Connect With Us

FacebookTwitterRSSYoutube

Ben Carson Out As Johns Hopkins Commencement Speaker

Ben Carson- The Latest Republican "Savior"

Ben Carson- The Latest Republican “Savior”

Doctor Ben Carson of Johns Hopkins University has decided to withdrawal as commencement speaker for the School of Medicine after his comments comparing same-sex marriage to bestiality and pedophilia caused an uproar on campus. In an email to Dean Paul Rothman and the school, the neurosurgeon stated “Given all the national media surrounding my statements as to my belief in traditional marriage, I believe it would be in the best interest of the students for me to voluntarily withdraw as your commencement speaker this year.”

“Traditional marriage” is code on the right for marriage dating back to around 1982 when the US Supreme Court struck down the last of the laws which turned women into virtual slaves when they married their husbands. Prior to that, in some states, women’s property was no longer hers on marriage. In 1968, the US Supreme Court removed the ban on interracial marriage, thus redefining it again. In fact, “traditional marriage” is pretty much a phrase used to try and get around the idea that not long ago, a traditional marriage in the United States involved a man being able to beat his wife to death.

Carson stated on Fox News that
“My thoughts are that marriage is between a man and a woman. It’s a well-established, fundamental pillar of society, and no group, be they gays, be they NAMBLA, be they people who believe in bestiality — it doesn’t matter what they are — they don’t get to change the definition.”

It should be noted that until Rome invaded ancient Israel, marriage was between one man and many women, and until Rome invaded and conquered Gaulish France and Celtic Spain, same-sex marriage was allowed there under Druidic law.

Carson finally apologized for his comments last week after issuing the standard non-apology apology. He said “As you know, I have been in the national news quite a bit recently and my 36-year association with Johns Hopkins has unfortunately dragged our institution into the spotlight as well. I am sorry for any embarrassment this has caused.”

Still, Carson’s comments caused a firestorm with students circulating a petition calling for him to be removed as speaker. Furthermore, Carson attempted to claim that Liberals were racist for speaking out against his homophobic comments.

Carson has been seen as the GOP’s best chance to reach minority voters in the upcoming elections. He recently hosted a panel at CPAC about getting past playing the race card only to fall into using it to attack Liberals. In fact, his behavior may have damaged any hope he has of breaking through to the majority of Americans.

His views regarding same-sex marriage are now inconsistent with not only the majority of Americans, but even a growing number within the Black Community.

Comments

comments

Share This Post

16 Responses to Ben Carson Out As Johns Hopkins Commencement Speaker

  1. JT

    April 11, 2013 at 2:19 pm

    I guess I thought people who attended Johns Hopkins were among the best of the best. I was wrong.

    If they can’t handle someone having a different world view (right or wrong, it’s HIS opinion and no one need be influenced by it) to the point of raising so much of a stink that Dr. Carson withdraws, how are these narrow-minded people going to function in the real world where NOT EVERYONE AGREES WITH THEM? I would expect such behavior from a bunch of 3 year olds, not college students.

    Do they actually think he would be speaking about gay marriage at a commencement address? Really? Our country is already in a woeful state with class and political divisions. Unfortunately, this future generation doesn’t appear to have the intellect or moral courage to sit down and discuss their differences in a rational manner either. United we stand, divided we fall isn’t just an old cliche!

    • Bridgette P. LaVictoire

      April 11, 2013 at 3:58 pm

      JT, if Dr. Carson wanted to sit down and actually discuss the issue, he should stop resorting to demonization. Debate requires facts, and he doesn’t have any facts. Since all he could do is try to demonize lesbians and gays, he got what he deserved.

    • JT

      April 11, 2013 at 5:29 pm

      I see… what you’re doing isn’t ‘demonization’, and ‘he got what he deserved’ is SUCH an intelligent comeback. I am sooooo completely devastated.

      HE WAS STATING HIS OPINION! He didn’t say anything about his statement being a fact. IT WAS AN OPINION, which, at least for now, is still permitted in this country. It’s amazing that his ONE personal belief is enough in the eyes of the upcoming graduates to negate EVERYTHING this man has accomplished in his life. They should be ashamed of themselves.

      Please also note, I didn’t say HE should sit down to discuss an issue – and obviously, he shouldn’t waste his time because the other side isn’t interested in listening, discussing or agreeing to disagree. Thank you for proving my point that people today have become so polarized and adamant that their way is the ONLY way that this country will be divided and will fall. Congratulations.

    • Bridgette P. LaVictoire

      April 11, 2013 at 5:48 pm

      JT,

      You just oscillated between decrying my opinion and defending his. The problem is, if I sit here and say that all Catholic Priests are pedophiles and then claim that this is my opinion it would still be wrong. It would be demonization of Catholic Priests, and I should be called for making such a wrong and, quite frankly, bigoted statement.

      Since I happen to know that not only are not all Catholic priests pedophiles, but that the number of pedophiles among Catholic priests is actually lower than among priests outside of a hierarchy such as the Catholic or Anglican Church.

      Bigotry is opinion, but it is opinion based upon incorrect information that is perpetuated in order to demonize the people who you are bigoted against. For instance, you often hear people call Latinos ‘lazy’. This is a “fact” stated in opinions to demonize and degrade Latinos. That ‘laziness’ is rooted in a cultural misunderstanding since most people in Latin America take a nap or a rest in the afternoon before continuing work. The idea that Blacks are ‘stupid’ is often used against Blacks to try and make Whites seem superior despite the fact that two people of different skin colors given the same educational opportunities have a equal likelihood of being just as educated as each other. That idea came from several areas including the fact that Blacks were not given access to decent education until fairly recently in the grand scheme of things.

      I am more than willing to see his fact based, accurately researched and historically accurate arguments regarding same-sex marriage.

      The thing is, I know he cannot produce them because I have spent a very long time researching these arguments and their counter-arguments.

      And if he wishes to believe that homosexuality is immoral and same-sex marriage wrong based upon his religious beliefs, I am fine with that so long as he is honest about it and understands that the Constitution of the United States of America bars the creation of laws based upon nothing more than religious conviction.

    • JT

      April 11, 2013 at 6:20 pm

      If you want to shout all Catholic priests are pedophiles from the mountain top, I will defend your right to do so. I will not, however, agree with you, nor will I insist you be barred from speaking at an event because your views do not agree with mine. That is Freedom of Speech in this country. I will, of course, state my views just as loudly from the next mountain top. Would you stop me? If so, it’s a slippery slope you’re starting down.

      You’re also obviously not fine with his opinion, which IS based on his well-stated religious beliefs. Do you seriously think the man was going to bring up his views on marriage at a commencement for medical school graduates?

    • Bridgette P. LaVictoire

      April 11, 2013 at 7:07 pm

      JT,

      No practical definition of freedom omits the freedom to take the consequences.

      Freedom of Speech only prevents the government from censoring his words. It does not prevent me or other private citizens from criticizing him for being a homophobe and a bigot.

    • JT

      April 11, 2013 at 9:30 pm

      ONLY the government can censor free speech? Really? Who threw the hissy fit because of Dr. Carson’s religious beliefs? Who raised such a stink and circulated a petition to PREVENT him from speaking? It wasn’t the government and I call that censorship.

      Are college students today so shallow and self-centered that they cannot fathom listening to a person with a different world view? No one is saying they must agree or convert to his religious beliefs.

      I STILL ask the question: Why would Dr. Carson even bring up the subject of marriage in a commencement speech for med school grads? If he hadn’t answered that question on the TV show, those grads wouldn’t have protested his speaking. They probably would have considered it an honor to listen to a man who overcame extreme poverty and educational obstacles to become a respected neurosurgeon and someone who gives back unstintingly to his community. Why do his religious beliefs negate his accomplishments? Who are the real bigots here?

      It’s YOUR opinion he’s a bigot; others just may say YOU are the bigot.

    • Bridgette P. LaVictoire

      April 11, 2013 at 9:45 pm

      Ah, I see you have the “standard” definition of freedom of speech, which is incorrect. The guarantee of Freedom of Speech extends only to the government. They cannot restrict or censor your speech. However, I can censor or restrict, say, your speech. I can ban you from my site because this is privately owned.

      Now, additionally, I can, legally, criticize and even call for the censure of someone who presents an opinion that is 1) inflammatory, and 2) devoid of facts. You see, by your own definition of ‘censorship’ and ‘speech’ and ‘freedom’, what you are doing now is trying to restrict my freedom of speech. What you have not done is provide me with any facts to dispute my fact based opinion that Dr. Carson is a homophobe and bigot based upon the fact that he made a statement intended to inflame opinion against lesbians and gays by making fact devoid assertions equating same-sex marriage with people who sexually violate children and animals.

      This is based upon the definition that a homophobic or bigoted statement is one devoid of facts and designed to inflame people’s opinion in opposition to a group of people.

      Had Dr. Carson tried to debate same-sex marriage without making a statement that is devoid of facts and designed to inflame people’s opinions against a particular group based upon said lack of facts and the students at the University reacted this way, I would be making a different assertion.

      However, until you realize that your entire assertion is based off of a totally flawed understanding of ‘censorship’, ‘freedom’, ‘homophobia’, ‘bigotry’, and ‘facts’, might I suggest you not bother trying to convince me that you are correct since, quite honestly, I know you are incorrect in your assertions. I know that you want the last word, but might I point out that this is my site and I can end the conversation when I want to. I have just been courteous to this point, but you keep retreading your arguments, which are based on nothing more than an incorrect understanding of the facts.

    • JT

      April 11, 2013 at 10:34 pm

      Very nice! The essential, “I’m taking my marbles and going home because I’m right and you’re wrong. So there!” That’s the way to win arguments!

      What is this obsession with ‘facts’? Those ‘facts’ you cling to are YOUR interpretations of your reality, which I consider ‘opinions’. Ten people can witness an event and give ten different versions of what happened – which is the ‘correct’ fact and which are ‘incorrect’? It all depends on your point of view.

      Before you kick me off your site for making the grievous error of sticking around to argue with you – doesn’t the ‘standard’ definition of Freedom of Speech that I espouse, by the very use of the word ‘standard’, mean it’s the definition generally accepted by the masses? How, then, is it incorrect? Censorship is censorship, no matter who practices it – ie, you banning me from your site. Your right, and also your loss, if you can’t stand a lively discussion.

      Regardless of what you think of me, I have enjoyed the ‘cuss and discuss’ with you, since it avoided the usual pitfalls of childish name-calling generally associated with internet ‘discussions’. I wish you well in your future endeavors.

    • Bridgette P. LaVictoire

      April 12, 2013 at 12:20 am

      JT,

      When I say “standard” I mean ‘so-called standard’, that is, the myth-perception of what that definition is. That is, the inaccurate definition most people espouse.

      As for my “obsession with facts”, opinions without facts are little more than the ghost of refried beans. And, not, facts are not the same as opinions. A fact can be measured, and can be proven as existing. An opinion should be based upon facts and that could be considered an interpretation of the facts that can be proven. The problem is that people like you prefer to ignore fact and claim that opinion is valid even if those facts are inaccurate.

      You still, though, seem to not understand anything that I’ve been trying to explain to you. If you want to actually debate these things, I would recommend learning the basics of academic debate and research.

      BTW, I never said I was going to ban you. I don’t have to.

    • JT

      April 12, 2013 at 7:00 am

      “However, I can censor or restrict, say, your speech. I can ban you from my site because this is privately owned… I know that you want the last word, but might I point out that this is my site and I can end the conversation when I want to. I have just been courteous to this point, but you keep retreading your arguments, which are based on nothing more than an incorrect understanding of the facts.”

      Pardon me for construing your above statements as an intent to ban! Sure sounds like it.

      My ‘retread’ of my arguments stems from your refusal to answer simple questions: Do YOU think Dr. Carson would actually bring his views of marriage up in a commencement speech to med school grads?
      WHY does his religious belief negate his accomplishments in the medical, academic or charitable communities?

      I don’t believe he intended to inflame public opinion against gays/lesbians – HE WAS ANSWERING A QUESTION ON HIS VIEW OF MARRIAGE and based that answer on his religious beliefs.

      You have yet to show me one documented fact (and no, you cannot cite his religious beliefs) where he has denied medical treatment, physically attacked someone or vilified a person based on their gender preference.

      It’s not that I don’t understand, I DON’T AGREE with you. Your constant harping on ‘facts’ to me is still little more than YOUR opinion – you have yet to cite any documented facts on Dr. Carson’s mistreatment of the gay/lesbian community (beyond stating his opinion on marriage when asked for it). Nor have you explained WHY my ‘facts’ are incorrect, you just keep saying I am incorrect. No proof, other than YOUR opinion, so why should I listen to you?

      Thanks, by the way, for the insult. I considered this a discussion – you know, a somewhat civil exchange of viewpoints – rather than a debate, since you haven’t cited any actual facts yet either.

    • Bridgette P. LaVictoire

      April 12, 2013 at 9:39 am

      JT,

      I see that you seem to construe a lot of things in a manner which are not accurate given my tendencies. My guess would be that you are use to a far more hostile reaction to your statements.

      To answer your questions:

      “Do YOU think Dr. Carson would actually bring his views of marriage up in a commencement speech to med school grads?”

      Probably not, but given his increasingly political involvement, that would be difficult to decide. After all, others who have been dangling their toes in politics the way Dr. Carson have brought in their politics, and this would have been a high profile enough place to do just that as he poised himself to get involved in politics further after his retirement. What is more, by giving the standard boiler plate answer about same-sex marriage, it is hard to determine if he actually believes any of this or was playing to the audience in order to try and gain political favor among Republicans. After all, we’ve seen people say one thing in private and one thing in public in order to get elected.

      “WHY does his religious belief negate his accomplishments in the medical, academic or charitable communities?”

      This one I’ve tried to explain to you. Let me try again. Had Dr. Carson simply said “as a Christian, I view homosexuality as immoral, and same-sex marriage as wrong because of that” and stopped right there, this would be a different discussion. Instead, he involved pedophilia through a mention of NAMBLA and bestiality. He also incorrectly asserted that marriage has been between a man and a woman universally for the last 5000 years, which is also incorrect.

      Now, first of all, homosexuality is not like pedophilia- that is not my opinion, but a fact since pedophilia involves RAPING someone and is non-consensual. Bestiality involves RAPING an animal and is likewise non-consensual. These cannot be argued to be interpretations or opinions because this is the reality to equate these things is to falsely interpret the reality. Understood?

      The Native Americans practiced same-sex, but not same-gender, marriage. Please see the book “Changing Ones” for that information. The author relies upon quite a number of sources showing that marriage was not between a man and a woman among the majority of Native American cultures. Same-sex marriage was also practiced by the Celts- please see “The Celts” by Gerhard Herm, “Celtic Women” by Peter Berrisford Ellis, and any accurate translation of the “Senchus Mor” that you can find, which might be difficult to track down. I only ever found one copy and that was on microfilm. Additionally, marriage was between a man and many women in ancient Israel, please see “The Bible” for that, and Islamic law still allows a man up to four wives- please see “The Quran” for that.

      By not first researching his assertion, Dr. Carson negates his accomplishments in the academic and medical fields. By being unable to understand the harm that his attempted vilification has on others, he negates his charitable accomplishments. Of course, that bit there is my opinion and my standards.

      Now, ironically, you’ve never asked me the most basic and important question in this whole debate- do I think he should have been asked to step down?

      I think he should have been allowed to give his speech because 1) it would have shown that no one was afraid of what he has to say, and 2) it would have shown if he was either a true politician or a true Christian- either way would have undermined his future involvement in politics.

  2. John Thomas

    April 11, 2013 at 10:21 am

    God forbid that Dr. Carson would ruffle any feathers at John Hopkins. What a bunch of liberal crybabies. They don’t like his stand on one or more issues and they lable him as bad news on all issues. These people are sick and they are killing the Country. They are spineless cowards. Not a one of them has worn The Uniform of The United States. You little bastards ever heard of Iwo Jima?

  3. Cynthia

    April 11, 2013 at 10:14 am

    His views are not inconsistent with The majority of Americans….though many would like to think so. I BELIEVE Those polls are biased. JUST GO TO RIGHT places and really talk to the “majority” and the truth of what people believe will be told. The media is full of “stuff.”

    • Bridgette P. LaVictoire

      April 11, 2013 at 10:47 am

      Cynthia, you can sit there click your heels and say “the polls are biased, the polls are biased”, but it won’t work. Of course, if you go to the right places like, say, a Catholic Church in Brunswick, GA- yeah- you won’t find many supporters of marriage equality just as, if you go to a gay bar in San Francisco, you won’t find many supporters of marriage bigotry either.

      The problem is, the polls aren’t biased. I remember the GOP claiming that in the last election, and it just wasn’t true, was it?