Originally posted by wolfgang59
You have repeatedly shown yourself to be a complete ignoramus and to tell someone they do not know enough about a subject to debate it is hilarious.

I'd put good money on FMF knowing more about your constitution than you.

In fact I'd give evens on [b]anyone knowing more about your constitution than you.

In fact I'd give odds on that any rando ...[text shortened]... y drift?)







No? you dont get my drift! ... because you are STUPID beyond belief.[/b]

My ancestors arrived her in America before it became a nation. I have
lived here for 67 years. I think I know more about it than a foreigner
like you or FMF.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
i would be curious as to what law or constitution allows the president to discriminate based on religion. sure he is allowed to bring his own team in the white house on the off chance he might actually get elected. but i doubt he can appoint judges as he wants. or fire the pentagon's muslim janitors.

Herman Cain is not proposing to do any such thing. He is only claiming
to do as much as any President has been allowed to do. That is, to
appoint anyone he chooses to work in his administration. Obama fired
people in order to appoint the people he wanted, even though some
people potested against it. Why can't Herman Cain, if elected do the
same. If he had not been upfront about how he intended to make his
appointments there would not be any protests now. His political enemies
are trying to get him eliminated as a candidate by these protests. It is
not uncommon to use religion as a tool in the political process.

Originally posted by RJHinds
[Herman Cain's] political enemies are trying to get him eliminated as a candidate by these protests.

If Cain doesn't understand the U.S. Constitution as it pertains to his conduct as president, such as his inability to understand Article VI - as it seems quite clearly you don't either - then it's only right that he gets eliminated from the race at an early stage. That's not a partisan observation. If one of his opponents had made the same comment, it would've deserved the same verdict. The U.S. needs a president who respects and upholds its constitution. Apparently, Herman Cain cannot offer even that.

To return, if we may, to the OP. As a Christian, and as a supporter of democracy and of your constitution, can you in all conscience endorse someone like Cain who advocates discriminating against fellow citizens on account of their spiritual beliefs?

Originally posted by RJHinds
If he had not been upfront about how he intended to make his
appointments there would not be any protests now.

Of course nobody would have protested if he had kept his plans secret. But if he'd said what he said about not wanting to appoint Muslims to his administration AFTER he was elected then he could potentially be impeached for contravening Article VI of the US Constitution.

Originally posted by FMF
Of course nobody would have protested if he had kept his plans secret. But if he'd said what he said about not wanting to appoint Muslims to his administration AFTER he was elected then he could potentially be impeached for contravening Article VI of the US Constitution.

No he could not.

Originally posted by RJHinds
No he could not.

This thread belongs in Debates, but anyway...

This may provide some information:

http://www.loveallpeople.org/oathsofoffice.html

Quote:

And the outline for the oaths of other Public Officials is shown here:

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.

Constitution: See Article VI

The Oath Of Office For Most Other Federal Officials, Other Than The President (including the Vice President, Cabinet members, members of Congress, Presidential civilian appointees, military officers, and civil servants)
. . . as outlined in the Constitution and specified in the United States Code, 5USC3331.

"I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."

unquote.

I believe that requiring appointees to state their religion and then to require any additional oath to be taken depending on their answer, would be unconstitutional and would in fact be a violation of the oath taken by the person who requires the additional oath.

Cain seems to be unaware of this or is counting on the American public being unaware of it. Which, based on certain people on this forum, may be a correct assessment.

Originally posted by JS357
This thread belongs in Debates, but anyway...

This may provide some information:

http://www.loveallpeople.org/oathsofoffice.html

Quote:

And the outline for the oaths of other Public Officials is shown here:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned,
and the Members of the several State Legislatures,
a ...[text shortened]... eing unaware of it. Which, based on certain people on this forum, may be a correct assessment.

Herman Cain has never said he would require appointees to state their religion
and then to require any additional oath to be taken depending on their answer.
You and others are attempting to put word in his mouth that he did not say.
You are all unaware of the real truth or you are being deliberately dishonest.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Herman Cain has never said he would require appointees to state their religion
and then to require any additional oath to be taken depending on their answer.
You and others are attempting to put word in his mouth that he did not say.
You are all unaware of the real truth or you are being deliberately dishonest.

I didn't say he said that. But you, for one, seem to vest him with having that capability:

FMF: "Of course nobody would have protested if he had kept his plans secret. But if he'd said what he said about not wanting to appoint Muslims to his administration AFTER he was elected then he could potentially be impeached for contravening Article VI of the US Constitution."


You: "No he could not."

So you have bought the original message even though he hedged it.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Herman Cain has never said he would require appointees to state their religion and then to require any additional oath to be taken depending on their answer.

He indicated that he would not be comfortable appointing people if they are Muslims. He was very specific. The realities of the U.S. constitution aside, as a Christian can you in all conscience endorse someone like Cain who - in a secular state - advocates discriminating against fellow citizens on account of their spiritual beliefs?

Originally posted by RJHinds
Herman Cain has never said he would require appointees to state their religion
and then to require any additional oath to be taken depending on their answer.
You and others are attempting to put word in his mouth that he did not say.
You are all unaware of the real truth or you are being deliberately dishonest.

BECK: So wait a minute, are you saying that Muslims have to prove, there has to be a loyalty proof?
CAIN: Yes, to the Constitution of the United States of America.
BECK: Well, would you do that to a Catholic or a Mormon?
CAIN: No, I wouldn’t, I wouldn’t because there is a greater dangerous part of the Muslim faith than there is in these other religions. I know there are some Muslims who talk about but we’re a peaceful religion. I’m sure that there are some peace-loving.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/06/08/cain-doubles-down-would-require-loyalty-proof-from-muslims-to-serve-in-his-administration/#ixzz1SDouksI7

He says he wouldn't do that to a Catholic or a Mormon? He would do something to a Muslim that he wouldn't do to a Catholic or a Mormon? How would he find out if they were Muslim? Profiling? How ignorant is that?

Originally posted by JS357
I didn't say he said that. But you, for one, seem to vest him with having that capability:

FMF: "Of course nobody would have protested if he had kept his plans secret. But if he'd said what he said about not wanting to appoint Muslims to his administration AFTER he was elected then he could potentially be impeached for contravening Article VI of the US Cons ...[text shortened]... u: "No he could not."

So you have bought the original message even though he hedged it.

You wrote it on your post. If you deny it, then you are not only being
dishonest, you are also a liar.

Originally posted by JS357
BECK: So wait a minute, are you saying that Muslims have to prove, there has to be a loyalty proof?
CAIN: Yes, to the Constitution of the United States of America.
BECK: Well, would you do that to a Catholic or a Mormon?
CAIN: No, I wouldn’t, I wouldn’t because there is a greater dangerous part of the Muslim faith than there is in these other religions. I k ...[text shortened]... holic or a Mormon? How would he find out if they were Muslim? Profiling? How ignorant is that?

I think that is being smart. Muslims are the ones saying, "Death to America."
Muslims are the ones blowing themselves up to kill Jews and Christians.
Muslims are the ones that want their own law in every country that they
are in. Muslims are the ones that blew up the buildings in New York City and
damaged the Pentagon by piloting airplanes into them. Muslims are the ones
that strap bombs to their bodies and hide them in there shoes so they can
blow up people. Muslims are the killers, not the Christians or the Mormans.
I think you are ignorant not to understand that.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I think that is being smart. Muslims are the ones saying, "Death to America."
Muslims are the ones blowing themselves up to kill Jews and Christians.
Muslims are the ones that want their own law in every country that they
are in. Muslims are the ones that blew up the buildings in New York City and
damaged the Pentagon by piloting airplanes into them. ...[text shortened]... killers, not the Christians or the Mormans.
I think you are ignorant not to understand that.

So what is your interpretation of Article VI of the U.S. Constitution and why do you think Herman Cain is exempt?

Originally posted by FMF
So what is your interpretation of Article VI of the U.S. Constitution and why do you think Herman Cain is exempt?

I did not say Herman Cain was exempt from the Constitution. You guys
are jumping way ahead with your accusation that he should be impeached,
etc. Wait until he gets elected and then you can claim he is an evil
person. Then if he gives someone a test on religion you can make your
claims.