Herman Cain,a true patriot...on appointing muslims..........

to positions of power in our govt,I gotta love his political incorrectness!

Surprised by a reporter after a rally with a hopeful "gotcha question",Cain's answer was off the top of his head without aid of a teleprompter!

O'Bama has already demonstrated what his awswer to the same question would be and I'm really not comfortable with his choices!!!:

If I had a choice for president between an unapologetic patriot and a man who has demonstrated by his bowing to foreign heads of state that he's more suited to being a butler....I'll go with the Patriot!!

Our President should bow to no one!!!!!!!!!!!

Discussion is locked
Reply to: Herman Cain,a true patriot...on appointing muslims..........
PLEASE NOTE: Do not post advertisements, offensive materials, profanity, or personal attacks. Please remember to be considerate of other members. If you are new to the CNET Forums, please read our CNET Forums FAQ. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Reporting: Herman Cain,a true patriot...on appointing muslims..........
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
- Collapse -
Oooops this should be the first link in the OP:
- Collapse -
Mr Cain, complains of Sharia creeping into US law.

One bit of proof he offers is the statement that one judge (no mention of the actual case or judge) said he was going to consider "ecclesiastical" case law to help make a judgement. Problem is... ecclesiastical law is based upon English common law and covers the laws concerning things like marriage, divorce, etc. etc.

To the point... ecclesiastical law has nothing to do with sharia law.

Maybe Mr Cain's problem is actually with English people?

- Collapse -
(NT) I'd vote for Cain !!!!
- Collapse -
What a hodgepodge of unrelated instances...

... all brought together just so you can declare that you don't believe in the right to practice a different religion without penalty.

- Collapse -
No arguments have been made

by Cain or anybody else that you cannot PRACTICE a different fact the USA has a very wide variety of religions being practiced throughout the country without penalty. The objection that he and most others have is when a religion tries to influence a decision in a courtroom by having two sets of laws....ones via the USA and ones via Sharia. I don't know the case he was referring to in, he believes, Texas, when in fact it's in Florida (link below to many Google hits about it); however, there was a judge in New Jersey that specifically decided a case based on sharia law. Other states are attempting to pass their own laws forbidding that type of judicial decision making and want decisions based only upon existing USA laws.

One side in the case wants only USA laws to be used; the other side wants Islamic law to be used.

- Collapse -
It is being attempted here

in the UK. Muslim groups are trying to have internal cases tried here under Sharia law, things like divorce, domestic disputes, family and religious matters.

The court's position so far is that UK civil law prevails, but within that, due regard might be had to custom and Sharia law.

It is an uneasy alliance so far.

One of the things we have failed in is education. We have allowed minority groups, (read, Muslim), to have their own schools where only Sharia law and religion is taught. That has led to segregation in education, and is a big mistake in my view.


- Collapse -
Welcome to the Balkans

Eventually as their areas grow they will demand autonomy and when it's not granted, revolt, just like in Yugoslavia. When Britain objects to it and starts making moves to bring those regions back under it's control, the UN will authorize the US and other nations to bomb the hell out of you, to carve off sections, and press war crimes against your military leaders and prime minister.

- Collapse -
You do realize some of the people you are talking about...

I'm just saying that I think you are making a bad comparison. Muslim populations have lived in the Balkans for over a thousand years. Yugoslavia, as a unified country, didn't even exist until 1918.

- Collapse -
And during those years

The Serbs among other ethnic groups bore the brunt of trying to hold the Ottoman Empire back from taking over Europe. It seems what they failed to accomplish then, they may soon accomplish through "peaceful" immigration, increased birth rate, until they finally have all Europe within their grasp. Those "Christian" peoples who were on the border areas of the Ottoman Empire are owed a debt of gratitude for the centuries of holding it back from all Europe.

- Collapse -
Your history is a bit inaccurate...

The Ottoman empire actually was extremely tolerant of both Christians and Jews.

- Collapse -
unequal taxation

and other forms of discrimination. Stealing of Jewish and Christian children for things such as the Janissary or whatever other reasons of slavery they chose. So the Serbs had "political" reasons. So what? It was their land, their people, their children, their right.

- Collapse -
you know... your argument is perfectly true.

... and based on the same logic you are using, then the Mexicans and the American indians have every right to raise up in an armed insurrection against the current US government. I mean, the Serbs were occupied by the Ottomans in the 1300's. That's over 800 years ago. Mexico owned the western part of the US up until 150 years ago and the Indians held there lands less than 70 years ago. Yep... those people had their lands taken away, and the indians had their children kidnapped and re-educated in order to pacify them.

- Collapse -
Bring it on!

Been there, done that. Didn't go so well for them.

- Collapse -
The US has a long history of parochial schools

I am not quite sure where the curriculum of a catholic, protestant, christian fundamentalist or hebrew school deviates from a public school (let alone an islamic parochial school). I imagine that there are certain basic math and language requirements that must be met. Science and history are an entirely different issue since a few religions completely reject certain accepted scientific theory and interpretations of history taught in public schools.

- Collapse -
It has nothing to do with practicing religion........

it's deciding what law to use when resolving a legal issue within The US.I happen to agree with Mr. Cain.

- Collapse -
the hodgepodge I was referring to...

... was managing to make a connection between law and the President following polite custom on a meeting by making a bow to a foreign dignitary. I see no connection.

- Collapse -
Mr Cain was quoting a circuit judge in a ..........

Florida case,the ecclesiastical law reference was not Cain's.

Cain's point is that it's a straightforward contract issue between two parties and only US laws should apply not Islamic/sharia law.

Circuit Judge Richard A. Nielsen said the case should proceed under "ecclesiastical Islamic law" as to whether there was an enforceable arbitration agreement.

Nielsen said that state and federal courts have ruled "that ecclesiastical law controls certain relations between members of a religious organization, whether a church, synagogue, temple or mosque."

- Collapse -
from your link...

It would appear that the court ruling is only dealing with the question, is there is a binding arbitration agreement.

- Collapse -
So what other groups, of any nature, should be barred

from holding government offices and which offices should they be barred from?

- Collapse -
Any who try to influence our judicial system

by worming their way into having it split between USA law and their religious 'canons'. We have a wide diversity of religions in this country and none of them have attempted to change our rule of law to include their religious beliefs as a decision maker until now. A Muslim father was just found guilty by OUR laws for running over his daughter and killing her because she was becoming too Americanized'....he actually tried to use his Sharia Law as a defense for killing her because it was how HE believed. That tells me that he had no interest at all in assimilating and not only believed he could ignore our laws but also believed he could get away with it.

I would actually prefer, that if a defendent on trial is going to use their religion as a defense, that no USA court appointed attorney represent them....have them find someone schooled in their religion/law to defend them instead. I don't oppose them having representation in court, but it should be someone very familiar with their religion to argue their case based on USA law. I don't care what the religion is....if that's their defense, then they should find an attorney within their faith to defend them.

No man is above the law....OUR law.

- Collapse -
Oh I don't agree with religious tenets

being used in a court of law to decide contractual disputes, much less criminal charges.

- Collapse -
do you think Communists

should hold offices in America? Do you think they should not be discriminated against because of their unAmerican ideology? Do you even remember the Cold War? It's purpose?

Some ideologies are benign, some are so twisted against American ideals they should certainly never be tolerated to become part of our government.

The enemy from within is just as dangerous as enemies from without. Even our forefathers in their age realized that, which is why they mentioned "enemies, both foreign and domestic".

- Collapse -
Ok, as far as groups, we have

Muslims and Communists it seems.

- Collapse -
Any individual that belongs to a group that has a 'history'

of trying to usurp our Government and what America stands for should be barred from any Government position, including 'low level' types such as postal workers, social workers, etc. and that should also include teachers since Government funds (State and Federal) pay their salaries so they are more or less Government employees. I believe that any person applying for any Government position should be thoroughly vetted ahead of time and denied employment, no matter what their qualifications are, if they are found to belong to a group that doesn't fully support our country and our laws.

- Collapse -
Opps I made my above reply to James before

reading this one.

- Collapse -
If the old sayings of

"you are who you hang out with" or "you are who you associate and surround yourself with" or 'be careful who your friends are', we wouldn't have had a president right now that shouldn't be there. The liberal press was so caught up in 'feeling the love' and those 'tingling sensations up their legs' that they never looked into his background and 'pooh-poohed' what conservatives who DID look into his 'friends and associates' found prior to the election.

I never said that groups and individuals should be restricted in their activities....I said that they shouldn't hold any Government position no matter how 'low level' it might be. If they want to walk around like some crazy loon screaming doomsday is coming with a placard in downtown DC, that's fine, but any actions that openly go against our country and what we stand for should automatically prevent them from applying for and getting any job that is paid for by that same government.

How many times have we seen a terrorist after he's been caught claim that the America is evil and must be destroyed because of our capitalistic and democratic beliefs, and yet use those VERY ideals against us in a court of law. They use our legal systems to defend themselves with, and our tax payers PAY for their freaking attorneys. Insult to injury comes to mind. I don't want ANY group here in America using everything that they hate about America now to benefit them including a paycheck each week.

- Collapse -
(NT) How many terrorists have held a Government position?
- Collapse -
(NT) Can you say Fort Hood?????
- Collapse -
OK...that's one nutbar

(a) No more shrinks in the military?

(b) No more Muslims in the military?

(c) No more Muslim shrinks in the military

a, b or c or any combination of the above?

- Collapse -
No more 'politically correct' crap

is the best solution. It doesn't matter WHAT group, doesn't have to be Muslims; it could be a whacked out Christian, a KKK member, a Mexican who thinks we should give them back a fourth of the USA, etc. Common sense should prevail over EVERYTHING....if something in their background check indicates that they belong to a group that doesn't value this country and all that it has to offer, they should be red-flagged and investigated thoroughly....ANY employer interviewing someone for a position with their company checks backgrounds and even if they are qualified for the job, if something seems 'hinky' (sp) they don't get the job. It should be the same with EVERY government position. Our standards should be much higher than they are now, and evals with the military once someone is in normally indicate that something is off and something should be done about it quickly to get rid of that person legally, even if there is no way to take it to a court martial immediately. That person has the right to explain away whatever is found, but nobody even bothered to question that jerk at Fort Hood....they just shuffled him around because they were being politically correct.

This politically correct crap is killing is one of our 'enemies from within' and needs to end.

CNET Forums