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.
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.
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.
ping
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.
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.
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?”
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...
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.
As I am one who considers Islam a war plan, Keys is practically correct.
If I’m not mistaken, Cain backed off the remarks in question.