Ben Carson just can’t win. First, he got into trouble for saying that he would only support a Muslim for President IF that person disavowed some tenets of Islam that he believes are incompatible with the U.S. Constitution.
More recently the Presidential candidate said, about the deadly shooting in Oregon: “Of course, you know, if everybody attacks that gunman, he’s not going to be able to kill everybody. But if you sit there and let him shoot you one by one, you’re all going to be dead.”
In both cases, the mainstream media, talking heads on TV and cable, and (mostly) liberal political pundits immediately jumped on the former pediatric neurosurgeon for daring to express opinions that THEY have determined are inappropriate and erroneous.
They are opinions, folks. Opinions. An opinion is defined in my dictionary as: “a belief, judgment, or way of thinking about something: what someone thinks about a particular thing.”
Opinions are not edicts. They are what an individual believes. We are not required to agree with them, adopt them or share them with others. But traditionally, we have always allowed people to have them. Even if they may offend the permanently aggrieved and other über-sensitive souls.
But sadly, in our country today, you are no longer entitled to any opinion that conflicts with the fecund social contagion called Political Correctness that infects free speech in America.
Let us dissect what Dr. Carson said.
Looking first at the tragedy at Umpqua Community College in Oregon last week, Dr. Carson’s OPINION seems logical and rational.
“If everybody attacks that gunman, he’s not going to be able to kill everybody. But if you sit there and let him shoot you one-by-one, you’re all going to be dead,” Carson said. “And, you know, maybe these are things that people don’t think about. It’s certainly something that I would be thinking about.”
He was not judging the victims of the shooting. He was merely offering a solution that might have led to more of the victims surviving.
There is absolutely no way I would stand passively by and wait to be shot. Had eight or nine people rushed the shooter and subdued him the way those three Americans on that train in Belgium overcame that Muslim terrorist a few weeks ago, lives would have been saved, and fewer people would have been wounded.
But for some reason, to even suggest such a tactic, is somehow “judging” the victims.
No, it isn’t. Dr. Carson is not judging anybody. He is simply saying what he would do if faced with that situation.
Dr. Carson went on to add: “When do we get to the point where we have people who actually want to solve our problems rather than just politicize everything? I think that’s what the American people are so sick and tired of.”
He added the OPINION that he would not have visited Roseburg if he was President. I think he is right. The family members and a large portion of the people there have made it pretty clear they don’t want Obama and his politics dominating the funerals and memorials of the victims.
Now let’s turn to Dr. Carson’s allegedly bigoted remarks about Muslims.
During a recent interview, Carson was asked whether a president’s faith should matter.
“I guess it depends on what that faith is. If it’s inconsistent with the values and principles of America, then of course it should matter. But if it fits within the realm of America and consistent with the constitution, no problem,” Carson said.
Would someone PLEASE tell me what is wrong with that statement? It seems perfectly logical and benign.
Judging from the furious response you would have thought that Dr. Carson had just declared his support for the Ku Klux Klan. He was not advocating banning a Muslim from ever occupying the White House.
During a CNN interview Dr. Carson, for the umpteenth time, clarified what he said:
“Let me tell you what I would advocate, I would advocate that people go back and look at the transcript of what I actually said.
“I said I would have problems with somebody who embraced all the doctrines associated with Islam. If they are not willing to reject sharia and all the portions of it that are talked about in the Quran. If they are not willing to reject that, and subject that to American values and the Constitution, then, of course, I would have problems with that.
“I would ask you, would you be willing to do that? Would you be willing to advocate for somebody who would not do that? Probably not. If there is a devout Christian, who is running and he or she rejects the ideals of our Constitution, or they want to establish a theocracy, I cannot advocate for them.
“Is it possible that maybe the media thinks it’s a bigger deal than the American people do? Because American people, the majority of them, agree, and they understand exactly what I am saying.”
Yes. It’s an opinion. And we are all allowed to have them. Even people running for President.