So Dr. Carson apparently isn't aware that his understanding of what "traditional" marriage is, is wrong.
Other curiosities about Dr. Carson are his bizarre views on Evolution:
"Ultimately, if you accept the evolutionary theory, you dismiss ethics, you don't have to abide by a set of moral codes, you determine your own conscience based on your own desires."
“You have a theory in which you place your faith, and I have a theory in which I place my faith,” Carson said in a speech. “I say you can believe what you want but I simply don’t have enough faith to believe what you believe. I’m a person of faith so I have to believe in God. You know that always gets them.”
From the Washington Post writing on the above quotes:
"Dr. Carson argues that there is no evidence for evolution, that there are no transitional fossils that provide evidence for the evolution of humans from a common ancestor with other apes, that evolution is a wholly random process, and that life is too complex to have originated by the natural process of evolution. All of these claims are incorrect. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming: ape-human transitional fossils are discovered at an ever increasing rate, and the processes by which organisms evolve new and more complex body plans are now known to be caused by relatively simple alterations of the expression of small numbers of developmental genes. Our understanding of the evolutionary process has advanced our ability to develop animal models for disease, our ability to combat the spread of infectious disease and, in point of fact, the work of Dr. Carson himself is based on scientific advances fostered by an understanding of evolution."
Dr. Carson seems to be the perfect new shiny object for the GOJP: We are told that he's a brilliant pediatric neurosurgeon who doesn't think there's any evidence for evolution, that he believes in traditional marriage between one man and one woman, even if that combination has most definitely NOT been wholly traditional in human experience, and he categorizes gay citizens along with NAMBLA and BEASTIALITY.
A perfect combination for a GOJPers dream candidate. After all, he's passed the test that calls for true acceptance as a true believer in today's GOJP: Religious dogma over facts.
Rational Nation USA has a post up on this subject as well. HERE.
22 comments:
Thanks Shaw for the linky love. Very much appreciated.
Two different, honest, and respectful viewpoints, it is as it should be.
Dr. Carson has not yet chosen to announce an entrance into politics. I sincerely hope he does not. His talents and value in the field of neurosurgery, and his continued contribution to mankind in this field would be far greater than anything he might accomplish in politics or governance. At least IMNHO.
I have consciously chosen to cut Dr. Carlson some slack on his statements, while stating my disagreement with them. As he is not a politician or an acknowledged political pundit working for Fox News I am being, shall we say, more tolerant at this point.
If either or both of these happen I shall register my concerns at the time in a proper response. A brief snapshot can be found in the comment section at RN USA.
Other curiosities about Dr. Carson are his bizarre views on Evolution
And this is why I'm convinced this guy has more and bigger screws loose than the average Republican. I can understand some person with no science education rejecting evolution and even claiming there's no evidence for it; he has simply not been exposed to the facts. But for a medical doctor, with all the biological knowledge that implies, to say such a thing -- that can only be evidence of either serious mental aberration or a super-human capacity for reality-denial.
The same is true of Ron Paul, another man with a medical background who nevertheless rejects the most solidly-established and productive theory in all of science.
When people say that it shouldn't matter if people accept Evolution or not, and that has nothing to do with someone who wishes to run for public office.
Incredible bosh!
What would anyone think of a person who, in a TV interview or on a stage at a debate, declared that he or she didn't believe in the theory of gravity?
You'd have serious misgivings about that person's mental health.
And yet, the theory of evolution is as solid science as the theory of gravity is.
There is only one difference on why one theory is universally accepted and the other is not.
Religious beliefs.
And that's why Darwin took so long to publish his findings. He knew that the wrath from believers would be heard all through the ages.
And he was right.
From Media Matters: "Dr. Ben Carson said Friday that he may step down as commencement speaker at Johns Hopkins over anti-gay remarks, prompting conservative shock jock Rush Limbaugh to concede that the country is lost.
Carson told MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell that he is prepared to acquiesce students who are circulating a petition to replace the emerging right-wing star, who compared same-sex marriage to pedophilia and bestiality during an appearance on Fox News, as the medical school's graduation speaker. After already waving the white flag on same-sex marriage, Limbaugh on Friday lamented the student-led movement against Carson."
ben carson said
“I think people have completely taken the wrong meaning out of what I was saying,” he said. “First of all, I certainly believe gay people should have all the rights that anybody else has. What I was basically saying is that as far as marriage is concerned, that has traditionally been between a man and a woman, and nobody should be able to change that.”
sounds like dr. carson isn't all that bright on social/political issues...firsst he says...all gay people should have the same rights as anybody else...then he says right after that marriage has traditionally...been between...a man and a woman...and nobody [that means you gay people]...should be able...to change that..
dr carson say he believes gays...should have all the rights...everyone else has...except the right...to marry...the person they love...lol
Some people just don't understand that the statements they make are sick, bigoted, and racist. Like some of your readers. Why shield them? Expose them for what they are. If they don't understand that their statements are wrong, it should be pointed out for others.
I want to elect politicians whose judgement I trust. When someone says they do not believe in evolution I question their judgement, and as a result would not be inclined to vote for them.
Has Dr. Carson announced he is running for a government office? Did I miss the announcement?
I thought not.
Agenda driven concerns are beginning to show.
Dr. Carson is a Seventh Day Adventist. Therefore, these views are not surprising.
Frankly, he may be correct with this statement, IMO:
"Ultimately, if you accept the evolutionary theory, you dismiss ethics, you don't have to abide by a set of moral codes, you determine your own conscience based on your own desires."
As for marriage, there are secular definitions and religious definitions. That's true of many matters.
As a person of faith, I believe that marriage in the eyes of God requires faith-based confirmation by the couple and, possibly, by a member of the clergy. In my own case, my husband and I, immediately after we were pronounced "man and wife," knelt at the altar and recited the Lord's Prayer.
I do recall that the minister told us, "Until the certificate of marriage that I fill out and send into the state is recorded and registered next week, you are not legally married."
A lot of conservatives, for some reason, think that Dr. Carson could be President of the United States. This man is a gifted surgeon -- with no political experience.
I doubt that he will speak at the commencement ceremony. John Hopkins has a large and vocal gay community.
RN,
Am I to understand that only people running for office are to be criticized when they appear on a cable news station or make speeches in public places?
You know that's absurd.
Also, Dr. Carson spoke at the National Prayer Breakfast and made a very, very political speech criticizing President Obama and his policies in front of the president. Traditionally, speeches at the Nation Prayer Breakfast are NOT political and critical of the president, but Dr. Carson chose to use his freedom of speech and harshly criticize Mr. Obama and his administration, to the delight and approval of people on the right.
Dr. Carson made HIMSELF a controversial, POLITICAL public figure, therefore, he is subject to criticism on anything he says publicly about a political issue or person, whether he is running for a political office or not.
As far as I know, Michael Moore is not running for any political office, yet he gets tons of criticism all the time.
I don't get what you don't understand about that. It appears it is YOU who is agenda driven. Why are you so defensive and protective of this new voice for the conservatives?
I admit it Shaw, you got me. I am agenda driven. In response to what I see as agenda driven templates. I do not discriminate, being critical of both progressive and conservative agenda driven BS. I find the left -vs- right agenda to be amusing actually. Why, because it keeps everyone right where the politicians, who are controlled by the Oligarchs and their money, want us. What was it Janis Joplin once said about freedom? You know, something about nothing left to lose.
Oh well, Moving on now.
AOW: "Frankly, he may be correct with this statement, IMO:
Ultimately, if you accept the evolutionary theory, you dismiss ethics, you don't have to abide by a set of moral codes, you determine your own conscience based on your own desires."
I understand many people believe that; but IMO, it is wrong.
Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with ethics or moral codes anymore than the theory of gravity or the theory of relativity has.
Evolution has to do with speciation, not the origins of life, and through speciation and changes over time, how we and the great apes share a common ancestor.
We are moral and ethical creatures by our own nature/DNA. The eminent ethologist and primatologist, Franz de Waal, has studied chimpanzees and other apes his entire life. Here's a review on his findings that are documented in one of his books:
"In Good Natured." Frans de Waal, ethologist and primatologist, asks us to reconsider human morality in light of moral aspects that can be identified in animals. Within the complex negotiations of human society, a moral action may involve thoughts and feelings of guilt, reciprocity, obligation, expectations, rules, or community concern.
De Waal finds these aspects of morality prevalent in other animal societies, mostly primate, and suggests that the two philosophical camps supporting nature and nurture may have to be disbanded in order to adequately understand human morality.
A theoretician, de Waal is meticulous in his research, cautious not to extrapolate too much from his findings, and logically sound in his arguments."
Our morality is in our DNA. Moreover, we humans set up societal rules and taboos that promote our well-being as social animals, as well as our DNA.
If religion alone kept us moral beings, there would have been no reason to go to war to end slavery as an economical institution; Hitler would not have had to build his ovens; and the twin towers would still be standing. (All of those human disasters were caused through religious fanaticism. People used the Bible to support slavery, antisemitism was promoted throughout Christian Europe for centuries, making it easy to detest and dehumanize the Jews; and we remember what drove the fanatical Muslims to kill themselves and the innocents.)
The above horrors were brought to us by people who were influenced to be moral by their religion, and whose religion failed them.
Or as the brilliant Nobel Laureate physicist, Steven Weinberg said:
"With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."
"Ultimately, if you accept the evolutionary theory, you dismiss ethics, you don't have to abide by a set of moral codes, you determine your own conscience based on your own desires."
Which explains why our prisons are overflowing with evolutionary biologists and why no biblical literalist has ever gone to jail.
What are you babbling about aNon?
What a surprise it was to see Dr. Carson's sweet, wholesome face representing this particular blog among the lists of favorites here and there among various conservative blogs! The article accompanying the face is, of course, a disappointment, but hardly a surprise.
Vilification is no less vile, no less vicious and certainly no more virtuous coming from the left than it is from the right, you know, so why let yourself be part of the problem?
-------> Katharine Heartburn
Darwin observed that species do evolve over time. That is readily observable in most cases. His theory is weaker as it move back toward the origins of species and taken to its ultimate conclusion of the ultimate origins of life on earth becomes that life in its varied development over time originates from a single cell springing from the primordial ooze.
If he established that all life has sprung from a common ancestor I guess we are all the spawn of that single primordial cell of life.
The curious part of his theory of natural selection to my mind is: Did he arrive at this idea from his own life experience? Charles Darwin himself was the product of generations of inbreeding between the Darwin and Wedgewood families. Darwin was a sickly human specimen which he apparently attributed to that. Starting from that base isn't there something curious about the way that evolutionists become akin to primitive religious crusaders when their pet evolutionary theories are questioned?
Katharine Heartburn (you really DO need to look into the use of TUMS),
What is it about certain folks, who haven't the ability to read, that makes them want to come here and prove it?
There is not one item in my post that "vilifies" Dr. Carson.
Either you're too illiterate to understand words, or you are deliberately misreading my post to make some sort of partisan point. Which is it?
My post does not malign, smear, denigrate, libel or do injury to Dr. Carson's character.
It's a criticism of what he said.
It was DR. CARSON who crossed a line in lumping gay people in with the man/boy love group, NAMBLA and BEASTIALITY that could rightfully be called "vilification."
But here you come, Katie, and claim victimhood for Dr. Carson, where the only victims--those who were denigrated by Dr. Carson's own words--were gays and lesbians.
Where in my post do I lump Dr. Carson with any vile group? Call him names? Do you even know the meaning of the word "vilification?" That's a rhetorical question because the evident answer is that you clearly don't.
There is no vilification in this post whatsoever in any way, shape or form.
Criticism? Yes. And the fact is, that's something that right wing blogs engage in day in and day out all over the internet, and the object of that criticism is always Mr. Obama, his policies, and/or his wife and children.
I wonder, Katie old girl, if you go poking your very concerned nose into those right wing blogs that compare Mrs. Obama to gorillas?
Or those blogs that call Mr. Obama's father a "savage?"
You want to see the meaning of the word "vilification?" Go to those blogs and learn it. It's always a good thing to learn the meaning of words before using them and showing off one's ignorance.
I hope the good doctor doesn't givve up his day job.
As do I Nora J.
But... He should most definitely give up appearances on Hannity @ Fox News.
Possibly of interest. I found it interesting, anyway.
Dr. Carson is fading fast as an incisive force for good in political commentary. He sounded very namby pamby in that interview AOW kindly linked with abrasive old Andrea Mitchell, who to give her credit, is sounding a little softer, more well-mannered, and more diplomatic these days than she used to. Bravo, Andrea!
However, Dr. Carson had nothing to apologize for, and in so doing, he makes himself appear weak, too easily cowed and defensive. He's also very naive when it comes to the game we call politics.
His record of solid accomplishment in an extraordinarily demanding field qualifies Dr. Carson as a person whose integrity, competence, basic decency and obvious good intentions should not be questioned.
Kurt SilverFiddle posted an excellent article on this subject just today (Tuesday, April 2, 2013) at Western Hero.
I hastily composed a whimsical response to this rather silly, issue whose importance has been hyper-inflated by power-hungry leftists. The satirical bit verse that follows belongs on this thread in my never humble opinion:
_____ TOO SOON OLD & TOO LATE SMART _____
Before committing marriage gay people should take pause
And consider the implications of community property laws.
Lust may achieve satiety
With or without propriety,
So why become a martyr
To receive the imprimatur
Of a dull Bourgeois society
Whose strictures you flee most gleefully?
Intimate relationships of each and every kind
Are blithely entered into by mad persons who are blind.
The stress and strain of living close through each and every day
Demands incessant giving causing tempers soon to fray.
The quest to reach Equality considers not, of course,
The agony -- and vast expense -- that comes with a divorce! };-)>
~ FreeThinke - 4/2/13
"His record of solid accomplishment in an extraordinarily demanding field qualifies Dr. Carson as a person whose integrity, competence, basic decency and obvious good intentions should not be questioned."
That's a bunch of crap if I have ever heard it. Intentions should always be questioned.
Post a Comment