Herman Cain's Bigotry

[rug]

Among a dreary Republican field, Herman Cain stands out for using religious bigotry to gain political traction for his presidential ambitions.

Mr. Cain, a former pizza executive, started a few months ago by telling a reporter that he would not be comfortable with a Muslim in his cabinet. During a televised debate last month, he said his discomfort was due to the intention of some Muslims “to kill us.”

He quickly moved from that offensive and absurd generalization to advocating an overt violation of the Constitution. He traveled to Murfreesboro, Tenn., this month to make common cause with residents who are protesting the construction of an Islamic center there. The center, he said, is not “an innocent mosque,” because, he claimed, its supporters are trying to sneak Shariah law into American law.

He told Fox News that any community has the right to ban a mosque, because “Islam is both a religion and a set of laws, Shariah law,” he said. “That’s the difference between any one of our other traditional religions where it’s just about religious purposes.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24sun3.html

[Skip_In_Boulder]

1. Seems Herman wants to impose a religious test for office

But he loves the Constitution.

[rug]

2. I think he's a stalking horse for the RNC.

Just to test how far they can push it in the general election.

[Angry Dragon]

3. I wonder how he feels about the Catholic Church

they are both a religion and a foreign government

[struggle4progress]

4. Herman Cain’s modern-day religious test

By Michael Gerson, Published: June 20

On the issue of Muslims serving in public office, every explanation by presidential candidate Herman Cain becomes a complication. In three instances Cain affirmed that Muslims would not be allowed to serve in his Cabinet or administration. “Many of the Muslims,” he explained, “they’re not totally dedicated to this country.” Cain then amended his remarks to say that, while Muslims would be allowed to serve, they should be subject to “extra precautions” not applied to Catholics or Mormons.

It is unclear what this would mean in practice. Presidential appointees already swear an oath of loyalty to the Constitution. I took mine in 2001 in the East Room of the White House — a solemn and sobering affair. High-ranking officials are subject to an extensive FBI background check, including the disclosure of every place one has lived and every country one has visited. FBI agents questioned an elderly, frightened woman who had been my neighbor 15 years before. She denied ever having laid eyes on me. Cabinet secretaries are given the added scrutiny of a Senate hearing, based on endless pages of intrusive, written questions ...

The Constitution addresses this matter directly. Article VI requires legislative, judicial and executive officials to take a loyalty oath to the Constitution. It continues: “No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” After Charles Pinckney of South Carolina proposed this language at the Constitutional Convention, a delegate to North Carolina’s ratifying convention objected that it would allow “pagans, deists and Mahometans” to seek office. It was ratified anyway — even though many state constitutions at the time contained religious tests. In urging ratification, James Madison dismissed these state restrictions as “less carefully and properly defined” than the federal document. Government service, he argued, should be “open to merit of every description, whether native or adoptive, whether young or old, and without regard to poverty or wealth, or to any particular profession of religious faith.” ...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/herman-cains-modern-day-religious-test/2011/06/20/AG6PsVdH_story.html

[Adsos Letter]

5. “Islam is both a religion and a set of laws, Shariah law,”

...he said. “That’s the difference between any one of our other traditional religions where it’s just about religious purposes.”

Sure thing Herman...give the Dominionists in this country a chance to redo our Constitution and you'll find out just how much Christianity can be a religion AND a law.

Nutcake.

.

[Deep13]

6. Part of religion is always a set of laws.

Even the most informal of religious belief has certain actions that it considers spiritually destructive and the established ones have endless lists of "thou shalt nots." Has he never read his own religion's holy book?