Carson and a Muslim President

Ben Carson is not the most well spoken person, but he is a thoughtful person. When he says that he would not advocate a Muslim president in the US we need to stop and listen and think, not just take that little sound bite and run off to ridicule.

First, I want to look at the relevance of the question and the statement. What is the point of this question? And why does Carson’s answer matter? The question has no relevance to the current election. His opinion on this issue is also completely irrelevant because even if he were president, he would have no power over whether a Muslim is elected or not. This question, and any answer he gives to it, are just a side show. But since it is there, why not carry on with is and make some use of it?

Second, he seems to have based his opinion on two points. If we take this apart and look at it carefully, it seems to be thoughtful and logical. The first is this:

“If it’s inconsistent with the values of America, then of course it should matter,” he said. “But if it fits within the realm of America and consistent with the Constitution, no problem.”

I hope this makes perfect sense to most people; it really should. If someone has values that are inconsistent with those of the legal framework of the US, then they should not be president.
The second thing he bases his opinion on is that sharia law is incompatible with the Constitution and American values. If you put these two together, then his statement is perfectly logical and justifiable. If this, then that. But, is that second point true?

The debate on whether or not sharia law is compatible with democracy is far from finished. Part of this has to do with the fact that the debate on what exactly sharia law means from a Muslim perspective is not clear either. (Christians and secular Europeans should think about the relationship between the Ten Commandments and secular law, between the Old Testament and the New. These are related and to say they aren’t is to be ignorant of history, tradition and culture. What exactly that relationship is needs to constantly be evaluated and revised. Now think of how difficult that debate was for Christians 200 years ago, and you get an idea of what Muslims are struggling with.)

The European Court of Human Rights has ruled that sharia law is not compatible with democracy. This seems to be based on the interpretation of sharia that takes sharia as a law that is higher than any human or secular law and that over-rules any human/secular laws, legal system or political system. In short: Sharia law is spuriour to everything else: laws, constitutions, courts, etc. If that is your interpretation of sharia law, then it is incompatible with democracy, and is incompatible with American values. From this perspective, Carson is totally right. So why all the fuss?

The problem with Carson saying that believing in sharia law is incompatible with being president of the US is that most moderate Muslim don’t agree with this strict interpretation of sharia law. So, Carson’s opinion on this matter should be qualified even further: If someone thinks that sharia law is a higher law than secular law, then they are not fit to be the president. Here the statment makes perfect sense, and I am quite certain that he (and most other people) would whole heartedly agree with it.

I am wondering how many people have gotten this far in this post, likely not many. Carson bothered to explain why he thought a Muslim couldn’t be president. His reason was sharia law. It was good that he has thought through his opinion that far. However, once we look at it, we see that it should be pushed a bit further. Yet, we don’t engage in that discussion and come to a better understanding of the issue and the concerns (even fears) at hand. Just as few people have made it to the end of this post, very few read more than the headline that screamed: “Carson Says Muslim Shouldn’t Be President.”

This is a perfect example of why I am so convinced that the current media culture of buzzwords, sound bites, sharing, and liking is very harmful to society and democracy. We should not stop at the inflammatory statement or headline; we need to push beyond them into a discussion that can create a deeper understanding.



http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/254296-carson-a-muslim-shouldnt-be-president


http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/254330-carson-doubles-down-on-no-muslims-in-the-white-house

Poisoning The Soil

Advertising has little to do with the actual characteristics of products and more to do with the insecurities of the customers.  Ads largely target or even create insecurities in consumers and present the product as the fix.  This is based almost solely on emotion and disregards logic.  That is a problem for capitalism since the smooth functioning of capitalism is based on people making rational and well informed choices. 

Public debate is based on sound bites and buzz words.  These cut every idea down to the lowest common denominator and then pit them against one another as binary opposites.  This makes debating and choosing sides easy; your side is the one that you agree with as a kneejerk reaction and the other side is wrong and even evil.  That is a problem for democracy since it is based on people making thoughtful decisions and being open to compromise and cooperation. 

Education is aimed more and more at grades and standardized tests.  It is the grade that matters and not the process of learning or the development of the person.  It is the standardized test that evaluates how well you have learned and not what you actually do or think on a daily basis.  Students are graduating without skills, habits and wisdom that they can use in the real world every day.  That is a problem for free societies that need to be filled with responsible, independent and community minded people in order to function.

The progressive saying “question authority” has been turned into the belligerent “defy authority.” This rules out any meaningful conversation with authority which means that authority and tradition will not evolve.  In this environment they will both be tossed aside as irrelevant.  That is a problem when our concept of history is based on progress that grows out of accomplishments and wisdom of the past. 

We are poisoning the soil that our concepts of history, economics, government and civil society need to grow and flourish.  I hate to be pessimistic.  I am not being pessimistic here.  I know this can be changed.  So what do we do now?