Jason Hines: I Admire Ben Carson, But . . . That Speech!
[fblike style="standard" showfaces="false" verb="like" font="arial"]
In April of 1990,¬†Readerís Digest¬†published an article "Dr. Ben Carson: Man of Miracles." As a 9 year old child, I remember reading that article and admiring Dr. Carson. I admired his struggle, his ability to overcome the challenges of his childhood. I marveled after his obvious intelligence and his miraculous accomplishments. When I found out he was Seventh-day Adventist like me¬†that cemented my fandom. His¬†story spoke to me¬†as a shy smart kid, making my way through¬†my first year at a public school. Dr. Carson showed me that with a little hard work and ingenuity, you could accomplish anything. I thought about Dr. Carson whenever I thought my dreams were unattainable. I believed in Dr. Carson. I read about him voraciously into my teenage years. Later that year (1990), I read his autobiography¬†Gifted Hands. In 1996 I read his second book¬†Think Big. At that age I considered him one of my role models. I donít just consider him a great surgeon, but I consider him to be the greatest surgeon who has ever lived. I thought that in 1990, and I believe it now.
- ¬†At a National Prayer Breakfast, itíd be nice if you talked about prayer -Thatís right. In the entirety of his 26 minute speech, Dr. Carson barely mentioned prayer.¬†¬†He quoted a verse at the beginning (2 Chron 7:14) and saying that his mother prayed for wisdom to help him and his brother become more scholastic. For some, the most glaring problem with this speech is that it was not appropriate for the occasion. Clearly I agree with that assessment. The National Prayer Breakfast has traditionally been a place where partisan rancor has been laid aside, and Dr. Carson ruined for many what should have been a break from that. Now Iíll admit thatís not the main reason Iím upset. If the speech had been better, I donít know that I would be as concerned about it being out of place. I do know whatís out of place though. You probably shouldnít shill your book during your speech. I know that much.
- ¬†The PC police? – At the beginning of the speech, Dr. Carson went on a rant about the evils of political correctness, at one time saying we need to get over the sensitivity of being offended but also saying that we needed to be respectful of people with whom we disagree. He used as his example the tried and true war on Christmas, stating that people shouldnít be offended when you say Merry Christmas because it is a greeting of good will. I wonder what Dr. Carson will do when someone says, "The way you can show me respect is not say Merry Christmas to me because I donít believe in God." Sometimes you canít have it both ways. Of course the other thing that bothers me is that Christianity should not always be about saying whatever you want to say no matter how anyone feels about it. We should be compassionate and patient and loving. (Col 3:12) Moreover, political correctness doesnít keep people from saying what they feel, as Dr. Carson asserted. What it does is help people be more respectful while expressing what they feel. In other words, it keeps peoplefrom looking like jerks.
- A Church-State Problem and some bad exegesis – The most glaring problem to me was his use of tithing to support the idea of a flat tax. The first problem is that comparing tithing to taxing is just bad exegesis. Tithing is not something that we do simply because weíre trying to fund the church. Tithing is a sign of faith between the believer and God. It signifies that the Christian believes that God provides and therefore I can return some of what He has given to me. Of course the other problem with this is that Dr. Carson does not tell the whole story of economics in biblical Israel. As my friend Preston pointed out, economics in Israel also includes Jubilee Year, where all debts are forgiven. Something tells me Dr. Carsonís conservative friends would not be fans of that. Then there is the church-state problem. We should not be passing laws that are particularly religious. So Dr. Carsonís argument that we should have a flat tax because thatís the system God uses is patently foolish. What about the people who donít believe in God? Should they be forced to follow the religious determination of what is a fair tax system? I think not.
- If you canít finish, donít start – Dr. Carson went on to try and explain the best thing to do in terms of healthcare. He tried to describe a very complex system of healthcare accounts and then said that it was too complex to fully explain in this setting. He was absolutely right about that. He broke what is the cardinal rule of public speaking – if you canít explain what you mean succinctly, then skip the point. All he did was leave us with a rambling and confusing section of his speech that came from nowhere and went nowhere.
- ¬†Get your facts straight – These are some minor points, but I think they show how far Dr. Carson was out of his depth. First, the United States did not win the War of 1812. At best it was a draw, and the U.S. sustained more deaths and injuries, did not accomplish their stated objective (a takeover of Canada), and lost slaves as well. Furthermore, the men who held the flag aloft at Fort McHenry and inspired Key to write our national anthem would not have thought of it as protecting "one nation, under God," considering that no one ever said that until 1948 and it wasnít official until 1954. Finally, I wish Dr. Carson wasnít so ignorant about what they teach in law school. I went to law school and know a lot of people that have been there. No one at law school taught me "to win, by hook or by crook," as Dr. Carson claimed. I donít know anyone who was taught that in law school. What were we taught? We were taught to think critically, to be more observant. They taught us how to mediate, negotiate, and solve problems. Those are the things Dr. Carson said were needed. Maybe we¬†should¬†have more lawyers in the room sir.
- Spare me the false platitudes – Towards the end of the speech, Dr. Carson just started throwing out half-baked statements to make points that I guess he didnít have time to fully develop. He said that the reason our national symbol, the bald eagle, flies so high is because it has a left wing and right wing (insert laugh here). Laying aside the fact that chickens also have left and right wings and barely get off the ground, this play for bipartisanship rings hollow in light of the speech that came before it. Dr. Carson mentioned no left wing principles or plans that he thought were good. This is further proven by the fact that in conservative circles his speech has been reported as a criticism of the President and his policies. In the aftermath of the speech, Dr. Carson has been making the conservative media rounds in support of this point. When you make such a partisan speech, you seem even more disingenuous when you attempt to throw the left wing a bone at the end.
A Harvard Law graduate, Jason Hines practiced commercial litigation in Philadelphia for five years. In 2008, Jason decided to devote his life to work in religious liberty. To that end, he enrolled at the Seminary at Andrews University, where he earned a Masterís Degree in Religion. He is presently a PhD candidate in the Religion, Politics, and Society at the J.M. Dawson Institute for Church-State Studies at Baylor University. Jason blogs about religious liberty and other religious issues at¬†thehinesight.blogspot.com and is also an associate editor of ReligiousLiberty.TV, an independent religious liberty website.