Great Greasy Gobs of PC Doo-Doo

While Donald Trump has been making great headway in his campaign by stepping in piles of PC doo-doo, it looks like the runner-up, Dr. Ben Carson, has managed to step in one himself.

On an NBC (does anyone still watch that network?) broadcast of “Meet The Press”, Carson matter-of-factly said, “I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation.’’

Oh my, Dr. Carson, you have stepped in a particularly nasty pile that time. As to be expected, the left and the Muslim complainers all took issue with the statement. Interestingly, many of the more conservative pundits also railed against the good doctor’s opinion. In the end, though, a large swath of Americans agreed wholly with Carson’s statement.

Before the din becomes deafening, let’s look at what was said and give it a little critical analysis.

Contrary to what some claim, Dr. Carson did not say that a Muslim cannot become President. Such a statement would be entirely inaccurate. Even Obama has not been able to strip the First Amendment from the Constitution, which reads:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The US Constitution does stipulate that the President must be a natural-born citizen. Article II section 1:

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;…

A foreign-born person would not be eligible to become President regardless of religion. Not a word is even implied in the constitution about any religious qualification for the office of President. But you knew that, and so did Dr. Carson.

Would it be wise to elect a Muslim to the Presidency? Not to put words into Carson’s mouth, I believe this is what he meant by expressing his opinion that he would not advocate for a Muslim becoming President.

Why not a Muslim? Simple! While there are many good Muslims both here and abroad, the tenets of Islam and Sharia law are entirely incongruent with the US Constitution. That’s not to say that a Muslim would not make a good president, but if that person would adhere strictly to his or her religion many laws would be violated.

When John F. Kennedy became the first Catholic President, many people feared that the Pope would have the last word on Presidential issues. That didn’t happen. The Speaker of the House, John Boehner is a devout Catholic, yet he has never advocated in his job for any religious advantages.

Would a Muslim President proselytize or bring Sharia law to the US? Only good sense and integrity on the part of that person would prevent it.

Sharia is an abomination. There I have said it, and I will stand squarely behind my statement. I am not a theologian, but I have read the Quran and have researched Sharia law. First, it is not a universal, codified law. Every sect has its own version of Sharia, much of it is not even written down. The Muslim faithful are at the mercy of the whims of a Mullah, Caliph, or Ayatollah, often with no appeal or recourse. What is haram (forbidden) in one sect or even by an individual Mullah may not even be considered by another. Oppressive dictates on women are common, and punishments are far out of line with the severity of the “crimes”.

Under Sharia, we see punishments such as stoning for adultery – nearly always women – “honor” killings of women who have been raped, hands lopped off, heads lopped off, women beaten by husbands at the consent of Sharia, women not allowed to appear in public without a male relative escort, women required to wear burqas, and three-year-old girls being sold as brides.

This is not a law; it is an abhorrent violation of human rights and dignity. Could a Muslim President ignore these tenets and still be considered a good Muslim? That is the crux of Dr. Carson’s statement. It is also a moot point in this election, as I haven’t heard of any Muslim running for the office.

Here Come Da Pope!

Pope Francis has landed in America. That is rightfully a joyous occasion for some 76.7 million Roman Catholics in the country. Popes don’t visit often, only nine times since the first visit of Pope Paul VI in 1965. Seven of those visits were from the late Pope John Paul II.

As Popes go, it was appropriate that John Paul II was canonized a saint. He did much to further and clarify church doctrine. He also epitomized a life of church leadership and did much to show the evils of the socialist regime he grew up under in communist Poland.

Pope Francis (the humble?) talks a good talk and seems to be making changes for the better in church doctrine, or at least church administration of that doctrine. In the US and other countries where abortion is legal and divorce commonplace, he appears to have loosened the reigns on the rigid application of the doctrine. Some say that is progress; to others, it is an abomination.

While I am certain the Pope is a good man with the best of intentions, he is way out of his league criticizing capitalism and preaching the gospel of climate change. For an institution that has for millennia shown contempt for both economics and science, this Pope has scant qualifications to speak credibly to either.

In a world where we are quickly reaching the maximum sustainable capacity for population, the Pope could better use his bully pulpit for solutions to that problem. We currently have some 7 billion people on the face of this planet, with absolutely no way to increase that occupancy limit. We can’t just add on to the planet.

Credible scientists estimate that the earth can support no more than about 10 billion people. We are 70% of the way toward being maxed out, and our population is growing exponentially!

Are radical solutions now necessary? Probably not yet, but if we don’t start talking about it soon, they may become necessary. I’m talking euthanasia, abortion, forced childbirth restrictions… actions no one wants to see or hear about.

Where does the Pope fit into all of this? Well, first, Catholic Church doctrine alone is neither the culprit nor the solution. But the rigid opposition to contraceptives and all abortions does nothing to help the population problem. That is where a truly enlightened Pope might make substantial changes to church doctrine.

But looking at world population statistics, we find that ethnic fertility rates may be what drive the population explosion more than religious doctrine. For example, the fertility rate for Niger is 6.89 children per woman while that of the United States is 2.01 to 1. The lowest fertility rate is in Singapore at 0.8 children per woman. These statistics are provided by the CIA in 2014.

My point here is that if this Pope is to be as revolutionary as he professes to want to be, he should concentrate more on matters he is in a position to change and less on matters he likely does not understand and is not really qualified to tackle. Francis may commendably wash the feet of a few poor people, but has he or the church done much to alleviate the plight of the homeless? The Catholic Church is reportedly the richest organization on earth, but what is it doing directly to help the poor and destitute? For that matter, is there any major religious organization that is truly practicing the religious tenet of charity?

Pope Francis said to Castro, “people are important not ideas.” Okay, Pope. Put your money where your mouth is.

Thank God, I live in America. If I had said this about the Ayatollah in Iran, I would be in great peril.