Please watch this video about GOP hopeful Herman Cain, as he clarifies his stance on Muslims:
[center][youtube][/youtube][/center]
1. Is he (Mr. Cain) right? Why? If so, should the Constitution be amended to make exception for people of the Muslim Faith?
2. Does the GOP have any serious candidates who could actually win in 2012? Trump Cain and Palin aside?
Should Muslims Undergo a Religous Test for Public Office?
Moderator: Moderators
-
WinePusher
Re: Should Muslims Undergo a Religous Test for Public Office
Post #21. Is he (Mr. Cain) right? Why? If so, should the Constitution be amended to make exception for people of the Muslim Faith?
Disregarding the slanted and sardonic commentary presented by the likes of Cenk and his crew, Herman Cain is wrong. He has raised identity politics to a new level. When looking to appoint cabinet and administration officials, race, religion, gender and sexual orientation should not be considered. That's a liberal thing, that's the basis of their precious AA policies, and that's something that the conservative camp should not tolerate. You choose your people based solely on qualifications. The issue Cain raised about Muslim loyalties is important, and his analysis of this issue is correct, but his intentions are wrong.
2. Does the GOP have any [strike]serious[/strike] candidates who could actually win in 2012? Trump Cain and Palin aside?
Ok, first of all Trump has stated he does not plan to run and Palin has not declared anything. Out of the politicians who have declared their candidacy (Trump and Palin not included) you have Mitt Romney, Ron Paul, Newt Gingrich, Herman Cain, Tim Pawlenty and Rick Santorum. Out of the politicians you have who may declare their candidacy, you have Palin, Bachmann, possibly Christie and Jindal. All of them would be better Presidents than Obama as all of them are outspoken American Exceptionalists and all of them are strong proponents of the market, and if the mainstream media were fair and balanced all of them could beat Obama. Paul will not win the primary, if Palin runs Bachmann loses her chances, Gingrich has destroyed himself through gaffes and campaign mishaps, Pawlenty/Santorum/Cain are irrelevant. If Palin runs, it will come down to her versus Romney, and the outcome of this is unforeseeable.
Disregarding the slanted and sardonic commentary presented by the likes of Cenk and his crew, Herman Cain is wrong. He has raised identity politics to a new level. When looking to appoint cabinet and administration officials, race, religion, gender and sexual orientation should not be considered. That's a liberal thing, that's the basis of their precious AA policies, and that's something that the conservative camp should not tolerate. You choose your people based solely on qualifications. The issue Cain raised about Muslim loyalties is important, and his analysis of this issue is correct, but his intentions are wrong.
2. Does the GOP have any [strike]serious[/strike] candidates who could actually win in 2012? Trump Cain and Palin aside?
Ok, first of all Trump has stated he does not plan to run and Palin has not declared anything. Out of the politicians who have declared their candidacy (Trump and Palin not included) you have Mitt Romney, Ron Paul, Newt Gingrich, Herman Cain, Tim Pawlenty and Rick Santorum. Out of the politicians you have who may declare their candidacy, you have Palin, Bachmann, possibly Christie and Jindal. All of them would be better Presidents than Obama as all of them are outspoken American Exceptionalists and all of them are strong proponents of the market, and if the mainstream media were fair and balanced all of them could beat Obama. Paul will not win the primary, if Palin runs Bachmann loses her chances, Gingrich has destroyed himself through gaffes and campaign mishaps, Pawlenty/Santorum/Cain are irrelevant. If Palin runs, it will come down to her versus Romney, and the outcome of this is unforeseeable.
Post #3
This is a pre-response since I don't have time to watch the video (I'm on my way to bed), but in a country that has religious liberty as one of its core values I think it would be prudent to ensure that a Muslim candidate (and a Muslim populace, at that) doesn't attempt to found religious law in that country.
I know this sounds intolerant, but really it isn't: I'd say the same thing for a Christian dominionist, for instance.
I'd be completely fine with Muslim leaders as long as they are not the sort of Muslim that believes Islam is inseparable from government. I believe government should be secular to ensure the liberty of all.
I'll respond to this post again once I've watched the video to ensure I'm giving an informed reply, I just wanted to express that opinion.
I know this sounds intolerant, but really it isn't: I'd say the same thing for a Christian dominionist, for instance.
I'd be completely fine with Muslim leaders as long as they are not the sort of Muslim that believes Islam is inseparable from government. I believe government should be secular to ensure the liberty of all.
I'll respond to this post again once I've watched the video to ensure I'm giving an informed reply, I just wanted to express that opinion.
"Censorship is telling a man he can`t have a steak just because a baby can`t chew it." - Unknown
Post #4
Then you are even more intolerant than I first suspected!Meow Mix wrote: I know this sounds intolerant, but really it isn't: I'd say the same thing for a Christian dominionist, for instance.
In all seriousness, I agree with you and add this: I have serious concerns about anyone in government who thinks that they have special access to or understanding of "God".
-Woland
Post #5
1. No. Never.
2. Maybe Mitt Romney or Ron Paul?
----
As for a test of loyalty -- people who work for the government, especially in higher up positions like members of a presidential cabinet, have to undergo security clearences and extensive background checks to insure that they are neither a threat nor hostile to American interests. This is also done to insure that they haven't participated in any criminal activity. There is also an interrogation interview -- well at least for members of the FBI...
This should be sufficient in ensuring one's loyalties.
To create a separate loyalty test on the basis of "he's a Muslim" would not only be redundant, but also ignorant, and above all unconstitutional.
2. Maybe Mitt Romney or Ron Paul?
----
As for a test of loyalty -- people who work for the government, especially in higher up positions like members of a presidential cabinet, have to undergo security clearences and extensive background checks to insure that they are neither a threat nor hostile to American interests. This is also done to insure that they haven't participated in any criminal activity. There is also an interrogation interview -- well at least for members of the FBI...
This should be sufficient in ensuring one's loyalties.
To create a separate loyalty test on the basis of "he's a Muslim" would not only be redundant, but also ignorant, and above all unconstitutional.
-
Goat
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 24999
- Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
- Has thanked: 25 times
- Been thanked: 207 times
Post #6
I disagree about Ron Paul. He will appeal to a very small section of the population, but a lot will feel he is too much of an extremist.Darias wrote:1. No. Never.
2. Maybe Mitt Romney or Ron Paul?
----
As for a test of loyalty -- people who work for the government, especially in higher up positions like members of a presidential cabinet, have to undergo security clearences and extensive background checks to insure that they are neither a threat nor hostile to American interests. This is also done to insure that they haven't participated in any criminal activity. There is also an interrogation interview -- well at least for members of the FBI...
This should be sufficient in ensuring one's loyalties.
To create a separate loyalty test on the basis of "he's a Muslim" would not only be redundant, but also ignorant, and above all unconstitutional.
“What do you think science is? There is nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. So which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?�
Steven Novella
Steven Novella
-
JohnPaul
- Banned
- Posts: 2259
- Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 12:00 am
- Location: northern California coast, USA
Post #7
Maybe not Ron Paul personally, but similar ideas are becoming more popular as the only antidote to the harm liberals have done to our country over the past 50 years or so. Presidents may come and go, but the real power lies in the explosion of unelected government "agencies."Goat wrote:I disagree about Ron Paul. He will appeal to a very small section of the population, but a lot will feel he is too much of an extremist.Darias wrote:1. No. Never.
2. Maybe Mitt Romney or Ron Paul?
----
As for a test of loyalty -- people who work for the government, especially in higher up positions like members of a presidential cabinet, have to undergo security clearences and extensive background checks to insure that they are neither a threat nor hostile to American interests. This is also done to insure that they haven't participated in any criminal activity. There is also an interrogation interview -- well at least for members of the FBI...
This should be sufficient in ensuring one's loyalties.
To create a separate loyalty test on the basis of "he's a Muslim" would not only be redundant, but also ignorant, and above all unconstitutional.
Liberal policies have destroyed the American public school system over the past 60 years, beginning with "consolidation" schemes in the 1950s, and now replacing education with "politically correct" social engineering and welfare schemes. Liberal edicts that "equality" means every student is "entitled" to a high school diploma, whether they can read and write or not. America is now ranked near the very bottom of the developed world in educational achievement, and it was reported several years ago that more than half of adult Americans are now "functionally illiterate."
America's national debt is now more that 14 TRILLION, and a recent government report (NOT Fox News) predicts national bankruptcy in less than ten years at present spending and tax rates.
Enough ranting! You get the idea.
John
Re: Should Muslims Undergo a Religous Test for Public Office
Post #9Nopers! The Constitution is for the people by the people, if you can't understand that then you probably shouldn't be a citizen nor should you hold any position of public office.Darias wrote: 1. Is he (Mr. Cain) right? Why? If so, should the Constitution be amended to make exception for people of the Muslim Faith?
Not as far as I'm concerned. They don't have the slightest clue as to what is going on and if they did they wouldn't be wasting their time debating petty politics.Darias wrote:2. Does the GOP have any serious candidates who could actually win in 2012? Trump Cain and Palin aside?
-
WinePusher
Re: Should Muslims Undergo a Religous Test for Public Office
Post #10And do you even know what the public opinion is at this time? As indicated by this wrong statement, probably not. The removal of troops from the Middle East is something the public is generally in favor for, as well as minimizing the deficit, abolishing the fed, and stripping the abusive and inefficient clutches of government off of the market. So Goat, you are wrong, you have made this contention is absense of what the pollsters (the people who actually know what the population is feeling) report.Goat wrote:I disagree about Ron Paul. He will appeal to a very small section of the population, but a lot will feel he is too much of an extremist.
Baseless assertions such as this aren't tolerated from Christians, but this forum seems to give people like you a free pass. Do you know what the subject of politics is? When you debate politics, you debate the issues and policies that shape our society, whether it be national security, energy, culture wars, etc. If you think debating politics is petty, the last thing you should be doing is debating in this subforum.SomePunk wrote:Not as far as I'm concerned. They don't have the slightest clue as to what is going on and if they did they wouldn't be wasting their time debating petty politics.
