Posted on 06/10/2011 2:46:32 PM PDT by Brookhaven
Herman Cain is certainly aware that the First Amendment withholds from the U.S. government the power lawfully to prohibit the free exercise of religion. But has he thought at all about the connection between that provision and the one that says that no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification for "any office or public trust under the United States"? Mr. Cain apparently believes that in today's world Americans have good reason to distrust any follower of Islam. But the Constitution explicitly prohibits officials of the U.S. government from applying religion as a criterion for public trust, whatever their individual inclinations. This means that whatever his personal predilections, as president of the United States Mr. Cain (and anyone else elected to that office) would be required to set aside his personal views. He could not as a matter of public policy take the position that an office or public trust under the U.S. government (including a seat on the Supreme Court) would be withheld from someone of the Muslim or any other religion until they dispelled to his satisfaction some prejudice (however justified it seems to him, to me or to anyone else) as to their loyalty.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Mark as SpamReport as AbuseD. Willard (signed in using Hotmail)
Mr. Keyes, please get yourself read-in on the difference between Islam as a religion, and Islam as a political agenda. ...
Mark as SpamReport as Abusecrescen7 (signed in using Yahoo)
Alan Keyes should be ashamed of himself, such drivel is far below his usually sound logic. First, his Constitutional "religious test" analysis is 180 degrees out of phase. The clear intent of the "religious test" clause was to not exclude all except those that practiced one certain religion. That is, could not establish a "requirement to be Catholic", for example. That does not mean that one could not exclude people who professed a religious belief that Constitutional Law was invalid. There are many Islamic leaders that profess exactly such a belief.
For Mr. Cain to state that he would be "uncomfortable" with Muslims until they demonstrated that they believed in Constitutional Law over Sharia Law, is not only reasonable but demanded by Constitution.
Mark as SpamReport as AbuseGreg Rainbolt
Exactly. Tightening job screening to a federal position of the executive brance to ensure the applicant has loyalty to the constitution is not in any way discriminatory and is much more important than political correctness. The usually sound Dr. Keyes is way off base in this one and it makes me wonder where his loyalties lie.
Islam is a political organization. Its overt instructions are to control the actual governing of people, muslim or not. No other religion does that.
Islam is a political organization. Its overt instructions are to control the actual governing of people, muslim or not. No other religion does that.
Bears repeating......
Islam is a political organization. Its overt instructions are to control the actual governing of people, muslim or not. No other religion does that.
Maybe envy.
Well, at least Keyes doesn't make the same mistake that Romney, Lds "apostle" Dallas Oaks, Evangelical Romney campaigner Mark DeMoss, and a host of FREEPERS makes about Article VI of the Constitution. At least Keyes recognizes it applies to the U.S. government -- and not voters!
The others all twist and mangle the Constitution to say what they want it to say.
Still, and I'll need to recheck the Constitution, I don't think the words Keyes uses here -- "public trust" -- are in there. That was probably Keyes' extrapolation.
And why isn't Keyes also going after Romney, who declared in 2007 that he wouldn't have a Muslim on his Cabinet?
There are those who hide behind the constitution to destroy it and our liberty. The Muslims have been doing a good job of it. Peel back the layers of Islam, and you will find Satan laughing his ass off.
**Peel back the layers of Islam, and you will find Satan laughing his ass off.**
Sadam Hussein, Adolf Hitler and Vlad Lenin are having a pretty good chuckle, too!!!
I’m not certain that islam is a “religion” and thus entitled to Constitutional protections. It’s something - - a theo-political system perhaps, a criminal enterprise masquerading as a religion - - but not a religion in the conventional sense. There should be a national debate on this question.
Would a daycare for government employees be able to avoid hiring a Satanist? Is disrepecting a particular religion equivalent to respecting all others?
Cannibalism, because all cultures are equal. Satanism, because all religions are too. /s
In the interview I saw, Cain was asked about having a Muslim serve in his cabinet. Cabinet positions serve at the presidents pleasure, and he can appoint or not appoint anyone he wants based on whatever criteria he wants (subject to Senate confirmation of course). That is not a religious test for office, anymore than a citizen not voting for a candidate because he is, say Mormon, is, Passing a statute that no Muslim can hold a cabinet position would be.
That's the problem with Cain's proposal. It's not the constitutionality of singling out a particular religion for a loyalty test. In the worst case, if ruled unconstitutional, that could be overcome by going through the expense of testing all employees regardless of religion.
But how good are the results of a loyalty test given the Muslim practice of Taquiya?
ping
The fact is, a constitutional loyalty test would be great to apply to Congressmen, Presidents, Cabinet members, etc.
The plumb line:
The U.S. Constitution
Article VI
Clause 3
“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.”
Keyes is correct. I doubt that many would win getting into a debate with him about what the constitution says.
Cain is foolish if he thinks he could obtain “proof” that any prospective nominee for and office or public trust (and that term IS in the constitution is loyal. A Muslim would just lie if he wasn’t.
Cain has no chance anyway so this is a tempest in a teapot which he has stumbled into.
Cain is the new Keyes both of whom I like and admire but neither of whom can win even a lesser office much less the nomination.
No, individuals who are member of anti-truth, anti-freedom, anti-individual, anti-life collectives need to be examined VERY closely. The U.S. Constitution is not a collectivist/totalitarian document. (It may devolve into that...(thanks anti-federalists)).
Life, liberty and the pursuit and destruction of totalitarians.
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.