Herman Cain, running for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination, is skeptical and suspicious of the loyalty of Muslims to our country and our constitutional system of governance. Imagine that. In March of 2011, Cain told a reporter that as president he would not appoint a Muslim as a cabinet officer or federal judge.
Naturally, Cain’s “bigotry” was treated to gasps of disdain and contempt from the Islamist organization CAIR and their useful idiots in the left wing blogs and the mainstream press. Think Progress grilled him on this point about whether he would appoint Muslims, and he said
No, I will 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.
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.
This is absolutely not religious bigotry on the part of Herman Cain against someone’s personal beliefs, but a question of loyalty to the US constitution and laws. As truth is an absolute defense in American law against charges of libel or slander, so should it be against charges of bigotry or prejudice. In fact, Muslims across the world have been a Fifth Column attempting to force recognition of Sharia law anywhere and everywhere possible.
Pressed on the issue, Cain walked this back maybe about half a step in a conversation with Glenn Beck
BECK: You said you would not appoint a Muslim to anybody in your administration.
CAIN: The exact language was when I was asked, “would you be comfortable with a Muslim in your cabinet?” And I said, “no, I would not be comfortable.” I didn’t say I wouldn’t appoint one because if they can prove to me that they’re putting the Constitution of the United States first then they would be a candidate just like everybody else. My entire career, I’ve hired good people, great people, regardless of their religious orientation.
BECK: So wait a minute. Are you saying that Muslims have to prove their, that there has to be some loyalty proof?
CAIN: Yes, to the Constitution of the United States of America.
BECK: Would you do that to a Catholic or would you do that to a Mormon?
CAIN: Nope, I wouldn’t. Because there is a greater dangerous part of the Muslim faith than there is in these other religions. I know that there are some Muslims who talk about, “but we are a peaceful religion.” And I’m sure that there are some peace-loving Muslims.
It’s only fair that Cain qualified his suspicion of Muslim loyalty a little bit, because not all Muslims wish to establish Sharia as the law of the land. That only applies to Muslims who actually believe in the Koran. Andrew McCarthy breaks down some of this at National Review. The Koran commands Muslims to impose their law on everyone as much as possible, to either kill or at least subjugate non-believers. That’s just fact.
That is as opposed specifically, for example, to Christianity. Despite the asinine wailing of Western liberals and Islamists, no Christian is trying to force people to be Christian. There have been such things in the distant past, but only in direct contradiction of the teachings of Jesus.
Jesus made a big point of being apolitical. He pissed off a good many Jews at the time because they thought he should be leading them in an uprising against the Roman empire. Thus Jesus uttered the famous words explaining that his kingdom was not of this Earth but in heaven. That was the point in saying that you should render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s.
Romans 13 says, “Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: The powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.” That’s foolishness if you took it all the way to the wall, but the intended point seems to be that the Christian religion was designed to be clearly distinguished from government. The basic idea of separation of church and state was carefully baked into the Christian cake 2000 years ago.
Neither Joe Lieberman in the US Senate nor even the government of Israel tries to force people to worship YHWH. Mitt Romney would not support the summary murder of anyone who criticizes Joseph Smith. Heck, the church has accepted Parker and Stone’s highly profane Book of Mormon Broadway play in good humor. Thus no one raises similar suspicions about Jews and Mormons.
But again, there are Muslims and then there are Muslims. Some Muslims are not especially religious, but it’s more of an ethnic cultural marker – as it is among many Jews or Christians or other religions. Some sects of Islam seem fairly peaceable and neighborly. Best I can tell, adherents of the Sufi sects don’t seem to be much interested in jihad. Then again, there’s the Wahhabi Muslim sect. I wouldn’t hire one of them to mow my lawn for fear they’d burn down my house for the greater glory of Allah – and I wouldn’t care how many lying oaths they took to the contrary. You’d be an utter fool to trust one of them in any position of authority in the US government.
So then, let me leave you with a question: Would Herman Cain still be a contemptible religious bigot if he narrowed it down and just said that he would not appoint a Wahhabi Muslim to his administration? Is there any point at which reality will trump religious adherence to your left wing piety?