This is the result of much debate and discussion with a friend of mine and I think is probably my final response throughout this debate. Be that as it may, it's been very stimulating.
My friend said:
Concerning (a): In the original interview, Cain said that he would not allow a Muslim to be a cabinet member. In the subsequent clarification, he said that he said that because of the worry that a Muslim would endorse Sharia law. My point was that the worry is unfounded. In support of that point, note first that typically anyone being considered for service in the cabinet of the president is likely both a U.S. citizen and has a recorded that makes them an appropriate candidate for such service. Given this typicality, it would be odd if we would also need to ask of any proposed candidate whether they adhere to an extreme version of some religion. If Cain fails to recognize this, that’s just bizarre. However, if all he means is that no one who adheres to an extreme version of some religion can serve in his cabinet, that’s fine. However, it’s also uninteresting. Note second that the worry is unfounded due to the fact that very few Muslims endorse Sharia law—his worry rests on a misunderstanding of Islam and those who typically practice that religion. It seems that someone who misunderstands a major religion, someone who misunderstands the majority of those who practice that religion, and someone who will have to interact with in many different situations as president of a country is not someone who we should endorse for the presidency.
Well, back to (a), I don't see the problem with him clarifying his position. Politicians on both sides do this all the time. Nothing new really (especially in philosophy). You said, "However, if all he means is that no one who adheres to an extreme version of some religion can serve in his cabinet, that’s fine. However, it’s also uninteresting." If that's the case, then what's problem? Why throw a stink about what he said? If Obama had said, “I won’t have anyone in my cabinet who is a Christian fundamentalists,” would we even be having this debate? I hardly think so.
Furthermore, Sharia law is an issue, even if it's a minority view in Islam. The freedoms granted in the Constitution run contrary to Sharia law, and thus it's a problem. It's not an unfounded worry.
My friend went on to say:
Concerning (c), again the question is not about being able to express an attitude verbally. The question is whether a community has the right to mandate that a particular religious organization cannot build a building in a particular location simply because the community disagrees with the views that they hold. No one is questioning whether someone has the right to protest the building of it for whatever reason. Given that the Constitution upholds the right to practice whatever religion one wants, etc., it would be peculiar if the Constitution also upheld the right of communities to mandate that a particular religion cannot build buildings in their community citing the fact that this community doesn’t agree with the beliefs of that particular religion. Peculiar because the Constitution would both be in support of religious freedom and not in support of religious freedom. Having the Constitutional right to protest and having the Constitutional right to mandate a law that specifically targets a group for its affiliation with a particular religion are not the same thing. Importantly, one is directly in-line with the Constitution, while the other is not. When Cain supports the latter, he’s supporting a view that is clearly contrary to the Constitution. Thus, by his own lights he shouldn’t be allowed to work in the White House let alone be president of the U.S. Moreover, even if he fails to recognize this, surely we’re bright enough to see that these are good grounds not to endorse the man.
Concerning the Constitutionality of Mosques, I'm simply looking at the Constitution literally, and so I don’t see his statements as being blatantly unconstitutional. Just to point out, there have been instances where communities have denied Christians the right to build churches, and I hear no unconstitutional claims from the left.[1]
I personally think the whole reason why Cain’s claims are “controversial” is the fact that it has to deal with Islam. Had his statements pertained to Christianity I doubt they would have been labeled as controversial by the left.Furthermore, if you want to get into defending the Constitution, Obama's own individual health care mandate has been found to be unconstitutional, in more than one state.[2] We can debate the merit on that later. If doing something unconstitutional or potentially unconstitutional disqualifies one president then Obama should be disqualified, as well as numerous presidents in the past, such as FDR whenever the Supreme Court ruled the New Deal was unconstitutional. Just pointing out facts in history. And let’s say that Cain’s decision is found to be unconstitutional. Ok, that’s why we have the system we have.
My friend said:
They are further worries. Would one have to be irrationally skeptical to deny climate change and/or the human influence of it? Is it troublesome that the U.S. health care system remains in the stone ages (which leads to unnecessary death and/or bankruptcy) with respect to health care while other nations like Japan, Germany, Taiwan, Switzerland, and Great Britain, all of whom basically have an open market (capitalist) economy provide health care for all of their citizens ensuring that folks have the opportunity to stave off unnecessary illnesses, improve their health, etc. and ensuring that no one goes bankrupt attempting to meet those basic needs? Should we take the steps to develop a universalized health care system in the US?
I believe this is a serious misunderstanding. The health care systems in European countries aren’t capitalistic based upon open markets, not in the least sense. They are self-avowed socialized medical systems based upon socialistic ideals, not capitalism.[3] If the health care system in the UK, for example, is so great and wonderful, then it is hard to see why residences of the UK are pulling their teeth because they can’t find dentists.[4] Additionally, Canada, which has a similar system to the UK, is looking to private sector solutions to their health care because their current health care system is bankrupting them and the care stinks.[5] Concerning compassion which I’ll get to in a moment, how is it compassionate for Obama to tell a woman that under ObamaCare her 92 year old grandma wouldn’t get a pace maker, she would just get a pill. How is it compassionate that in Canada if you need a CAT/CT scan for cancer, you’ll be put on a 6 to 8 month waiting list, whereas in the US you can get it in a week, as in the case of my aunt…?
My friend went on to say:
Is it bizarre that we still discriminate against individuals with a particular preference concerning with whom they want to have sexual relations? I can’t see how someone with the training and compassion you possess could answer any of those questions negatively. And, if you answer those questions affirmatively (as I assume you would given your background and compassionate point of view), I can’t see why you’d endorse Cain (who does answer each of those questions negatively), unless those issues are simply not deal breakers.
I’m not really understanding what is meant by “…I can’t see how someone with the training and compassion you possess could answer any of those questions negatively.” I’m assuming my friend is referring to my philosophy training. Well, if that’s the case, my philosophical training hasn’t changed my mind concerning my political views.
But I believe now we’re really getting to the heart of the matter. To me, and I could be wrong, my friend making the following argument:
“If x is compassionate, then x will support the liberal agenda.” Stated logically: (c → a)
Well, I believe this conditional is false because I believe its consequences to be false and in logic if the consequence is false, then the whole conditional is false. This conditional assumes that all and only liberals are compassionate. Just a single point, if that’s true, then why do Republicans and conservatives give more to charities?[6] Since compassionate people are more likely to give to charities, it follows that conservatives are compassionate. I don’t support the liberal agenda, but I do consider myself to be compassionate, but only to an extent.
Therefore, coming back to the point, I still support Herman Cain, and most likely the Republican candidate.
[1] http://www.times-herald.com/Local/Church-denied-permit-957724
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/1997/april28/7t5072.html
[2] http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/08/12/us-appeals-court-rules-against-obamas-health-care-law/
[3] http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialized%20medicine
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Lecture/Perspectives-on-the-European-Health-Care-Systems
[4] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1135582/Man-pulls-13-teeth-pliers-NHS-dentist.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/07/world/europe/07teeth.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1566241/Sufferers-pull-out-teeth-due-to-lack-of-dentists.html
I attempted to leave a lengthier response earlier this week, but apparently the attempt failed. So, I'll just comment on the last bit.
ReplyDeleteFirst, once again the logic is incorrect. A conditional is false if and only if the consequent of the conditional is false while the antecedent is true.
Second, I have no idea what the referent of 'liberal agenda' is.
Third, all I meant by the comment was that anyone who understands the issues thoroughly could not actually agree with the Herman Cain on those issues. The philosophical training helps one to understand the issues well enough to see that the views taken up by Cain are not even close to well-supported. When that occurs, we should give up that position.
Fourth, you're misinformed and misunderstand what I said. Britain, Germany, Japan, Taiwan, and Switzerland have an open market (roughly termed 'capitalist' economic system). And, each has universalized health care. It is true that none of those systems is perfect, but false that those systems cannot and don't exist in a capitalist system. Switzerland's situation prior to adopting the universalized system is very similar to our situation now. It is true that everyone must pay in to the systems and there is price control. I don't see how anyone could reasonably think that that is too high a price to pay to (a) keep people from dying simply b/c they couldn't afford health care, (b) keep people from going bankrupt attempting to pay for normal health care, etc. No one in those countries faces either of these worries, and the large majority wouldn't change this to keep prices open to the market and let people decide whether to purchase health care.
Fifth, I don't see how one man who claim to have searched for a dentist in a particular region in Britain supports the broader claim that you make. Read a bit further and you'll see that there are reasons to be skeptical about his claims.
Hope this helps.
Take Care