How Ben Carson Is Not Like Hitler
Smart Kinsley column in TNR about the demonizing of Ben Carson (with whom I disagree on gay marriage, by the way, as I think that gay people should get the same right as straight people to marry the one consenting adult of their choice):
Carson may qualify as a homophobe by today's standards. But then they don't make homophobes like they used to. Carson denies hating gay people, while your classic homophobe revels in it. He has apologized publicly "if I offended anyone." He supports civil unions that would include all or almost all of the legal rights of marriage. In other words, he has views on gay rights somewhat more progressive than those of the average Democratic senator ten years ago. But as a devout Seventh Day Adventist, he just won't give up the word "marriage." And he has some kind of weird thing going on about fruit.But none of this matters. All you need to know is that Carson opposes same-sex marriage. Case closed. Carson was supposed to be the graduation speaker at Johns Hopkins Medical School. There was a fuss, and Carson decided to withdraw as speaker. The obviously relieved dean nevertheless criticized Carson for being "hurtful." His analysis of the situation was that "the fundamental principle of freedom of expression has been placed in conflict with our core values of diversity, inclusion and respect." My analysis is that, at a crucial moment, the dean failed to defend a real core value of the university: tolerance.
The university's response was wrong for a variety of reasons. First, Carson isn't just another gasbag. He is director of pediatric neurosurgery at Hopkins. Pediatric neurosurgery! He fixes children's brains. How terrible can a person be who does that for a living? Yes, I know the flaw in this thinking: There is no necessary connection. As a character says in Mel Brooks's movie The Producers: "der Führer vas a terrific dancer." But Carson didn't murder millions of people. All he did was say on television that he opposes same-sex marriage--an idea that even its biggest current supporters had never even heard of a couple of decades ago. Does that automatically make you a homophobe and cast you into the outer darkness? It shouldn't. But in some American subcultures--Hollywood, academia, Democratic politics--it apparently does. You may favor raising taxes on the rich, increasing support for the poor, nurturing the planet, and repealing Section 14(b) of the Taft-Hartley Act, but if you don't support gay marriage, you're out of the club.
...The dean calls Carson's remarks "hurtful." They weren't hurtful to him, unless he's hopelessly oversensitive. The dean was just making a move in the great game of umbrage that has clogged American politics, where points are awarded for taking offense at something the other guy said. No one, when confronted with some opponent's faux pas, or some stray remark that can be misrepresented as a faux pas, ever reacts anymore with: "Who cares?" Instead, it's: "I am deeply, deeply offended by this person's remarks. She should drop out of the race immediately, or quit her job, and move into a nunnery to contemplate her sins. And we certainly can't let her speak at commencement because ..."
Because what?
You don't like somebody's ideas? Throw yours into the ring. Don't try to yank theirs out.
Your "Hitler" reference made me think of the nature of political discourse. We now casually bandy words that should be used rarely, if at all. Extreme terms are now the norm, making what should be powerful imagery into meaningless tripe.
"Traitor," thanks largely to Newt Gingrich, is another such term that has become so diluted as to be meaningless, when in fact "treason" is so narrowly defined by the Constitution that not even Aaron Burr was convicted of it. The way "traitor" is thrown around, you'd think Washington would have voted unanimously to return us to the Crown.
We're also fond of calling our elected leaders "sick," "crazy," or "insane." Michelle Bachmann seems to be most often on the receiving end of this charge. But which psychologist has made this diagnosis? Shouldn't the word "insane" be reserved for those who are truly mentally ill?
I don't know of a single word now that can invoke the appropriate moral outrage. There's literally nothing left to call each other. We're all Nazis, commies, fascists, dictators, tyrants, jihadis, traitors, lunatics, and a billion other things, all of which now mean nothing.
Patrick at May 29, 2013 1:15 AM
I don't like the whole solution of "civil unions for everyone, leave marriage to the church." So what, atheists can't get married then? I don't like it at all.
NicoleK at May 29, 2013 3:04 AM
I appreciate this opinion. It seems that we are moving into "groupthink" and any variation is scorned.
That said, I was a late-comer to the movement to support gay marriage. Sure, I supported the rights of people to be with who-ever they loved. I did have some trouble with "marriage" because it was designed to protect children and those that nurtured them, which is a great investment for society. I worried that these protections would be eroded.
Well, things have changed without gay marriage. Additionally, more gay people are having kids, so they need all of the protections that heterosexual couples have. Kids used to be all but inevitable with straight couples. That is no longer the case. Protections for the traditional family have eroded without the interference of gay marriage, so welcome aboard. We are all in this together.
Jen at May 29, 2013 3:19 AM
By the way, Amy, this is not to fault you for the use of the word "Hitler." You indeed used it as an extreme example, as it should be. You're suggesting that because Ben Carson favors "civil unions" for gay people, as opposed to marriage, that doesn't make him Hitler.
This would be distinct from pictures of Obama depicted with Hitler's now imfamous moustache.
As far as "gay marriage" goes, I vote in favor of giving everyone civil unions and leave marriage as a term of choice, but not a legally-recognized term. If this were to be implemented, even atheists could get married. The government would not own the term "marriage" and the church has no legal claim on it (or any other term).
However, it is unlikely that the long-time marriage proponents would be willing to part with the term, even if "civil union" would confer the exact same benefits; they will accept nothing short of a "marriage" and the government calling it nothing but.
Therefore, gays should also have their unions recognized as marriage. None of this "separate but equal" terminology for the same institution.
Patrick at May 29, 2013 3:31 AM
I wonder if Adolph is still a common name in Germany. I mean, it was a very generic name at the time, it must be a family name for lots of people. Do you think there are many people named Adolph who were born after the mid-1940s?
NicoleK at May 29, 2013 4:33 AM
So people in a church have no right to their religious beliefs, Nicole? You have the right to leave any church with which you disagree - (not so much if you are in a mosque.) You do not have the right to impose your beliefs on others.
Integrity, it seems, is no longer a virtue.
MarkD at May 29, 2013 5:11 AM
Adolf (or Adolph) was a popular name in Germany, even among the Jews that lived in Germany prior to the rise of the infamous German Chancellor.
Since then, however, the name is shunned. (I don't know how popular "Benedict" was prior to the American Revolution.) Similarly, the French avoid their equivalent: Adolphe. Strangely, Spain doesn't mind and the name Adolfo is as popular as it was back then.
Patrick at May 29, 2013 5:58 AM
A lot of this gets wrapped around the word "marriage". That word started out as a religious/social term, and then a legal definition got attached to it later. That legal definition is seriously anachronistic now, and it needs to be either reformed or eliminated altogether.
Cousin Dave at May 29, 2013 6:38 AM
You have the right to get married in the Church, what you DON'T have the right is to say no one else can get married because they aren't in the Church, that only what you do is a real marriage and everyone else can just get civil unions.
Let everyone get married legally, and if Churches don't want to marry folks they don't have to, but to forbid other Churches or City Hall from marrying people is just wrong.
NicoleK at May 29, 2013 6:43 AM
Oh, and I think this could be a new Internet meme: "How is XXX not like Hitler?", e.g.:
Q: "How is Cousin Dave not like Hitler?"
A: "No mustache."
Cousin Dave at May 29, 2013 6:46 AM
Neither "Adolfo" nor "Benito" get much airtime in Italy since the war. Since Spain was under a semi-Fascist dictator until the mid-'70s, and was nominally neutral in WWII, the continued acceptance of the name is no surprise.
I once knew an aged vet of the Italian Army (this was in the late '80s, in Catania, Sicily) who referred to Mussolini as "that guy with the swollen head" and still remembered an old Fascist marching song, one line of which went, "We shall extend our boot into East Africa!" ("Allungeremo lo stivale fino all'Africa Orientale!") He was a hoot, and given the way the Germans slaughtered Italian soldiers after Italy switched sides, he was lucky to still be alive.
All of which is irrelevant to the topic of the post, of course. My grandfather's name was "Benedict" but he was a Minnesota German Catholic, named for the saint, not the traitor. :)
Grey Ghost at May 29, 2013 6:52 AM
Cousin Dave, and you could probably demonize anyone by finding something in common with Hitler.
You could piss off a vegetarian by pointing out that Hitler was one.
You could insult Ahnuld supporters by pointing out that Hitler was Austrian.
Patrick at May 29, 2013 7:46 AM
My great-grandfather was an Adoph, but he was born before 1915, and Czech.
I did have a friend from my home town whose father was born after 1945 and was named Adolph... and we're from one of those German towns in the Texas hill country. Yup.
ahw at May 29, 2013 8:01 AM
"you speak of tolerance, while you have none."
and how does that work exactly?
offense-sensitivity.
everyone is offended by everything.
What this shows all those students is that there are plenty of politically correct triggers for everything, and they'd better get in line and shut up if they don't agree.
If I were of his stature, I'd have said, "if you wish to withdraw the invite, do so. But don't pretend that suppressing a contrasting point of view is some kind of virtue."
Marriages should never be a government thing in a secular society. Only the contract.
Get the government out of it, and the problem ceases to BE. Because then Marriage and the ideas therein, are entirely up to the individual.
But then you'd have to do something constructive instead of all the political theatre that surrounds this circus.
Imagine how many billions of dollars have been wasted on this argument over the years, nationwide.
If proponents of the issue had had pivoted during Clinton's time, this would already have been done.
Civil Unions for everyone, marriage is between you and your mate.
or does me thinkin' that make me a homophobe too?
SwissArmyD at May 29, 2013 8:08 AM
Here you go, SwissArmyD. I think you'll like this. It's Stephen Fry on being offended.
Patrick at May 29, 2013 8:48 AM
If thinking that makes you a homophobe, Swiss, then I guess I'm a homophobe, too, since I said essentially the same thing.
Patrick at May 29, 2013 9:26 AM
@NicoleK: "You have the right to get married in the Church."
No, you don't. The church has to agree to perform the ceremony, and most parishes will have rules. In this country, clergy can perform a legally binding marriage ceremony because the individual states license them to do so. But you don't need the church to get married, and couples can't demand it.
By the way, in the Commonwealth of Virginia, anyone can perform a wedding ceremony, provided they pay the fee, do the paperwork, and see the judge.
Old RPM Daddy (OldRPMDaddy at GMail dot com) at May 29, 2013 11:09 AM
I wonder if Ben Carson has been audited by the IRS yet?
Lisa at May 29, 2013 2:02 PM
I think you're missing the point, Nicole. People are saying they want civil unions to replace marriage in legal matters---that is, make marriage a strictly optional ceremonial affair with no legal significance and however much or little religious significance you want, like baptism or christening. Everyone who chooses to have a baby has a legal process to go through, and there's a number of optional other things you can do when naming a kid that the state doesn't give two farts about. Atheists can have their kids baptized or have a nonreligious naming ceremony officiated by the mailman, and under a civil unions for all scenario, atheists could still get married in whatever church would have them or in the backyard. The legal process would just be called a civil union, and would have to be officiated by an agent of the state, whether it was for atheists or Catholics. I'm all for it.
Jenny Had A Chance at May 29, 2013 4:58 PM
Also, saying that marriages in your Church are the only real ones, the only ones that count, is actually pretty much exactly what religious people have a right to do. They also have a right to say that the name given during their ceremony is a person's true name. What they don't have is the right to make the state agree. With civil unions and legal names, the state doesn't have to agree or disagree about it because it has it's own criteria.
Jenny Had A Chance at May 29, 2013 5:14 PM
My analysis is that, at a crucial moment, the dean failed to defend a real core value of the university: tolerance. . . . All he did was say on television that he opposes same-sex marriage--
While I'd say that being opposed to same-sex marriage is something a university could tolerate in a graduation speaker, what if Dr. Carson happened to be opposed to interracial marriage and wanted to go back to banning it? Should the university tolerate that? What if he felt that women (or blacks) shouldn't be able to vote? Should the university tolerate that opinion in a graduation speaker? What if he was a Holocaust denier? Should the university tolerate that?
JD at May 29, 2013 5:38 PM
Nicole: Let everyone get married legally, and if Churches don't want to marry folks they don't have to, but to forbid other Churches or City Hall from marrying people is just wrong.
If this was proposed -- (1) same-sex couples can be married by any church that is willing to marry them (2) churches that are opposed to same-sex marriage will not be forced to marry same-sex couples -- religious conservatives would oppose this. They would not want liberal churches to have the right to marry same-sex couples.
JD at May 29, 2013 5:45 PM
@ JD Yes to all of those.
Basically it boils down to, should the university tolerate a different opinion, in the name of tolerance? YES
As to the one two proposition:
The reality is no one who has seen political movements in the past would believe (2) would actually be followed for more than a day. Then the next round of lawsuits and next group of politicians come out.
Joe J at May 29, 2013 7:50 PM
Government has no business being in the business of marrying people.(sorry if that's bad grammar)In fact, government licensing is the major source of all that ails free society in the West.
teapartydoc at May 30, 2013 4:33 AM
So should I assume that Johns Hopkins would not have wanted President Obama to speak there two years ago? Or Hillary Clinton, one year ago? It's a little scary how fast this opinion has gone from minority to majority to dogma. Doesn't it make you wonder what you'll be required to believe in another two years?
Mark T at May 30, 2013 4:39 AM
Carson is being attacked by the left for his cogent criticisms of their Dear Leader's policies and ideas.
But they can't really nail him for that, mostly because he is right. They especially can't deploy their usual cynical tactic of calling him a "racist." Kind of hard to pretend that the most accomplished black physician in American history is opposed to the first black president in American history on the basis of racial animus.
So instead they attack him for disliking the idea of same sex marriage, a topic full of sound and fury, but no significance.
This is what bad people do to good people.
Regrettably Carson has responded not with steadfast resolve, but contrition and appeasement. For all his greatness he does not understand that to capitulate to tyranny is to support that tyranny. There is no middle ground.
Lee Reynolds at May 30, 2013 4:54 AM
A couple of decades ago, any supporter of gay rights would have told you that "gay marriage" was a boogeyman used by bigots like Anita Bryant.
neutrino at May 30, 2013 5:03 AM
Liberals don't get it, with their political-correctness on steroids, that Obama/Reid/Pelosi most decidedly did NOT even attempt to overturn DOMA in 2009 when they could have. AND, now in 2013 Obama and Reid are most decidedly NOT talking or doing anything about overturning DOMA. So let the hypocrisy be known. And all the liberals like the dean of JH Medical school......realize that actions speak louder than words. Ben Carson.....Barack Obama...neither one wants to overturn DOMA. Case closed.
steve bourg at May 30, 2013 5:20 AM
This is in the realm of thought crimes. There are rational reasons to oppose gay marriage, just as there are rational reasons to support it. For thousands of years societies across the board defined marriage as between a man and a women (with some polygamous aspects thrown in). The rational basis was procreation and child-rearing. Now all of the sudden the very utterance of doubt as to whether society must change a fundamental institution with lightening speed is bigotry, or the ever nebulous homophobia? (Any so-called bigotry defined as a "phobia" is a term so ripe for abuse that it is positively Orwellian). You are not some benighted troglodyte because you dare question being forced change a fundamental institution so heedlessly. This is little more than intellectual intimidation and branding disagreement as hate. It's pure fascism through and through, and the true bigots ironically are those arguing for "diversity", which apparently does not include the right to disagree with them. Which points to the fact that political correctness and "diversity" are not about decency but about controlling others.
Anyway, in NY the highest court rejected the attempt to impose gay marriage by judicial fiat, the legislature passed it and absolutely no one cares. It's harmless. I tend to think it's the mad rush to ram it down the nation's throats and the attempt to have court's impose it that people are reacting to. Unfortunately college campuses have become a twilight world of sophistical nonsense.
astro at May 30, 2013 5:33 AM
Gay Marriage? I thought it was Same-Sex Marriage.
Do you have to be Gay/Lesbian to marry someone of the same sex? Do you have to be in "love"? Is there a test?
Behold the future where mothers may marry sons, fathers may marry daughters, not to mention siblings first cousins and polygamy.
If two of the same-sex can marry, can three or more?
HoldOnSweetie at May 30, 2013 6:39 AM
Read your bible Sweetie, the first marriage was between two twin brothers, one of whom had a sex change. The next several score was between siblings, half siblings, first cousins and aunts/nephews, uncles/neices.
After god killed everyone but Noah and his three sons . . . well who the hell do you think their kids married?
Abraham married his half sister and whored her out to local leaders for cash money.
The oldest traditions of marriage is between family members, so why would you protest it now?
lujlp at May 30, 2013 7:47 AM
"I think that gay people should get the same right as straight people to marry the one consenting adult of their choice" - they do, they can.
Marriage was recognized on the frontier - "common law marriage" = not to benefit couples, but to benefit children - the typical youthful consequence needing social and societal protection if there is early demise, or if there is relationship breakdown.
Now, since gay people are not generally pro-creative, tell me why they need it again? My gay cousin says he (and his partner) don't.
Because they have no children.
Orson at May 30, 2013 8:13 AM
The problem with gay marriage is that it contributes to the idea that marriage is really not a meaningful concept, except as a formal recognition of emotional commitment. We are in the process of unraveling the fundamental concept that has sustained the family legally and economically for millennia. The observable result is the fragmentation of the family - divorce, cohabitation, out of wedlock births, and, from what I read, more children living in poverty or on welfare.
Yes, yes, I know there are other factors. I'm just saying that gay marriage is one of them.
You will find that most people who oppose gay marriage are also concerned about these other things. But of course, the response of the leftists is, as usual, not to address these concerns, but to demonize and marginalize the people who are concerned.
But everyone should think for a minute about what is likely to happen as we continue down this path. Back in the 70s, there was a convergence of leftist idealism and conservative financial constraint that resulted in the mentally ill being turned out on the streets. That sure worked out well.
I think that there will be a similar convergence here - at some point, people are going to say that if marriage means nothing but emotional commitment, just what is the point of treating marriage favorably in connection with taxes, adoption, or anything else?
And the result may well be that we will begin to question why the government or fathers should support unwed mothers in their purely emotional choice not to be married.
As for that university president, he's a standard issue careerist - he mouths the institutional pieties and looks forward to his CEO level pension. My own reaction - abolish public universities. Their mission is to educate, not to guide us on social issues. Since they seem to have abandoned their mission, what use are they?
punditius at May 30, 2013 1:36 PM
America lost the Cold War, after all.
PacRim Jim at May 30, 2013 1:59 PM
Why is it "for the children" gay marriage protesters never protest childless marriages between strait couples?
lujlp at May 30, 2013 4:28 PM
Why is it "for the children" gay marriage protesters never protest childless marriages between strait couples?
Good question, lujlp, and I think we both know the answer to that.
JD at May 30, 2013 7:22 PM
As I posited back here:
From time immemorial there has been a spiritual aspect to the word marriage. That comes from the your non-secular beliefs (church, temple, mosque, atheism, personal belief, etc.)
Then there has been the temporal (secular) aspect which comes into play on taxes, inheritance, parenting and many other places. If there was no temporal aspect, a notary public couldn't declare you married.
Under the First Amendment there is no legal way way to force a religious institution recognize a temporal marriage.
But as found under the Fourteenth Amendment (Loving v. Virginia) the state can't refuse to recognize a spiritual, and therefore a temporal marriage that doesn't break state or federal laws.
(This is where you get into the Mormons, multi-marriages, age constraints and all the rest. I refuse to get of into the tangential marriage argument. This is a discussion of couples wanting to marry.)
The DOMA challenge is applicable under the Tenth and Fourteenth Amendments. (Equal protection for secular purposes.)
California's 8th is a state choice under the Tenth Amendment and should actually not been heard by SCOTUS. Or as heard by SCOTUS is whether the population or state was right within California. It should not have any effect on any other state.
As for churches or other religious organizations wanting to recognize non-traditional marriages, go for it. The secular law recognizes a coupling of two people as a marriage. The only change is that the government needs to recognize that they can be multi-sex or single-sex couple and give them the same benefits.
The question pops up about wedding suppliers (caterers, flowers, etc.). Those business have the right refuse service.
Jim P. at May 30, 2013 8:06 PM
While I can see the 10 amendment issue for Cal8, I think there is basis for a federal 14th amendment challange, the reason our first federal government failed is states were refusing to recognise the contracts formed in other states.
As marrige is a civil contract why should one state be able to refuse to recognise that? No one would allow a single state to decide all loans taken out by it citizens in other state were null and void within its borders after all.
lujlp at May 31, 2013 1:13 PM
You may very well be right. It might be a matter of you can't initiate the marriage contract in state X but state X has to recognize how the contract works that was made made in state Y for major portions. But the private hospital still doesn't have to recognize the spousal visitation rights.
The general idea is that the split needs to be made between the government and the non-secular on the word marriage.
Jim P. at May 31, 2013 8:33 PM
Leave a comment