The Two Main Sources of Unjustified Criticism for Carson’s Comments on a Muslim for U.S. President

“I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation. I absolutely would not agree with that.” On whether he would vote for a Muslim for Congress, Dr. Ben Carson said, “Congress is a different story. It would depend on who that Muslim is and what their policies are.”1

Thus spoke this Republican candidate on NBC’s “Meet the Press” three days ago. It caused an avalanche of indignation toward him even with calls for his pulling out of the race. What tends to be conveniently lost in the uproar is the beginning of his explanation as to why he said this:

“I do not believe Sharia is consistent with the Constitution of this country.”2

All important policy issues require serious analysis. Dr. Carson is a very competent and analytical person in a country where the extent of critical thinking is often limited to 140 characters. Consequently, some very well considered opinions and ideas are fatally truncated. Knowledge is , therefore, unable to enlighten.

This Political Correctness is Oblivious to Facts

It’s quite ironic that the man who first broke onto the national scene at the National Prayer Breakfast in February, 2013 when he denounced the dangers of politically correctness should be bitten by its proponents. After he had made those statements that we should not have a Muslim president, the amateur students of history spoke vehemently. They were quick to proclaim that he is unfit to lead our nation because we have left this form of prejudice behind us with the election of John F. Kennedy, a Catholic, and the eventual acceptance of Mormon candidate Mitt Romney in 2012.

The error in that assessment was that, regarding Kennedy, non-Catholic voters were not concerned about possible contradictions between our Constitution and the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Instead, it was their misunderstanding of how a faithful Catholic would live. A holdover belief from the Protestant Reformation was the unfounded fear that Kennedy would take direct orders from Pope John XXIII on all key matters. As history shows, that was put to rest.

However, on the subject of Islam, there are conflicts between the Muslim’s “catechism” (the Qur’an and the Hadith3) and our Constitution, a serious problem for a potential commander-in-chief. As radio talk show host, David Webb reminded us on Fox News yesterday morning, a key element of Islam is that it strives for a theocracy.4 It does not accept the idea of “separation of church and state” as evidenced by:

“Fight those who believe not in Allah and in the last day, and who forbid not what Allah and His Apostle have forbidden, and who do not practice the religion of truth from amongst those to whom the Book has been brought [5] , until they pay the tribute by their hands and be as little ones.”6

The “jizyah,” also spelled “’jizya“ is “the money, or tribute, that conquered non-Muslims historically had to pay to their Islamic overlords ‘with willing submission and while feeling themselves subdued’ to safeguard their existence.”7

“This abrogates an earlier verse stating that there is ‘no compulsion in religion’ and destroys any pretense that Islam is merely a religion and not a political system.”4 This is in opposition to our First Amendment’s protection of freedom of religion.

And as Carson said, “Part of the problem today is that we’re so busy trying to be politically correct, that we lose all perspective.”2 Political correctness blinds many from even speaking the true names of the dangers we must address or even denying them. This is one reason why Carson has been blasted this week.

Sola Fide

At first, this seems to be a rather strange accomplice of political correctness — especially since Carson is a Seven-day Adventist who, therefore, accepts this Protestant tradition! But this belief impedes the ability to fully appreciate a true Muslim’s religious enthusiasm. Granted, the Muslim’s fervor is shown in willing to kill for his faith while the early Christians’ expressed their spiritual zeal by willing to be killed for it. But, each case requires taking a hard stand which, as we will see, is falling out of favor.

(There are many Scripture verses which demonstrate that “sola fide” is an incomplete view of justification. While we all know we can never earn Heaven, grave misuse of our free will can cause us to forfeit this wonderful gift if we do not ask for forgiveness with sincere repentance.8 Jesus gives each of us a “Get Into Heaven Free” card, but we are free to tear it up.)

Following “sola fide” de-emphasizes the importance of attempting to live holy lives. It makes for easy rationalizations such as “I personally oppose such and such evil, but I don’t want to impose ‘my’ values.” This diminishes a timeless truth to a product of arbitrary decision-making.

Complicating the situation is the preponderance of many claiming to be Catholic (the non- sola fide Church), but who reject essential Church doctrine. Add this to the “sola fide” proponents and it’s no wonder President Obama and Hillary Clinton think they can get away with reducing “freedom of religion” to “freedom of worship.”9 This improves their chances of getting abortion, same-sex “marriage,
“ etc. ingrained in our society — things unimaginable when religious beliefs were important to a majority of Americans.


The combination of widespread political correctness with Scriptural confusion and a diminished interest in truly living our faiths has produced a situation where we have forgotten what it takes to be a true (fill in the blank). If we look at the entirety of Ben Carson’s comments on “Meet the Press” objectively and with the knowledge of history, we will come to know that he is sensible, not prejudicial. He is not judging the Muslim faith to be bad or setting himself up to be the judge as to what constitutes a practicing Muslim. He is using logic, plain and simple.

If anyone wanted to determine what a true Catholic believes, all he needs is the Bible and Church catechism which complement each other. If anyone wanted to determine what a true Muslim believes, he reads the Qur’an and the Hadith. The knowledge would produce an understanding as to how each person should live. From there, comparisons can be made with our Constitution to see if serious conflicts exist which might advise against having such an individual in our highest office which requires whole-hearted defense of that document.

Dr. Carson has done just that. Just because we currently have a president who disregards aspects of the Constitution whenever he wishes, Carson knows that it would be worse to have a leader who is required to reject it because of deeply held beliefs.

1 – video from CNN posting “Ben Carson: U.S. shouldn’t elect a Muslim president,” by Eric Bradner,, 9/21/2015

2 – from “Carson doubles down on no Muslims in the White House,” by Jonathan Easley,, 9/20/2015

3 – “Hadith, Arabic Ḥadīth (“News” or “Story”), also spelled Hadīt , record of the traditions or sayings of the Prophet Muhammed, revered and received as a major source of religious law and moral guidance, second only to the authority of the Qur’an, the holy book of Islam. It might be defined as the biography of Muhammed perpetuated by the long memory of his community for their exemplification and obedience. The development of Hadith is a vital element during the first three centuries of Islamic history, and its study provides a broad index to the mind and ethos of Islam.” Written by the Rt. Rev. Albert Kenneth Cragg,

4 – theocracy: “government of a state by immediate divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided,” from

5 – “’People of the Book’ (originally Jews and Christians, but later extended to Hindus when Muslim leaders realized that killing them was not as profitable as taxing them.), from :What Does the Religion of Peace Teach About…”,

6 – Sura (9:29) from “The Koran” [Qur’an], translated by E.H.Palmer, Watkins Publishing, London, first published in 1900, reprinted 2008.

7 – quote from translator Raymond Ibrahim, in “Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood to Coptic Christians: Convert to Islam, or pay the ‘jizya’ tax,” by Jessica Chasmar,, 9/10/2013
True to the Qur’an, the same article reported from the Christian Science Monitor that “Just over the weekend Syrian rebels went into a Christian man’s ‘shop and gave him three options: become Muslim; pay $70,000 as a tax levied on non-Muslims, known as jizya; or be killed along with his family.’”

8 – A) John 3:36, “Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever disobeys the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God remains upon him.”
B) Gal. 5:21, “… I warn you as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.”
C) Gal. 6:7-8, “Make no mistake: God is not mocked for a person will reap only what he sows, because the one who sows for his flesh will reap corruption from the flesh, but the one who sows for the spirit will reap eternal life from the spirit.”
D) John 15:14, “You are my friends if you do what I command you.”
E) the summarizing quote from James 2:24, 26: “You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone… For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so faith apart from works is dead.”
— all verses from “The New Catholic Answer Bible,” Fireside Catholic Publishing, Wichita, KS, 2005

9 —


The Time for Fiorina to Appear “Warm” on National TV Comes Later

It was inevitable that someone would suggest that Carly Fiorina should try to exhibit a warmer personality on the debate stage. The comment was made on one of the news channels, I don’t recall which. Later on, a young man in the Fox News focus group said that he had seen her in a public gathering and she was quite friendly.

Regardless of whether more people think Fiorina is warm or not, women know that they must first convince the world that they are to be taken seriously before exhibiting normal human emotions. Strangely, in our “advanced” society, the male candidates are given much more leeway to show the full range of human emotions. A sentimental Gov. Chris Christie used stories of his 9/11 experience to appeal to the emotions of the audience. He didn’t have to deal with headlines like:

“’Emotional,’ ‘implusive’ Bachmann erred on vaccine issue, ex-aides say”1
… ironically, Donald Trump addressed the effects of a specific vaccine anecdotally during the CNN debate, but was not judged in the same way in the media.

Christie and his fellow male candidates on both sides of the aisle don’t plan their next speech with this hanging over them:

“It’s very hard to find the balance between appearing strong and tough and caring and engaged and then crossing your line to where you’ll be labeled shrill and bitchy…”2

Carly Fiorina’s strategy is smart. In the initial “second tier” Republican debate (August 6 on Fox News), she knew she had to be informed and forceful in order to stand out. She accomplished this in a group of seven candidates. Improving poll numbers had her placed in the “prime time debate” on September 16 hosted by CNN. Same strategy with the same result, only this time in a crowd of eleven. In addition, she became the first of the Republican hopefuls to put Donald Trump in his rightful place.

I am confident that the time will soon come where she will be able to show her non-competitive side without being penalized. Still, she will keep this in mind, for a recent study showed:

“If males show emotion they are not deemed unstable, but are instead patriotic. These double standards set an uneven playing field for female candidates. The media coverage of male candidates historically focuses on their character and key issues in the campaign. Female candidates must deal with those issues in addition to many more which creates a burden upon female candidates.”3

In the end, it won’t matter. Carly Fiorina is up to any challenge.

1 – (LA Times typo, must have intended “impulsive”) article by James Oliphant, Los Angeles Times,, 9/15/2011

2 – from Diana Owen, an associate professor of political science and the chair of American studies at Georgetown University, as quoted in “Can Clinton’s Emotions Get the Best of Her?”, by Emily Friedman, ABC News,, 1/8/2008

3 – “Media Gender Bias in the 1984 and 2008 Vice Presidential Elections,” Undergraduate Honors Thesis at Utah State University by Katherine Shaunesi Reeves,, 12/1/2009

New Words Created from the Presidential Campaign

From technology to slang, new words pop up daily. Some have a short life and others eventually stay in general use and become part of the language. The current presidential campaign has a creativity of its own which may last beyond 2016. Witness the following:

1) perryty: While the NFL revels in its creation of “parity,” the situation where a dozen teams are vying for two final playoff spots in late December, this political version is not so exhilarating to the participants. It is the condition where no amount of money spent by qualified candidates is able to raise them into double-digit percentages in the polls, causing many to drop out of the race early.

2) trumpled: Strangely, this word already exists in the Urban Dictionary1 as “The aimless wandering after kids wake up and before their parents feed them.” However, a second and more virulent form of the verb has emerged. To be “trumpled” means to be verbally assaulted publically in a juvenile manner.

3) mismegynist: A misogynist2 who has a particular dislike for women who are more intelligent than he is.

4) WallMall: The proposed border fence with Mexico which is also a Trump/Atlantic City-style tourist attraction.

5) obamination: Originally defined in the Urban Dictionary3 in May, 2008, as “The disastrous result of doing or following the speakings of a smooth talker.” Consequences of this have expanded greatly since January 20, 2009. Now, it also describes a country which is experiencing various internal attacks which threaten to destroy it. The means of destruction are typically:

a) uncontrolled deficit spending with a dangerous percentage of national debt owned by adversarial countries
b) wealth redistribution, under euphemisms like the “Affordable Care Act” or “tuition-free university education, with the goal of maintaining the lifetime voter loyalty of the recipients
c) have the state redefine things it did not create and has no authority over (e.g. when does human life begin and what is marriage?)
c) instead of fostering family values in the inner city, keep throwing money at the problem without accountability, thus dooming the citizens to dependence
d) replace meaningful dialogue with political-correctness by trumpling anyone who dares to protect First and Second Amendment rights

6) unwarrented: Describes the claim of membership in a racial minority which is questionable or unverifiable and is often discarded in public when politically expedient for the charlatan.4,5

7) laundremail: Email which is altered by employees of the State Department to remove the words “Top Secret” when sending information to the Secretary of State’s personal computer server, in violation of federal law.

8) kerrymandering: a convoluted negotiating scheme whereby the powerful entity deals from weakness, the sinister party gets what he wants and the losing citizenry are told they gained (to borrow a phrase from the 1930’s) “peace in our time.”

9) bidentity theft: When a person in political office claims to be a member of a certain religion, but whose actions contradict essential beliefs. Named after the current Vice-President who thinks he is a practicing Catholic, but promotes Obamacare with its abortion and sterilization requirements plus his endorsement of same-sex “marriage.” Other notable victims include House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy and New York Governor Andrew Cuomo.

10) appauled: Utter shock and disbelief that anyone would trash the Fourth Amendment in a desperate attempt to make living in an obamination safe from terrorists. Persons who are appauled know that Benjamin Franklin was correct when he said, “People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both.”6

1 —

2 – “12 Ways to Spot a Misogynist,” by Berit Brogaard, D.M.Sci., PhD,, 2/18/2015

3 —

4 – “Activist professor Ward Churchill and Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren both in the past had falsely claimed Native American heritage.” From “Gender, race are strangely malleable in modern world,” by Victor Davis Hanson,, 8/28/2015

5 – “As we all know, Elizabeth Warren is a Native American when it suits her. She’s glad to use her purported heritage when it’s to her advantage… she’ll cast it aside in an instant when it embarrasses her.” From Elizabeth Warren Shuts Down Fellow Native American On Senate Floor,” by Jim Treacher,, 11/20/2014

6 –