Posted on 07/20/2011 1:28:16 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Herman we hardly knew you. On first hearing about Herman Cain's candidacy it was exciting. What a resume, good on the stump, conservative ideals, worked for the federal govt but really became famous as a business executive who turned around companies in trouble...heck he saved Godfather's Pizza and I love pizza, that alone gave him extra points in my book.
Cain showed so much promise, he was good on the stump and was even better during the first debate, but now his campaign is dead, he may not know it yet but all that's left is for it to fall over. The cause of death is the same as so many presidential campaigns before him, known in the Latin as Bardus Superstitiosus Orationes (stupid bigoted statements).
The first hint that Cain's mouth did not have a self-control switch is when he announced that he would not appoint a Muslim to his cabinet. Now a president's cabinet is supposed to act as his closest advisers, and he should be able to pick whoever he trusted most to fill those positions. But making a public claim that he will pick his advisers based on religion even if it were true, showed problem with his brain's "Warning You Are About To Say Something Really, Really Dumb" switch.
Cain seemed to back off that original statement last month, he started saying that he would appoint Muslims as long as they stated their loyalty was to America. He supported that by saying he would make that same loyalty judgment about all of his appointees, no matter what the religion. Something that sounded reasonable if it was the first thing he said, but coming after the "won't appoint Muslims at all" comment, it seemed hollow. As long as he didn't make the same mistake again the Cain campaign was still alive.
But sufferers of Bardus Superstitiosus Orationes usually find a way to become repeat offenders, and Herman Cain is no different.
This weekend Herman Cain was interviewed by Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday. The former Godfather Pizza Executive doubled-down on his opposition to a mosque in Murfreesboro, Tennessee, and he showed a disturbing lack of knowledge about the first Amendment to the constitution.
“Our constitution guarantees separation of church and state,” said Cain. “Islam combines church and state. They are using the church part of our First Amendment to infuse their mosque in the community and people in the community don’t like it. They disagree with it. Sharia law is what they are trying to infuse.” Cain makes the same mistake that the ACLU types every year around Christmas. There is no Constitutional separation of Church and State. This is what the first amendment to the constitution says:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. See not there! Whether you agree with the ACLU that there should be a separation of Church and State or not, any first year law student should know the original reason for the religion part of the first amendment was to keep the Federal government from trying to control religion. Many of the individual states already had an "official" religion, and the founders were worried about the Federal Government supplanting that local authority.
Like many Americans, I have a problem with Muslims who wish to make Sharia law public policy, the civil rule must take precedence over everything. However Sharia law being observed within the context of a Mosque is allowed under the Constitution as long as that law is subservient to civil law. Remember the amendment is supposed to protect the religion from government, not the other way around. Constitutionally the above statement would also be true if the words Sharia law were removed and Halachic Law (Jewish religious law) was substituted. It does not mater of there are parts of fundamental Sharia Law are particularly brutal as long as the government enforces the fact that a particular code of religious law is subservient to civil law no one will be allowed to be brutalized and everyone's right will be protected.
So Herman Cain is wrong about the constitution here, and even worse that little speech filter failed him again. But Cain wasn't done (if you cannot see two videos below click here):
CLICK ABOVE LINK FOR THE VIDEO
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
CAIN: They could say that. Chris, lets go back to the fundamental issue that the people are basically saying they’re objecting to. They’re objecting to the fact Islam is both a religion and a set of laws, Sharia law. That’s the difference between any one of our other traditional religions where it’s just about religious purposes. The people in the community know best, and I happen to side with the people in Murfreesboro.
WALLACE: You’re saying any community, if they want to ban a mosque?
CAIN: Yes. They have a right to do that. That’s not discriminating based upon religion.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
We are supposed to be protecting religion from government. Despite his protestations Herman Cain is saying the Mosque is not allowed to be built because is a Muslim place of prayer. If Murfreesboro wants to ban the building of the Mosque, could a different community be allowed to ban the building of a Synagogue, Catholic Church? That is simply not allowed in the American Constitutional system. I am not an expert in the Murfreesboro case, there may be a very valid reason for stopping the Mosque construction, but Herman Cain did not present one on Sunday.
And even worse for the Cain campaign, when paired with his earlier faux pas, Cain was beginning to look like a real bigot.
Here's the real confusing part. Corporate America today his the ultimate home of political correctness. During my last stint working for "the man" at Viacom, there were regular sensitivity classes for sexual, racial and religious discrimination. Not only were there classes but there were memos, booklets, hats and special meals at the company cafeteria. The most important lesson the onslaught of training tried to impart on the employees was it didn't matter what the person who made the statement meant, it was only important how the person who heard the statement took it. It makes one wonder how the hell did Herman Cain make it through the Corporate world without learning to keep his mouth shut? It's scary that the guy has never learned to guard his tongue against making insensitive comments.
For those of you who think Cain's lack of a quality control speech filter should not hurt his nomination chances answer this. If Cain can't control himself when talking about Muslims or any people who may be different, but people whose votes he wants, how can he control himself during difficult negotiations with China? Or Russia? Or Saudi Arabia?
Here's another question for those of you who like me, feel that belief in the founder's vision of the Constitution is important for the eventual nominee, if Herman Cain does not understand the founders intentions behind the First Amendment, doesn't it make one question his knowledge of the rest of the constitution?
Today Herman Cain gave his reasons that Mitt Romney could not win. His first reason was one of the primary reasons I would have problems supporting Romney during the primary season, Romney care. The second reason was very troubling, Cain didn't believe a Mormon could win in the south.
Forgetting politics for a moment, this is the same country that just three years ago did what most people though was impossible, we elected someone who was half African-American as President, an event that as an African-American who has faced discrimination much of his life, Herman Cain should appreciate. Is he now using religious discrimination as a reason Romney should not be nominated?
If Herman Cain's campaign was not dead after his discussion with Chris Wallace on Sunday, its dead now and quite frankly it deserves to be dead. After showing much promise, Cain has shown a total lack of verbal control a failure of basic political skills.
who is Mr Lid to be proclaiming Cain to be ‘done’?
Thank you for that important clarification. I got flamed recently for expressing my opinion on a thread and not adhering to the “innocent until proven guilty” standard. I responded that I’m not a court of law. Similarly, states and municipalities are not congress, so they should be allowed to decide what’s appropriate or not.
If the 'holy book' of a religion instructs its followers to either convert, or enslave, or kill, those outside their religion - that religion has no place in any land that desires freedom. Does the First Amendment apply to death cults? Were the Brits of the 1800s wrong in banning the Thuggee religion?
I don't know that the Founding Fathers had the Mohammaden religion in mind, when, at the time they wrote the Constitution, the islamic world had been at war with the West for over 1000 years.
Insofar as that religion may include views on government & politics (which doesn’t?) is also covered by the 1st Amendment.
That's a pretty broadbrush of moral equivalency that you are laying there. Christianity will tell us to pay our taxes and honor rulers (which admittedly, can be tough to follow at time); but always have God first (i.e., if it comes a choice between honoring God or man's Government -- honor God). I don't know about the other religions of man -- but the only one that seems to require its adherent to murder the 'nonbelievers' is islam...
Herman made very clear what he meant by separation when he explained (to the tool who authored this essay) that Islam uses their religion position and our Constitution and tolerance to infuse their governmental controls. He was so plain in his explanation that the fool who wrote this hit piece—probably because the fool is a liberal under the veneer—skipped right over it! This sounds for all the world like what that other fool who is running Bachmann’s campaign would write.
RE: What say you?
This is just one man’s opinion. Cain’s campaign most certainly isn’t done. NOT AT THIS POINT IN TIME.
Muslims believe that GOD wrote the Holy Quran, not a man named Mohammed.
you cannot remove even one verse, without committing blasphemy.
(think evangelical Christian on steroids)
if the Government doesn’t follow sharia law, and outlaws even ONE thing in the Quran, then that government is NOT legitimate according to Islam. and Muslims should seek to otherthrow it. either violently as Al-Queda, or otherwise, as Muslim Brotherhood and Gulen do.
A religion that by definition is seditious to our Constitution, is protected BY the Constitution?
if so, our descendents WILL bow to Mecca 5 times a day...
Gosh, the author is trying really hard to pronounce Herman Cain DOA. Frankly, I think Herman is the only Republican with guts...Oh, but wait...if some pundit pronounces his campaign dead, who am I, a puny little voter, to argue with such literary brilliance....
Cain is correct. A Mormon cannot win in the South. The demographics are all wrong. Name your denomination (largest being Southern Baptists and other Baptists- AA, Primitive)they clash with Mormons. While this is morally unsupportable, it is accurate politically.
“ALL Muslims are required to either do jihad, or MATERIALLY support them.”
Indeed.
It’s their version of “supporting the troops”.
Not of any particular nation defined by any borders.
Muslims - ALL of them, EVERY one - are silent [or otherwise] supporters of “the troops of Islam”. Of the jihad.
Let me say I don’t consider myself to be a Cain supporter.
But there’s no question that he is saying what should be said. Maybe President Palin should bring him into her administration as Director of Homeland Security — with the ultimate goal of dismantling that agency by 2016!
Just sayin’....
Cain’s looking more and more like a candidate I could vote for...
The First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Check the first word in the First Amendment and ask yourself why this is the only Amendment in the Bill of Rights that limits itself to addressing the actions of Congress (read Federal law).
Cain is absolutely correct in his statement as per the US Constitution.
” She swears ALL muslims believe in sharia law “
///
of course. if they are devout, they must.
the commands in the Quran are clear. And to disobey,
is LITERALLY disobeying the word of God himself.
(and that explains “sudden jihad syndrome”.
Muslims become terrorists, AFTER they study Islam.)
but, many “moderate” muslims, don’t believe in Islam. however, since the penalty for apostacy is DEATH,
they pretend. THAT explains many nice muslims.
i knew a “Muslim” girl, who said Islam is evil, and secretly went with me to Church. but was too afraid to leave her family.
i saw her LITERALLY shaking in fear once, when she thought she might be seen with me in public, by her relatives.
the last thing she said to me, when she said goodbye was:
“Now they are watching me more closely than ever”.
...and this was years ago, HERE in the USA. and she was over 30 with a college degree.
there are thousands like her, living in terror, for every “honor killing” you hear about.
...cameraeye, and MANY others here, understand the reality, as does Cain. Islam is seditious. and has literally declared war on ALL nations not under Sharia.
(”House of War”)
The Ground Zero Mosque has been approved, and 140+ Gulen schools have already been built. The US Sec of State has a chief advisor with Muslim Brotherhood ties.
Islam needs to be banned, before it’s too late, as it is in France with 10 million in “no-go” zones, living off French taxpayers.
I wish ALL our candidates would back him on this!
Again, Cain’s the only one telling it like it is.
Sounds presidential to me.
Amen !!!
Apparently only Republican African Americans can be bigoted.
Democrat ones who make comments about folks in fly over country bitterly clinging to Religion and Guns.. well that’s OK. A Democrat can say that, and win his party’s nomination for President, and even be elected.
Mark Steyn wrote “America Alone”, what, 10 years ago?
and now Islamist billionaire Gulen has 140+ schools built HERE in the USA ?!? Mosques being built all over the USA?
THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2740725/posts?page=4#4
FBI Launches investigation of Gulen and his movement
Canada Free Press ^ | 3/24/11 | Dr. Paul L. Williams
Posted on Thursday, March 24, 2011 1:22:56 PM by Nachum
Fethullah Gulen, dubbed “the most dangerous Islamist on planet earth,”
is now under investigation by the F.B.I. for his network of charter schools throughout the country. The 140-plus charter schools, according to a newly released federal document, may serve as madrassahs where students are “brain-washed” to serve as proponents of the New Islamic World Order that Gulen purportedly seeks to create. The Gulen schools, which have been established in nearly every state in the union, ...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2694001/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2748627/posts
Paul Sperry’s book, Infiltration:
How Muslim Spies and Subversives have Penetrated Washington.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1595550038
Abedin/Weiner: A Marriage Made by Hillary Clinton and the Muslim Brotherhood?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2737639/posts
No, it wasn't, it was to prevent the federal government from establishing a mandatory religion, or just one financially supported by the taxpayers. States were free to do that, and many did at the time.
Anyone who can read English can determine that meaning for themselves.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"
Respecting an establishment" means no State established or supported (financially) religion. The second part, the part mostly ignored in a misreading of the first part, is pretty clear, the federal government cannot prohibit the exercise of religion.
But Cain's statement is indeed in violation of the Constitution, although not the amended version of it.
"no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.Art VI, third paragraph, Constitution for the United States.
“convert to Sufism (from Episcopal).”
Sufis are muslim? First I heard.
Sufis are a sect of Islam, although many mainstream Muslims do not consider them to be true Muslims. They’re sort of cute and ecstatic and were very trendy among English speakers. They do the whirling dervish stuff and used to whirl in Washington Square Park when I was a teenager (and a number of my Jewish friends joined them, at least for a while).
However, they are the stalking horse. A lot of British intellectuals became Sufis and then moved on to full scale Islamist thought. Prince Charles is said to be a Sufi, or possibly now a member of another branch of Islam, which he entered through sufism.
Strongly disagree!
If anything, this will increase his appeal. I don’t think for a moment that these statement are as unscripted as you seem to believe.
Cain is saying what a vast majority of the American people are feeling but would rather not say themselves because they do not want to deal with the hassles that would come with a public declaration.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.