Argumentation and Generalizations

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ben-carsons-ill-advised-religious-test/2015/09/21/2d045268-608b-11e5-9757-e49273f05f65_story.html

                   In this article, the author, Michael Gerson, presents an examination of some inflammatory remarks regarding religion and the Presidency made by republican Presidential candidate Ben Carson.  Carson stated that he did not believe a Muslim should led America, an opinion about which, Gerson asserts, the Constitution begs to differ when it states that no religious test would be required in order to qualify for any office in Article six.

                   I completely agree with Gerson. A man should be deemed fit for office on his own merits and at the selection of the voters. Carson's words were disrespectful to Muslims and fueled by the terrorist actions of a few. Similarly, I agree with Gerson's highlighting of the hypocrisy in denying one religion freedom while clamoring for the freedoms of another. Religious freedom should be extended to all, except when it involves bodily harm towards others, of course, and when we marginalize groups and refuse their freedoms based on their beliefs, we defeat our own cause. This juxtaposition can be seen in the movement towards equal rights for the LGBTQ community. The groups that are seeking for freedoms in public places and among businesses for the community are willing to secure their beliefs in society at the expense of others. For example, why is it acceptable for a lesbian couple to destroy a business because the owners cannot deny their beliefs in order to make them a wedding cake. Asking the religious couple to deny their beliefs for the sake of the lesbian couples' right to a wedding cake is no different than denying the lesbian couple the right to be married. The lesbian couple can easily find another bakery that would happily make their cake. Why is it acceptable to force your beliefs onto someone else at the expense of their own beliefs? Would it be acceptable to force a Jewish family who owned a restaurant to cater to an anti-Semitic group's rally? Absolutely not! We must, as Gerson demonstrates, beware of double standards within ourselves for that will only lead to great disunity and hate.

                 However, there is one section of Gerson's argument that I was disappointed to read. He did, at the end of his article, exactly what he accused Carson of doing-unfairly generalizing. Generalizations are a dangerous trap in argumentation. A generalization is "reasoning that what is true of certain members of a class will also be true of other members of the same class or the class as a whole" (Inch & Tudor 173). Within an argument, it is easy to paint a group with a broad brush, as the adage goes, and assume everyone in the group is the same when, usually, they are, in fact, not. Gerson, using Carson as his example, suggests that all republicans believe as Carson does regarding Muslims in office. This generalization is easily disproved. Rand Paul and Ted Cruz both acknowledged that the Constitution protects against religious tests, and Bobby Jindal, from Louisiana, stated that he would vote for a Muslim candidate if he agreed with his or her platform ( http://www.latinpost.com/articles/80723/20150921/ben-carson-muslim-president-comment-democrats-fellow-gop-candidates-react.htm). Marco Rubio, republican Presidential Candidate and senator from Florida, stated that he does not "believe anybody should be disqualified from the presidency because of their denomination or because of their faith", and Jeb Bush, former governor of Florida, and George Pataki, both republican presidential nominees opposed Carson's comments (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/09/22/ben-carson-muslim-president-absolutely-stand-by-comments/). Rather than applaud these republicans for opposing Carson's words, the media is largely ignoring their dissents, choosing rather, like Gerson, to generalize the entire party. These generalizations are exactly what Gerson is arguing against in his whole article. He does not want Muslims to be generalized and marginalized because of a small sect of violent terrorists within the religion. Similarly, the republican party has no desire to be generalized and marginalized by the foolish and disrespectful statements of one of its members. The democratic party would not want such treatment either. It is important in argumentation that arguments be made on their own merits with evidence, reasoning, and logic. Arguments that consist of generalizations, red herrings, and ad hominem attacks are unproductive and destructive for all involved, especially in the political arena. Continued attacks such as these from both sides are only going to further divide the people of this country and lead to worse situations for all involved. Rather, we should approach the fate of our country with mutual respect for each others' freedoms and the principles our country is founded one.