Friday, March 29, 2013

Unbelievable!... At Least for Me

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny

Dr. Benjamin Carson, a world renowned neurosurgeon. A man whose character and integrity has heretofore been unquestioned. A man who quite possibly has given the world more than any number of less capable individuals ever has or ever could.

Because of ill advised remarks on gay marriage (ill advised from the PC perspective anyway) Dr. Carson has come under fire by progressives. Because of this he has apologized for his remarks. Even though I personally disagree with his remarks I wish he had not apologized for his beliefs.

Clarifying the meaning of his remarks for those who failed to understand them is fine. Something that occurs throughout the day across the USA in schools, businesses, and in the homes of families everyday.

The fine Doctor and Surgeon is not a politician. He represents no constituency. His entire adult life has been about finding ways to improve the human condition and the preservation of life. We should have nothing but admiration for this man.

THE BALTIMORE SUN - Dr. Benjamin Carson, the famed Johns Hopkins neurosurgeon, apologized Friday for his "choice of words" and use of examples in discussing gay marriage on Fox News earlier in the week.

During Sean Hannity's show on Tuesday, when asked about the matter before the Supreme Court, 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."

The comparison of gays to members of the North American Boy/Man Love Association and those who engage in bestiality set off a backlash of criticism in the media, online and on campus. There is now a petition circulating at Johns Hopkins Medical to have Carson removed as commencement speaker in May at the School of Medicine.

"I think people have completely taken the wrong meaning out of what I was saying," the 61-year-old surgeon said in a telephone interview Friday. "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."

"Now perhaps the examples were not the best choice of words, and I certainly apologize if I offended anyone," he added. "But the point that I was making was that no group of individuals, whoever they are, whatever their belief systems, gets to change traditional definitions. The reason I believe the way I do, I will readily confess, is because I am a Christian who believes in The Bible."

The Bible, he explained, "...says we have an obligation to love our fellow man as ourselves, and I love everybody the same -- all homosexuals. Everybody who knows me knows I would never say anything to intentionally hurt someone."

Given the "if I offended anyone" tone and language of the apology, it will be interesting to see how it's received. I hope readers will weigh in here.

The Sun has also obtained a copy of the petition aimed at getting Carson, who is on the eve of retirement this spring, removed as a speaker at the School of Medicine graduation ceremonies in May.

"At the time of his nomination, Dr. Carson was known to most of us as a world-class neurosurgeon and passionate advocate for education," the petition says. "Many of us had read his books and looked up to him as a role model in our careers. Since then, however, several public events have cast serious doubt on the appropriateness of having Dr. Carson speak at our graduation. If you believe he is an inappropriate choice of speaker at a ceremony intended to celebrate the achievements of our class please complete the petition below."

When asked about the petition Friday, Carson told the Sun, "I've caught wind of it and I've sent back a message that this is their graduation, their big day, and if they think me being there is going to be a problem, I am happy to withdraw." {Read More}

We see how the progressive and closed minded at the university has reacted. Dr. Carson, in his response to the graduating class displayed both humility and class.

Lets just chalk it up to youthful intolerance and hope the 2013 graduating class grows up.

Via: Memeorandum


  1. "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."

    He's wrong on that. Marriage has also traditionally--in human societies--been between a man and SEVERAL women. In fact, that's in the Bible, and is practiced in contemporary cultures, including some fundamentalist Mormon societies. So marriage has NOT been traditionally only between a man and women. I wish these people would educate themselves on this.

    Same-sex marriages have nothing whatsoever to do with beastiality. What on earth possessed the doctor to go that far?

    I'm sure he's a brilliant physician and has distinguished himself in the medical field, but so far, he's shown a serious lack of political acumen when he opens his mouth and insults whole groups of people.

    Just because he's a brilliant doctor doesn't not make him a brilliant politician.

    Plus his remarks on evolution are outlandish and and just plain astonishing, coming from a man as educated as he is:

    "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."

    His ideology has blinded him. And if he keeps making comments such as these--he'll never be a serious political candidate.

    1. I'm just curious. Where did I discuss politics or the Doctors political positions, let alone my views on his political viability?

      I'm not jumping the shark on this. If the fine Doctor should choose to enter politics I will make pertinent observations at that time.

      I indicated my disagreement with Dr. Carson's statement noting it was ill advised as well. At this point it is sufficient. But then again I have no agenda with respect to damaging the Doctor's reputation on a perceived probability he may enter politics.

    2. But nowhere (except perhaps some obscure corner) has marriage been defined as between two people of the same sex. And nowhere in Western Christendom (outside Mormonism and perhaps other small sects) has marriage been defined as anything other than one man and one woman.

      So as long as we're setting the record straight, lets set it straight all the way.

  2. RN,

    The doctor committed 3 mistakes - all huge. First, with the faux pas of context. Let me offer some examples of gratuitous stereotyping based on context:

    Italians - Mafia and organized crime.
    Blacks - welfare and food stamps
    Jews - money grubbing, usury
    LGBT - bestiality and pedophilia

    See the relationship, or should I parse this further? Second, the anti-establishment clause of the First Amendment. Personally, I am damn sick and tired of religious doctrine creeping into secular law, whereupon certain denominations aggressively seek to impose their canon on the general population. Shall we impose Kosher laws upon an entire nation! Enough already!

    Third, science. This is perhaps most shocking of all. Any student of human embryology, and I assume the doctor did study this subject in medical school, knows that early human embryos follow evolutionary pathways. Why, for instance, do human embryos start out with gill slits and tails that are re-absorbed to form other morphological structures. Fossil evidence is not the only proof of evolution; there is also molecular biology, embryology, and molecular genetics - empirical proof sitting on top of the fossil evidence.

    So the man gets a passing grade for neurobiology but flunks embryology. How does this make him a subject matter expert, let alone a viable political candidate? It appears to me the conservative wing of the GOP is so desperate for a great white hope, a great black hope, a great any hope, they are grasping at straws and miss the point. A doctor saying stupid things does make the GOP any less stupid.

    1. No (O)CT(O)PUS you need not parse point one further. Unfortunately (or perhaps not depending on ones individua.l perspective) Dr. Carson failed to think through his remarks and the resulting reaction they generated. However, until such time the Dr. announces his intension to run for office, something far from certain, I shall not spend time assuming he is.

      I too do not approve of religious considerations creeping into our secular law, something I view as very dangerous. Having said this I respect the right of Dr. Carson to hold his religious views and speak to them as he sees fit. For the same reason cited above I shall hold further comment on the good Doctor's religous views.

      I am somewhat bewildered by Dr. Carson's views on evolution as well. Frankly I would rather enjoy having a conversation with him on this issue. As to embryonic development you are qiute correct. However, the human embryo develops quickly, which is why I have remained opposed to abortion beyond the first trimester except when neccesary to save the life of the mother. But that can be a discussion for another day.

      For me the bottom line is Dr. Carson is entitled to his views and opinions. I have registered my disagreement with the Dr. Should the Doctor determine to run for national office I shall respectfully weigh in on the race.

      As for political partee stupidity, well, lets just leave it at there is no shortage of it in the USA.

  3. RN: "I'm just curious. Where did I discuss politics or the Doctors political positions, let alone my views on his political viability?"

    You didn't. I did. Since the post is about Dr. Carson, all information about him is pertinent, isn't it?

    Personally, I find it difficult to compartmentalize the doctor. As I wrote, he's been acknowledged for his brilliance in his particular medical field.

    What is astonishing are his remarks on evolution. How does that have anything to do politically, one may ask? In my opinion, a man or woman who lets religious dogma override scientific fact has a serious problem, and I wouldn't trust that person to make decisions for an entire country.

    1. As I made clear my concern at this point is the Doctor's brilliance in his area of excellence, period. The fine man and doctor is certainly entitled to his religous beliefs, is he not? Or are only progressives and atheists entitled?

      Until such time as Dr. Carson decides to enter politics, and at this point he hasn't, I cut the man the slack he deserves. Personally, ans I am speaking only for myself, I believe certain elements have another agenda. I will leave it at that.

  4. RN,

    Myself, being of the "live and let live" persuasion, I would be more than happy to accommodate diversity of thought and opinion and respect people who believe what they want. The difference is when private belief creeps into the public sector, when certain denominations seek to make their dogma the law of the land, when freedom of conscience is all too often met with derision and character assassination just because "you are not one of us." The difference is when viewpoints are not mutually respected in kind. This is what stirs my anger: I refuse to live under the religious dogma of Evangelical social conservatives, or any other sect, and resent any imposition of religious belief in our public life, on my life, and the lives of my family. There is too much litmus testing and vetting of religious belief in our politics, and this tendency is the sole reserve of today's GOP.

    When a man presents himself himself upon a political stage, there is a difference between holding beliefs in private versus espousing them in public. Pay attention to what he says because his words may presage a negative impact upon the civil liberties and freedom of people who are NOT of his persuasion; and a more thoughtful man knows enough to avoid this trap.

    1. (O)ST(O)PUS,

      I find nothing I will take issue with in your remark.

      I too am of the mind to live and let live. As long as individuals who differ with my views are of the same mind. I, like you do not dance to the beat or melodic line of those who would force upon me their dogma. Progressive, conservative, religious, or political.

      Perhaps there is too much focus on the anger, driven by the need to convince others of ones own view. Freely admitting that I have at times fallen prey to this unfortunate human tendency I have been able to see it in others. It does not discriminate between political parties or dogma.

      There is much politically that I disagree with (GOP) that has become part of the conservative agenda. The influence of the socons and the evangelical church, as well as the parties growing dishonesty to name but two.

      There is also much I disagree with that makes up the progressive agenda (DEMS), mostly their fiscal views and readiness to over regulate. Not that I am opposed to meaningful and effective regulation, especially where the public safety and welfare is concerned. I also see the Obama administration is much like the GWB administration with respect to military action and coziness with Wall Street. I know longer view Obama as a socialist because he has shown me not to be one.

      Perhaps I am just more willing to cut Dr. Carson slack at this point. If he chooses to actively run for office, or become a regular political pundit on Fox News I will be less forgiving. I have simply chosen to take a wait and see attitude.

      I acknowledge your final argument, it is valid. Personally I hope this fine neurosurgeon will not enter politics. He has, IMNHO, a lot more he can offer mankind in medicine than he can offer in politics. We'll have to wait and see.

      Actually (O)CT(O)PUS we have more in common on these issue than not. Having said this I will not go after Dr. Carson's views with beyond my statement of disagreement at this time. Call it my more tolerant Classical Liberal tendency :-)

  5. RN: "The fine man and doctor is certainly entitled to his religous beliefs, is he not? Or are only progressives and atheists entitled?"

    No one is making an argument that Dr. Carson is NOT entitled to his religious beliefs and opinions. If you re-read my comments, you'll see that I did not attack his religious beliefs.

    Dr. Carson has become political by making speeches and criticizing the current administration. He, therefore, is fair game for the examination and criticism of his statements.

    1. "No one is making an argument that Dr. Carson is NOT entitled to his religious beliefs and opinions. If you re-read my comments, you'll see that I did not attack his religious beliefs."


      As I stated in my response to (0)CT(0)PUS I fully understand your position, it is a valid observation.

      I have chosen to take a different field, perhaps a more tolerant one in which I do not view the Doctor as "fair game", yet. Need I be more explicit?

  6. I like this guy and was all set to do a post defending him against the idiotic statements that were made by Toure, but then the good doctor said this and it was totally his food-fight at that point.

    1. Yep, everybody has their food fight at one point or the other.

      I just picked mine again. I'll be damned if I'll sit back and see a educated, highly acclaimed pediatric neurosurgeon, and a decent black man destroyed by the progressives simply because he doesn't fit their template and quite possibly have an agenda beyond the Doctor's ill advised remarks.

      I disagree with the Doctors position on marriage equality as well as his poorly parsed remarks about bestiality. But I'll be damned if I am going to jump into the progressive feeding frenzy. Not until the man is either a candidate for public office, a paid political pundit, or a appointed representative of our government.

      Having said the forgoing, the public has the right to question his remarks since he went public. Unfortunately the Dr. chose to go public on the Hannity Show. Something I personally think was ill advised.

  7. RN: I have chosen to take a different field, perhaps a more tolerant one in which I do not view the Doctor as "fair game", yet. Need I be more explicit?

    Let me ask you this: Is it tolerable to question, examine, and criticize what a public man says? Doctor Carson, by the fact that he's made public appearances and political speeches is by that definition, a public figure.

    Do you believe it is intolerant to discuss his views? That's all that I meant by "fair game."

    1. Short answer, yes. Long answer, yes.

      The fact you chose to belabor this point, even following my more than once expressing my disagreement with Dr. Carlson's statement bewilders me.

      Discussing views is fine. I am not in disagreement with you that the Doctor has some political baggage. I would be as concerned as you are were the doctor being paid as a political pundit, lobbyist, representative, senator, or president. He is at this point none of the above.

      I have stated my position, clearly. As much as I admire the man's contribution to medical science and humanity I would think long and hard about supporting him in a governmental public capacity. He is, IMNHO, too influenced by the mystic beliefs.

  8. We can't use nazis in arguments anymore so perhaps the good doctor was using bestiality to drive home his point. Whatever it was. I take it he doesn't like gays.

    1. 1) Dr. Carson is no more a Nazi than you or I are Ambassador 1/2 truth..

      2) His reference to bestiality was of course a lame analogy that if men can marry men, and women can marry women, then why not any other arrangement. Bestiality in fact is practiced by some. Of course most do consider the practice perverse. His choice of possibilities to highlight this was of course a very poor one. Nothing more.

      3) Yes, he likely does not approve of open gay relationships or marriage equality. Precisely like millions of other devout practicing Christians, as well as Muslim who practice the Faith of Islam. Misguided by our standards yes. Entitled to his beliefs and opinions, certainly. Deserving of the implication he is a Nazi? ABSOLUTELY NOT!

      Perhaps another force is at work in progressive land as well. He is an educated highly successful pediatric neurosurgeon of world renown. He has a record of accomplishment that average individuals and even some world leaders have not achieved. He is a black conservative that has freely chosen a template that does not meet the approval of progressives. He may very well be a marked man.

      Your cheap shot at Dr. Carlson offends me greatly Joe. Get used to it.

    2. How was that a cheap shot Les? In essence, I was coming to the guy's defense.

      Beastiality is simply an extension of Godwin's Law now.

      Your taking of offense does not offend me but I do admit it confuses me.

    3. "... perhaps the good doctor was using bestiality to drive home his point. Whatever it was."

      Right. Yawn....

      I am not going to plat your game Joe.

    4. I am in awe of my own power. I wasn't even playing a game and you thought I was playing a game Les. Oh well. Nice thread anyway. See you on the next one Les.

    5. Power? Power I beleive equals force times velocity over time. You posses the element of time. The other variables, well, anybody's guess is as good as the other.

      Chose your own description. To crib a phrase I actually hate (I think it was coined by a progressive), but in this case it is appropriate... It is what it is.

      I am appreciative you find the thread worthy. It is astonishing what intelligent individuals can accomplish on a early spring day. Washington... are you paying attention?

    6. All your posts are worthy Les. I don't always have something worthy of being in the comment section so I remain quiet on those.

  9. I don't know if he doesn't like gays or he was simply trying to please the Fox News audience. Either way, I had to dock the fellow, too.

    1. Rush to judgement is often something both political Leviathans do regularly. I shall leave it at that.

  10. Actually, Ambassador Truth 101, Dr. Carson has stated emphatically that he loves everyone equally and that he wants gays to enjoy rights that everyone enjoys. And then in the same breath he said that marriage should be ONLY for one man and one women. He contradicted himself in the same breath. He claims he's for treating gay people equally, except when they want to get marry. Go figure.

    1. With all due respect Shaw. I believe that as a Christian, as well as a conventionalist, the Dr. simply believes that the accepted definition for many many years that marriage is the union of a man and a women is morally correct. He is obviously not alone in this belief.

      To insinuate, or infer as you have that Dr. Carson cannot possibly want for gay individual to enjoy the same rights of happiness and living a loving existence together is, as you say, bosh.

      The Doctor has no problem with gays being happy or enjoying the the benefit of a mutually loving relationship. His concern is, like so many others, that redefining the definition of marriage is wrong, based on his religious beliefs. He is, as you acknowledged entitled to his belief.

      This is an emotional issue for millions Shaw, as it is with the Dr. I am quite sure. Just as the President has issues he finds emotional. Go figure...

  11. It is my guess that Dr. Carson is too ethical to be a politician. And I'm not referring only to his faith-based views.

    1. I agree AOW.

      However, it is unfortunate Dr. Carson made those remarks. I'm sure he wished he hasn't.

  12. "Rational Nation USA" has been included in the A Sunday Drive for this week. Be assured that I hope this helps to point even more new visitors in your direction.

  13. Les,

    Dr. Carson proves one thing: you don't have to be a good, kind, decent, or open-minded person to be a brain surgeon.


    1. And sometimes you prove progressives can have equaly as closed minds as well as talking rubbish.

      What goes around comes around Jersey...

      Progressive feelings of superiority are equally as distateful as conservatives who act the same.

    2. Blah, blah, blah. We're not the ones dictating the terms of other people's private lives. He's an annoying religious zealot moron.


    3. A) - He may or may not be a religous zealot. In either case he does not affect my private life. He as yet has no political power to do so.

      B) - Moron? Far from a moron jmj. But since he doesn't fit your rigid progressive template it leaves you aghast, hence the attack on his intellegence.

      C) - I will give you this, you have the blah, blah, blah thingy down to a science though.

  14. "Ambassador Truth 101Sat Mar 30, 04:49:00 PM EDT
    We can't use nazis in arguments anymore so perhaps the good doctor was using bestiality to drive home his point. Whatever it was. I take it he doesn't like gays.

    Rational Nation USASat Mar 30, 07:48:00 PM EDT
    1) Dr. Carson is no more a Nazi than you or I are Ambassador 1/2 truth.."

    What we have here is a failure to communicate.

    Joe was NOT calling Dr. Carson a Nazi.

    And this thread is about how people don't understand the meaning of words.

    Impossible to have a discussion when people talk past each other.

    I have stated again, and again, and again, and again here and on my blog that Dr. Carson has every right to his opinion and his religious beliefs.

    The point of my own blog post and my answer to you, Les, is that once a man makes HIMSELF a public figure commenting on social and political issues, he opens himself to critics.

    Those are the ONLY points of my observations and comments.

    Despite what you claim, that does not DESTROY anyone or anything.

    You, Les, are equating a discussion on Dr. Carson with progressives being intolerant and destructive of a man's reputation, while failing to see that it was Dr. Carson's OWN WORDS and the reaction to them thatis the basis of this discussion.

    I'm afraid this has been turned into a verbal "food fight" over nothing.

    Misreading, misunderstanding, and bias can do that to an innocent discussion.

    Too bad.

    1. And I made my point quite clear, as did you. I accept your point.

      Yes it is indeed true that it hard to hold a discussion when people talk past each other. A universal failing, or so it seems.

      Food fight? Funny, I do not see it that way. But as has been said different strokes for different folks.

      Bias. Interesting you bring that up. I'm Wondering who is biased. Guess that is a matter of perception.

      At the end of the day one has to wonder if it all matters really. After all, most have their minds already made up. Like me, should Dr. Carson enter politics and run for president I won't be voting for him. That decision. was all mine before this post went up.

      Yes Shaw, O agree. It is too bad.

    2. Oops, should be I agree. Damn smart phone. :-)

  15. When did we get so hung up on labels, that we forgot the people we attached them to?

    1. Good question Talon. I suspect the answer would depend on several considerations. All political and likely split along the right/left continuum.

      Neither side willing to give ground, both sides suffering the results. It would be comical were it not so damaging.

      But, as we all know, this is America. Better to talk over someone, or group, rather than solve the issues by talking with someone.

      There is always hope though. The kindred spirit to change.


As this site encourages free speech and expression any and all honest political commentary is acceptable. Comments with cursing or vulgar language will not be posted.

Effective 3/4/18 Anonymous commenting has been disabled and this site has reverted to comment moderation. This unfortunate action is necessary due to the volume of Anonymous comments that are either off topic or irrelevant to the post subject.

While we appreciate and encourage all political viewpoints we feel no obligation to post comments that fail to rise to the standards of decency and decorum we have set for Rational Nation USA.

Thank you for your understanding... The management.