Kareem Abdul-Jabbar is Bad for All Americans

Much of the left has always hated men like Ben Carson, but now that he has the lead in the Real Clear Politics polling average (as of this writing) for the republican presidential nomination, their desire to tear him down has intensified. With a recent column in Time magazine entitled Ben Carson is Terrible for Black Americans, NBA legend Kareem Abdul-Jabbar decided to weigh in.

Sounding like a bad Elaine Benes date, Abdul-Jabbar begins his piece by asking and answering his own question—twice. He concludes that a Carson presidency would “be an unmitigated disaster.” I suppose that with record numbers of Americans on welfare, record numbers of Americans not working, accumulating more federal debt than every other U.S. president combined, a perverse redefinition of marriage, granting a “God bless you” to killers of children in the womb, promoting a culture of lawlessness, inspiring hostility toward U.S. law enforcement, encouraging the invasion through our southern border, and on top of all of that, ruining school lunches for millions of American children, for Mr. Abdul-Jabbar, the last seven years constitutes something other than an “unmitigated disaster.”

Of course, such blindness and duplicity concerning the last seven years is enough to dismiss Abdul-Jabbar’s opinion as nothing more than the ramblings of a left-wing lunatic. However, his hit-piece on Carson is filled with hare-brained liberal blather and provides us with an abundance of evidence that Kareem should stick to NBA analysis instead of presidential politics.

Abdul-Jabbar says that Carson’s “repressive, muddled and pious policies and opinions often run against our Constitution.” As so often is the case with liberals, he discusses none of Carson’s specific policies or opinions. And it’s very interesting that a follower of Islam—as is Abdul-Jabbar—is so concerned with the Constitutionality of Dr. Carson’s policies and opinions. As I noted earlier this year, few things in the world are more repressive than Islam and liberalism, yet Mr. Abdul-Jabbar is an eager devotee of both.

Next Abdul-Jabbar, who gained both fame and fortune only because he was 7’2” tall and very talented with a basketball, calls into question Dr. Carson’s thinking on matters of science. Carson, a graduate of Yale and the University of Michigan Medical School, and a world-renowned neurosurgeon, draws the wrath of liberals like Abdul-Jabbar because he doesn’t toe the progressive line when it comes to Darwinian evolution, homosexuality, global warming, and the like. (Of course, as is often the case, Abdul-Jabbar totally avoids the science of life in the womb.)

Not once, but twice Abdul-Jabbar references the totally debunked “97% scientific consensus” canard when it comes to man-made global warming. He warns that Carson’s “head-in-the-sand” thinking on the climate could prove “disastrous” when it comes to the very “survival”—“survival” mind you—of the United States and the world. Amazing.

For decades, the willful moral and scientific blindness exhibited by American liberals—in other words, “head-in-the-sand” thinking—has directly led to the wanton destruction of tens-of-millions of American (hundreds-of-millions worldwide) in the womb. Likewise, for decades liberals have ignored the clear science and morality when it comes to homosexuality, marriage, and the family. Yet Dr. Carson, and the tens-of-millions of us who largely share his worldview, are the dangerous “anti-science” theocrats America should fear.

Generations of Americans have suffered horribly as the rotten fruit of liberalism has corrupted sound sexual morality and the family model that God gave to us. None in the U.S. have suffered more under such wicked perversions than have black Americans. How tragically ironic that a so-called champion of blacks in America would turn his heart and mind from such misery. It goes to show the depths of the corrupting power of liberalism.

Abdul-Jabbar also makes time to quote the United Nations and the APA, promote Obamacare, attack President George W. Bush, and lament the “institutional racism” that’s supposedly still so prevalent in the U.S.

The last paragraph of Abdul-Jabbar’s piece contains a sentence that provides us with complete clarity when it comes to politics and the modern liberal mind. He writes, “We are always striving to do better for our people by fulfilling the promise of a democratic Eden here and now.”

There is perhaps nothing that sums up modern liberalism more clearly than its dangerous pursuit of utopia. Virtually every perverse liberal policy today—their lust to maintain the “right” to kill children in the womb, their desire to destroy marriage and the family, their lust for all things homosexual, their big government economic policies and hatred of capitalism, their lust for the environment and hatred of fossil fuels, their hatred of guns and gun rights, and so on—stems from the Darwinian notion that this life is all that we have, and everything imaginable must be done in order to fill it with as much pleasure as possible.

Ben Carson’s conservatism, or rather conservatism in general—especially Christian conservatism—stands in the way of such utopian pursuits. This is why so many liberals put so much effort and energy (and anger and deception) into elections. For the most part, the hope of liberals lies only in what they can accomplish in this world. They’ve made a god of government. “In government they trust.”

As Mark Levin wrote in Ameritopia, according to modern liberalism, “A heavenly society is said to be within reach if only the individual surrenders more of his liberty and being for the general good, meaning the good as prescribed by the state.” And we all have seen “the good” that results from the edicts put forth by godless secular regimes.

Dr. Ben Carson is not bad for black Americans; he is bad for liberalism, which is good for America. It’s the liberalism preached and promoted by likes of Abdul-Jabbar that’s bad for the country.

(See this column at American Thinker.)

Copyright 2015, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
www.trevorgrantthomas.com
Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

Islam, Christianity, and Electoral “Discrimination”

Ben Carson’s recent statements about Islam and the U.S. presidency have garnered a wide array of commentary. Most of the remarks have been quite critical, with even some conservatives taking Carson to task. Predictably, many of those critical of Carson point to the Constitution’s “no religious test” clause. Also predictably, many who are making this argument completely ignore that Carson was not advocating for such a “religious test.”

Interestingly, every one of the American Colonies did have such a “religious test.” What’s more, these tests continued long after the United States was formed. The U.S. Constitution went into effect on June 21, 1788. An excerpt (Article 7, Section 2) from the 1796 Tennessee constitution reads, “No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this State.”

Article 11, Section 4 of the very same constitution says, “That no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under this state.” Thus, within the same state constitution there resides a religious requirement for holding public office, along with a prohibition against a “religious test.” Therefore, we can conclude that, in the era of our founding, many believed that requiring a belief in God for elected officials did not constitute a “religious test.”

Likewise, the Article 1 Section 4 of the Texas (who didn’t enter the Union until 1845) constitution said, “No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being.”

The constitution of the state of Mississippi (1817, Article 14, Section 265) states, “No person who denies the being of God or a future state of rewards and punishments shall hold any office in the civil department of the State.” More tamely, Article 37 of the Maryland constitution says, “That no religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office of profit or trust in this State, other than a declaration of belief in the existence of God; nor shall the Legislature prescribe any other oath of office than the oath prescribed by this Constitution.”

It wasn’t until 1961, in Torcaso v. Watkins that the Supreme Court rendered such clauses unenforceable. Again, interestingly the Court did not base its ruling on the “no religious test” clause. Justice Hugo Black wrote, “Appellant also claimed that the State's test oath requirement violates the provision of Art. VI of the Federal Constitution that ‘no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.’ Because we are reversing the judgment on other grounds, we find it unnecessary to consider appellant's contention that this provision applies to state as well as federal offices.”

Instead, the Court ruled that requiring a belief in God to hold public office violated the First and Fourteenth amendments. In other words, the Supreme Court ruled that such requirements were a violation of the “establishment of religion” clause of the First Amendment.

However, as I noted, Mr. Carson was not advocating for a government “religious test.” Rather, he was implying that voters exercise a personal religious test as they enter the ballot booth. Of course, this still offends today’s liberals (which is a great indication that one has simply told the truth). Also, what Ben Carson declared is little different than what John Jay—Founding Father, one of the authors of the Federalist Papers, and the first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court—said in an 1816 letter to John Murray. In fact, Jay was much more exclusive than Carson when he wrote, “Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest, of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.”

Imagine that! Not only did John Jay proclaim that Americans should prefer Christians for their leaders, approximately four decades after the creation of the United States, one of the most significant U.S. founders considered this a “Christian nation.” If such a conclusion is even hinted at today, the (often godless) secularists that dominate the modern left and the mainstream media howl like Highball the hound.

In spite of the meme perpetuated by today’s left, John Jay was far from alone in his conclusion on America’s founding. (However, many on both sides of the argument frequently misunderstand what is meant by a “Christian nation.”) In fact, it is not only American Christians who make such claims.

After the victory over Great Britain, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson both served the freshly birthed United States of America as ministers in Europe. Quoting from David McCullough’s Pulitzer Prize winning biography, John Adams:

“Of the multiple issues in contention between Britain and the new United States of America, and that John Adams had to address as minister, nearly all were holdovers from the Treaty of Paris, agreements made but not resolved, concerning debts, the treatment of Loyalists, compensation for slaves and property confiscated by the British, and the continued presence of British troops in America. All seemed insoluble. With its paper money nearly worthless, its economy in shambles, the United States was desperate for trade…To Adams the first priority must be to open British ports to American ships.”

During this time Adams and Jefferson corresponded regularly. According to McCullough:

“In eight months’ time, from late May 1785, when Adams first assumed his post in London, until February 1786, he wrote 28 letters to Jefferson, and Jefferson wrote a nearly equal number in return…Increasingly their time and correspondence was taken up by concerns over American shipping in the Mediterranean and demands for tribute made by the Barbary States of North Africa—Algiers, Tripoli, Tunis, and Morocco. To insure their Mediterranean trade against attacks by the ‘Barbary pirates,’ the nations of Europe customarily made huge cash payments…On a chill evening in February came what Adams took to be an opening. At the end of a round of ambassadorial ‘visits,’ he stopped to pay his respects to a new member of the diplomatic corps in London, His Excellency Abdrahaman, envoy of the sultan of Tripoli…The conversation turned to business. America was a great nation, declared His Excellency, but unfortunately a state of war existed between America and Tripoli. Adams questioned how that could be…[Adams was told that], without a treaty of peace there could be no peace between Tripoli and America. His Excellency was prepared to arrange such a treaty…Were a treaty delayed, it would be more difficult to make. A war between Christian and Christian was mild, prisoners were treated with humanity; but, warned His Excellency, a war between Muslim and Christian could be horrible. [emphasis mine]”

Thus, here we have a foreign diplomat—a Muslim diplomat—during the infancy of the United States, recognizing that the U.S. was indeed a “Christian” nation.

Lastly, along with claiming that Ben Carson is afoul of the Constitution with his conclusion about Muslims and the U.S. presidency, he has—of course—been labeled a “bigot,” accused of discrimination, and branded an Islamophobe. This is nothing more than the perverse and foolish liberal notion of “tolerance” at work.

As we do in practically every other area of our lives (marriage, etc.), we ALL “discriminate” when we vote. As a good “John Jay conservative,” there’s almost no situation where I would ever vote for a Muslim, a homosexual, an atheist, or anyone else who is so clearly outside of the Christian faith. Additionally, whether they claim to be a Christian or not, there is virtually no electoral scenario where I would vote for a liberal. (See: Two Shades of Dismay: The Perverse Bondage Wrought by Liberalism and Islam.)

It’s another sad indictment on our media and our culture that Barack Obama advocates for infanticide, declares that he wouldn’t want his daughters “punished with a baby,” and offers a “God bless you” to those responsible for the death of millions of the most innocent among us, is elected and re-elected leader of the free world. Yet, when Ben Carson casts a suspicious eye towards those who dominate the most dangerous, oppressive, violent and backwards parts of the world, he is unfit for office.

(See a version of this column on American Thinker.)

Copyright 2015, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
www.trevorgrantthomas.com
Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com