Browse By

Ben Carson Fans Seek To Use Government To Force Religion On You

This warning comes from the National Committee To Draft Ben Carson, the dominant organization preparing for Ben Carson’s 2016 presidential campaign: “We have to understand that Freedom of Religion must never be allowed to be a mandate for Freedom from Religion.”

Let’s be clear about what this policy position means: Ben Carson’s supporters want to use the power of the federal government to force secular Americans to engage in acts of religious worship, despite their beliefs. They don’t believe that Americans should have the right to decide for themselves whether they will be religious. In their vision of a new America, religion will be mandatory, compelled by government bureaucrats.

This team of Republicans has chosen Ben Carson as their presidential candidate because they believe he is the most likely to impose their plan for a big government establishment of compulsory religion. The zeal with which they pursue this vision of an extremist religious takeover of the USA is one reason that progressive Americans need to pay close attention to the Ben Carson for President campaign.

10 thoughts on “Ben Carson Fans Seek To Use Government To Force Religion On You”

  1. DrRGP says:

    Not that it isn’t interesting to read about the lunatic fringe from time to time, but this is still another needless worry posted at this relatively new site. Dr. Carson does not have any remotely imaginable pathway to the Republican nomination, and, if he does, he has no remotely imaginable pathway to securing 270 electoral votes. (Although “remotely imaginable” is not the same as “impossible,” jt is quite close.) Why not worry, instead, whether Mrs. Clinton, if elected to the presidency, has certain business ties that might compromise what Democrats want her to accomplish while in office?

  2. Mike says:

    There will be many pretenders who would like their 15 minutes of fame and surprisingly will find a number of supporters. The previous commentor was concerned about Mrs. Clinton’s business ties. Unfortunately, due to the US Supreme Court decision , The Citizens United case, I am concerned with the business ties of all the candidates since they will be receiving unlimited campaign funds from big corporations who most certainly expect a payback. Until there are some kind of financial limitations on campaign contributions all of the candidates will be bought and paid for; not just Mrs. Clinton. I would appreciate it if the previous commentor could give me the name of just one electable presidential candidate who would not be bought and paid for. The key word is “electable”.

  3. Charles Manning says:

    Your concern about the claim that “Freedom of Religion must never be allowed to be a mandate for Freedom from Religion” is well placed. However, those words in themselves (as opposed to in a context that I might not know about) don’t necessarily mean, to me, forcing secular Americans to engage in religious worship. The vision that religion be “mandatory, compelled by government bureaucrats” isn’t necessarily implied. After thinking about this, I think “freedom from religion” is as difficult to characterize as “freedom of religion.”

    What exactly do Carson and his supporters mean by both terms? How would they apply their concept to issues like war, torture, abortion, taxes, campaign financing, civil rights, social/ethnic/racial inequality, school prayer, religious oaths and qualifications, etc. Without specifics, the words are far too vague to be anything but — worrisome.

    1. J Clifford says:

      Charles, I don’t agree at all. The phrase “freedom of religion, not freedom from religion” has a very clear meaning, in our political culture in general, and with the Ben Carson presidential campaign in particular. It means that freedom of religion is only to include the freedom to choose among religions, and that people do not have the right to choose to live without religion. In American politics, it means that there is no right to have freedom from religious groups grabbing control of government events, turning them into religious worship services, and funneling public money to support the missionary activities of religious groups. This includes mandatory prayer at government events, Creationist curricula in public schools, paid government priests, and no right of atheists, agnostics to object or decide not to participate.

      “No freedom from religion” means that religious citizens are given an elevated status, and that non-religious people are second-class citizens, subject to discrimination without recourse to equal legal protection under the law.

      In practice, it also means government support for Christianity, and not really for other religions, which makes it a bad policy for religious minorities as well as for atheists.

      1. Charles Manning says:

        Okay, you got me going. Here’s the best site I found setting out Carson’s views: http://www.runbenrun.org/issues#econ. This is in the National Committee To Draft Ben Carson web site. Nowhere did I find the “warning” you quoted. Where is it?

        Carson’s views strike me as shallow and conservative, but not radical, at least not by the standard set by the likes of my state senator, Ted Cruz. In particular, I didn’t find any language implying that Carson would support laws to mandate that the federal government force secular Americans to engage religious worship, deprive Americans of the right to choose whether to be religious, or make religion mandatory.

        I don’t understand why conservatives are so enamored of Carson. He’s boring. Seems to me somebody must be pouring millions of dollars into his candidacy. Have you looked into that?

        1. J Clifford says:

          They’re enamored with Ben Carson because he was a TV personality on Fox News.

          They like him because he gave a rambling, incoherent speech that insulted Barack Obama at a publicized Prayer Breakfast.

          1. Charles Manning says:

            When they say it isn’t about money, it’s about money.

          2. Charles Manning says:

            See http://hotair.com/archives/2014/12/22/the-ben-carson-super-pac-has-some-money-issues/. The article says $12 million has already been spent on the Carson campaign. Exposing information like this is Irregular Times’ forte.

            Can you suggest a catchy phrase to express the fact that candidates for national office these days are nearly always agents or proxies for the wealthy? “Government by proxy” has already been used by John J. DiIulio, Jr. and others to describe the use by the federal government of state and local government, or private organizations, to carry out federally mandated actions. The legal term “agent” fits. Although candidates are officially hired or designated by power of attorney to carry out the policies of wealthy contributors, the candidates are effectively agents of the contributors. But that’s not a catchy way of putting it. “Bought and paid for” is a bit cumbersome. What do you suggest as an effective shorthand way of describing political candidates and office holders who are agents but don’t talk about the identities and objectives of the principals whose wishes they promote in office?

          3. Charles Manning says:

            Sorry, I meant to say “candidates are not officially hired or designated by power of attorney.”

  4. Humpty says:

    Vote Ben Carson – a plagiarist in the White House! http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/ben-carson-book#.bhe7185Mx

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Psst... what kind of person doesn't support pacifism?

Fight the Republican beast!