Posted on 06/10/2011 2:46:32 PM PDT by Brookhaven
The “no religious test” clause in the Constitution got there for the purpose of preventing Quaker dominated Pennsylvania from prohibiting non-Quakers from running for Congress!
Dear Dr. Keyes:
The Constitution is not a suicide pact, nor should we allow our enemies to use the letter of the law to destroy the spirit of the law.
This isn't what Herman Cain said. Herman Cain said he would not be comfortable with appointing one in his administration. So he didn't say anything about the millions of other federal jobs that are not administration “appointments”. He said he would want a Muslim to prove he supported the constitution. He went on to talk about Sharia Law and the dangers of Sharia Law.
I believe that Cain is a fool if he is willing to believe any muslim about anything except their desire to cut our throats.
Islam is not just a religion, but also a political system. Just like with the Commies, the Muslims could be disqualified by having to attest to the following statement, which I’m sure many of you remember:
“Are you now or have you ever been a member of the [Communist Party/al Quaida] or any other organization which advocates the violent overthrow of the United States?”
“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.”
RobRoy, in post 2, said: Islam is a political organization. Its overt instructions are to control the actual governing of people, muslim or not. No other religion does that.
If he is correct then a test against Islam is not religious but political; also given the dictates of the Koran on the governance of people (particularly different standards for muslim vs non-muslim) it could be reasoned that a muslim cannot hold to the Constitution and the Koran (a man cannot have two masters).
>The Constitution is not a suicide pact, nor should we allow our enemies to use the letter of the law to destroy the spirit of the law.
The spirit is already dead; read the Bill of rights and ask yourself honestly how each one is respected... the only one that has really a chance of being considered ‘successful’ in that it has been upheld is the third.
If you ask the right questions, you can get a fairly decent profile of a persons integrity. Turns out that people who would steal from the office, think everyone does it and that it's okay, and they tend to answer the tests honestly.
Such tests probably do not work on all, but it catches enough bad eggs, that it's worth doing.
A Constitutional Loyalty tests could have multiple objectives.
And it probably should be given to all Federal and Congressional employees regardless of religion.
I disagree. It's a constant battle to enforce them. And sometimes we lose ground, and other times we gain ground. But for the most part they are respected.
Bockscar is correct, and states it very well.
...and this statement makes me think MUCH higer of Cain!:
“Mr. Cain apparently believes that in today’s world Americans have good reason to distrust any follower of Islam.”
Maybe Mr Keynes thinks trying to overthrow the Constitution is a protected right also?
Islam by definition is seditious.
it’s members by definition do not recognize a government not under Sharia in the “House of Peace”.
and even if you haven’t read the Quran, Sira, and ahadith, 1300 years of incredible violent history, EVERYWHERE in the world Islam has been,
SHOULD make it clear even to someone as patently ignorant as Keynes.
if it walks like a duck...
“Any ‘oath’ they swear is not valid because they are permitted moreover even encouraged to lie if it will advance their agenda.”
Called “al Taqiyah” - and is very good reason to never trust any muslim, concerning our national security, etc.
Better safe than sorry. Israel knows this.
Cain is not qualified for POTUS based on those statements alone.
That he thinks one religion can be subject to a separate criteria...and one that is CLEARLY unconstitutional...shows him another authoritarian with an agenda.
He'll never have my vote.
This is exactly right, and moreover, I find NO Constitutional prohibition from an INDIVIDUAL (president, or whomever) making choices of who serves in his administration based on ANY guidelines he chooses. The GOVERNMENT cannot, but an individual absolutely can.
IF, IF that is the full context of his statements, I agree.
But that's NOT how it appears in the excerpt.
>>it could be reasoned that a muslim cannot hold to the Constitution and the Koran (a man cannot have two masters).<<
Exactly. Christians and Muslims are both very evangelical, but Christianity does not tell people how to live and it is often inferred from it’s teaching that Christians do not get into the setting of laws for others.
Judaism and ISLAM are very political in how they control their adherent’s lives. That is why you see all the orthodox Jews walking on Saturdays. However, Judaism is not the least bit evangelical. They practically (and maybe literally) discourage it. They have strong rules, but strictly for their members.
Islam is evangelical like Christianity - they want (actually, INSIST) everyone to join them. Islam is also Political. They want a theocracy and insist that everyone abide by their rules as a form of government - OR ELSE!
Religion is just a “side aspect” of this belief system, similar to how some cultures deified their king.
Uh... Cain's comments are fresh news? Cain pretends to be a capable conservative?
Romney said something different.
Cain's candidacy is as much a failure as Newt's. We're back to Cain proposing a specifically unconstitutional religious test applied to Muslims. When he launched his campaign, he said we need to re-read the Constitution and proceeded to quote the Declaration instead.
Despite a high profile appearance by Netanyahu and two-day news cycle which discussed a Palestinian Right of Return, he had no clue what it was when asked. He's a serious light weight. He's a gaffe machine and his presence is looking like a net negative to the nomination process.
Right. Or to destroy us physically. The primary reason for the existence of government, all government, according to the founders of this free republic, is to protect the God-given, unalienable rights of the people. Of course, among those rights are the rights to life, liberty, and private property. All of which are targets of radical Islamists.
On the one hand, it seems to me that Mr. Cain's comments are rather silly on their face. The Constitution strictly forbids religious tests to hold any office. One can reasonably wonder if he has ever read Article VI, much less thought its implications through. And as far as loyalty goes, ALL are already required to swear or affirm that they will support the Constitution of the United States. In other words, to be loyal to it.
Unfortunately, we are already currently saddled overwhelmingly by a political class that gives little or no regard to that oath. They treat it as nothing more than a formality, instead of the sacred obligation it should be. This is at the core of the problems this free republic is faced with.
"[W]here is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths...?" -- George Washington, Farewell Address
And so, whether we're talking about the oaths of callous, unprincipled politicians, or Muslims, or anyone else, it seems to me that it's way too easy for them to lie. And so, we have to work a whole lot harder to hold them accountable to their oaths in their words, in their deeds, and in their policies.
But, in any case, it seems to me that Dr. Keyes has already addressed your point rather effectively in this paragraph:
"Both Judson Phillips and Mr. Cain are right to defy the irrational notion that we should require our police or national security forces to ignore the palpable fact that threats against the United States today are largely being fomented in the Muslim world. How can the defenders of either our domestic peace or our national security maintain the vigilance needed to keep America safe if we stupidly command them to shut their eyes to what is now the salient characteristic of those most determined to attack us?
I'll try to post more on this important subject later when I get the time.
“Cain is not qualified for POTUS based on those statements alone.”
///
EternalVigilance, PGalt, Bockscar, arrogantsob and MANY others understand the TRUE extent of the danger. PLEASE read them again?
respectfully, you would be OK with people who officially belong to an organization like the Nazi Party or Communist party, when their party constitution expressly calls for the overthrow of the USA government?
...should Israel permit members of Hamas, who call for the destruction of Israel, to be members of it’s government, if they qualify for citizenship?
...a Muslim, by DEFINITION, belongs to a group, that OFFICIALLY, by their own rules, DOES NOT RECOGNIZE our government.
(and, as truth_seeker correctly said, their group, OFFICIALLY, in their own rules, are permitted to swear FALSE oaths of allegience!
...so, a “Loyalty test” or oath would NOT work!)
as others have said, “The Constitution is not a suicide pact”. if too many people like liberals believe it is,
...then our grandchildren WILL wear burkhas.
Islam IS a religion. (AND much more.) but if we need to define it as a “cult” or non-religion to survive...
THAT is why the Constitution has the ability to be modified.
even our great Founding Fathers could not foresee all.
Ivan Sirko, Oriana Fallaci, Winston Churchill, Mark Steyn,
were all WAY ahead of the curve on this...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2728428/posts
‘Daddy will always love you’: Soldier’s heartbreaking goodbye letter to his baby daughter from beyond the grave after he dies in Afghanistan
/// we are NOT fighting “terror”. or even a “tiny minority of extremists”.
Islam scripture, divides the entire world, into only 2 parts.
The House of Peace - ALL that live under Islam and Sharia.
The House of War - ...the rest of the world.
a faithful muslim, IS an enemy combatant, officially at war with us. ...and they ARE willing to give their own life, to destroy us.
Article VI - Debts, Supremacy, Oaths
All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
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.
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.