Skip to content

Muslims Cannot Be Trusted To Hold Political Office

28 March 2011 @ 21:01

Think Progress has posted three minutes of an interview they conducted with Herman Cain this past weekend.  This part has become controversial [tip of the fedora to Stacy McCain who has the video here — please don’t click on the TP link unless you feel compelled to (you won’t be missing much)]:

KEYES [of TP]: You came under a bit of controversy this week for some of the comments made about Muslims in general. Would you be comfortable appointing a Muslim, either in your cabinet or as a federal judge?

CAIN: No, I would not. And here’s why. There is this creeping attempt, there is this attempt to gradually ease Sharia law and the Muslim faith into our government. It does not belong in our government. This is what happened in Europe. And little by little, to try and be politically correct, they made this little change, they made this little change. And now they’ve got a social problem that they don’t know what to do with hardly.

The question that was asked that “raised some questions” and, as my grandfather said, “I does not care, I feel the way I feel.” I was asked, “what is the role of Islam in America?” I thought it was an odd question. I said the role of Islam in America is for those that believe in Islam to practice it and leave us alone. Just like Christianity. We have a First Amendment. And I get upset when the Muslims in this country, some of them, try to force their Sharia law onto the rest of us.

Now, as you might have already guessed, the Leftosphere has already saddled up on their high dudgeon about these remarks, with TP calling Mr. Cain a ‘bigot’ [see The Underground Conservative’s posting here].  I will not be reproducing their same, tired old bromides here, except to remark that I did laugh at their citing of Article VI, paragraph three of The Constitution:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Hypocrisy, thy name is Bolshe.

What I will comment on is how some of our fellow conservatives think Mr. Cain committed a gaffe bad enough that it will be fatal to his candidacy for President Of The United States and/or agreeing with the Left that he would be violating his Oath Of Office if he carried through with his intention not to appoint any Muslims to his cabinet or as judges.

Case in point: some of the folks and commentators over at Ace Of Spades.

Commentator in Stacy’s post, KG sums up the situation over there very succinctly and accurately:

The cobloggers at Ace’s are going all wobbly on this. *sigh* With friends like those, who needs Leftists?

DrewM started things off with this:

…announcing that you will violate the “No religious tests” clause of the Constitution is simply wrong and shows either a lack of familiarity with parts of the Constitution or a willingness to skip parts that don’t work for you. When you become President, you don’t get to enforce just the bits you like, you swear to “preserve, protect and defend” all of it. Even Article VI, even as applied to Muslims.

Click on the link immediately above to scroll through the comments and watch the Weebles wobble.

-As to the Constitutional question: the intent of Article VI was clearly to prevent one’s religion from being the main factor in someone not being considered or being disqualified for holding a position in the national government.

In his Commentaries On The Constitution, Chapter XLIII, §1841, Justice Joseph Story wrote:

…This clause is not introduced merely for the purpose of satisfying the scruples of many respectable persons, who feel an invincible repugnance to any religious test, or affirmation. It had a higher object; to cut off for ever every pretence of any alliance between church and state in the national government. The framers of the constitution were fully sensible of the dangers from this source, marked out in the history of other ages and countries; and not wholly unknown to our own. They knew, that bigotry was unceasingly vigilant in its stratagems, to secure to itself an exclusive ascendancy over the human mind; and that intolerance was ever ready to arm itself with all the terrors of the civil power to exterminate those, who doubted its dogmas, or resisted its infallibility….

Islam is not simply a religion; it is a political system, as well.  The Koran has a number of fundamental demands that it makes on it’s followers, it’s submissives.  One of these is that all Muslims must do everything in their power to see that the governments they live under are based on Sharia Law.  Therefore, any Muslim must work for achieving this where it does not exist.  Therefore, any Muslim who would serve in appointed or elected office in government at any level would be compelled to do whatever is necessary to see that Sharia Law is implemented.  As this demand is considered higher than any other, non-Koranic demands, especially those made by a constitution written by Infidels, the Muslim would have no choice but to violate the oath he took under The Constitution.  Add to the mix that the Mohammedin is allowed to practice Taqiyya and you have a situation where no Muslim can be trusted with holding office under The Constitution Of The United States Of America.  No President can, therefore, trust someone who is Muslim to faithfully execute their oath of office, just as no President can trust a Communist, who is committed to the overthrow of the government of The United States.

-To those who say that Mr. Cain shouldn’t have expressed his sentiments in this matter out loud and that it shows that he is, as DrewM puts it, a ’boutique’ candidate:  Wimps.  Why should Herman Cain not speak the Truth?  The times demand straight talk, not the usual evasions, half-truths, and comforting bromides.  The future of this country as a constitutional republic is hanging on by an ever thinning string.  We need people to speak truth to Leftist power, to tell it like it is.  America needs The Riot Act read to it…and it needs it read good and hard

Big tip of the fedora to Big Fur Hat for turning me on to all of the above blogger links.

  1. tzopilotl permalink
    28 March 2011 @ 21:07 21:07

    …watered down christians neither, in fact let me extend it to, politicians cannot be trusted to hold political office, but they say a people get the governors they deserve.

  2. 28 March 2011 @ 21:34 21:34

    Sigh. I think Cain gaffed, but not because of his comment to TP. He was interviewed on Fox late this afternoon (I think Greg Garrett or Neil Cavuto – I was hanging on to every word Cain said and didn’t pay much attention to the interviewer).

    He was asked if a Muslim committed to him, that he (the Muslim) was committed to the U.S., would he change his mind, and Cain said yes.

    There was nothing about the religion/government angle. Nothing about Taqiyya. Nothing about holding the Koran as your holy book makes you incapable of committing to the U.S.

    I was saddened. He should have been ready for this question.

    Let me know what you think Bob. It was a downer.

  3. Adobe Walls permalink
    28 March 2011 @ 21:39 21:39

    Not sharing all the truths one possesses isn’t the same as lying, as Mr Cain has since qualified his answer he’d do well to think about that.
    Islam is not merely a religion, if someone from La Raza advocating the practice of the traditional Aztec Religion were proposed as a cabinet member would we be obligated to ignore his religious beliefs?

  4. 28 March 2011 @ 22:18 22:18

    Bob, I also wanted to say, the quote from Judge Storey is new to me. Thanks for it.

  5. 28 March 2011 @ 22:39 22:39

    Considering Islam is basically a theocratic fascism, I don’t see how any leader, in good conscious, could willingly appoint a Muslim to a position of power in our Republic. Islam is anathema to any pluralistic society – the concept that a Muslim could serve in office in that type of society and not do harm is idiocy at best.

    Would FDR be considered a bigot if he said he would never hire a Nazi? Islam is no different than any other totalitarian political movement in history, just because it is couched in flowery religious language a religion does not it make.

    The truth is, liberals would never vote for Cain anyway, so all we need to worry about is week-kneed middle-right indies and conservatives who have bought into the PC bullcrap that surrounds Islam. It is time we start calling a spade a spade, and Mr. Cain is more than capable of doing so. We should not undercut his honesty by pretending like he didn’t basically just say something most of us believe. It is going to take an honest, forthright person to wake up America to the severe threat that Islam poses.

  6. bobbelvedere permalink*
    28 March 2011 @ 23:33 23:33

    Dame Maggie: He should not have toned down his remarks – nothing he said to TP was wrong. What a downer – you’re right. As for Justice Story’s book, it is a great read.

    Spot-on Adobe and Fleece.

  7. 29 March 2011 @ 06:26 06:26

    “Islam is not simply a religion; it is a political system, as well.”

    You’re right. And to take it one step further, let me explain that the Arabic word we translate to mean “religion” actually means something very different from what we think it means.

    “DIN” is the Arabic word we translate to mean “religion.” That’s a poor translation, because what the word actually means is “To borrow, take up a loan, to be a debtor, to be indebted; to owe.” Also, “debt; pecuniary obligation, liability; obligation (Islamic law) financial claim…” Way down the list, in a category of secondary meanings, we come across “to profess a religion.” (This according to the Hans Wehr Dictionary of Modern Standard Arabic, which is the industry standard for translators.)

    “Religion” then, in an Arabic context, is about legal obligation and debt. It has next to nothing to do with what westerners think of when we use the word. We think of religion as a personal relationship with our creator, which is much more a matter of conscience than a matter of law.

    Since Islam is not, according to our definition of the word, a religion, so much as it is a social, political, legal structure, I don’t think Article VI applies. It’s clear the Framers were talking about religions as they understood them to be, not as overarching systems that mandate a rule for every conceivable human situation, and take the place of governments instituted by men, as does Islam.

    (And no, I’m not making that up. Islam purports to offer a rule – not a suggestion, but a rule – for every situation, from hand-washing to whether you can divorce your wife by text message.)

  8. 29 March 2011 @ 13:15 13:15

    Drew M at Spade’s place has a metaphoric boner for New Jersey’s Chris Cristy..

    He’s almost Paulian over him about it.. Just trying to put his Debby Downer post into perspective..

    I watched the video and didn’t see anything wrong with what Cain said..

    If he is President, he can nominate whoever the hell he chooses. Part of the perks..

  9. bobbelvedere permalink*
    29 March 2011 @ 23:16 23:16

    Steven: Thank you very much for that explanation/enlightenment. May I put it on my Islam page? Also, was it you who disagreed with the explanation for Jihad I put on the page? If so, I’ll put yours there as well with your permission.

    DaveC: Thanks for the background. I understand why some cons like Christie, but he’s not a conservative.

  10. David R. Graham permalink
    30 March 2011 @ 20:46 20:46

    Someday the definition of “religion” will be tested in a court. That day legal heads will explode, some of them, and suppress, suppress, suppress, more of them. They won’t be able or willing to call forth able witness to assist with a definition because the ones who can they won’t want to hear from and the ones who can’t can’t help them one way or another beyond colliding with each other.

    It’ll be a grand show of useless colloquy.

    The English word “religion” derives from the Latin compound re + ligare. It means bind back together that which has come apart (and is paralyzed in consequence), making it whole (meaning healthy in the sense of Latin salus, base of English salvation). The function of religion is to bind back together man and God, individually and in toto. Religion is about reuniting that which has come undone or gone asunder. Law and legalism have nothing to do with religion. In fact those useful but limited-in-value cultural creations are irreligious when taken as religion.

    As Steven implies, this meaning of the English/Latin word religion is far from the meaning of the Arabic word for religion, in consequence of which Islam — or better, Mohammedanism (another story) — does not enjoy the protection or specification of religion under the US Constitution, which uses the meaning of the English word religion to specify its import and in any case does not contemplate placing those loyal to it under any law other than itself.

  11. bobbelvedere permalink*
    31 March 2011 @ 17:32 17:32

    Steven and David: I have taken the liberty of quoting from your comments above on my Islam page. Thank you both for the commentary and education.


  1. Muslims Cannot Be Trusted To Hold Political Office (via The Camp Of The Saints) « That Mr. G Guy's Blog
  2. Milking The Dud: Obama’s Speech Last Night « The Camp Of The Saints

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: