Herman we hardly knew you. On first hearing about Herman Cain’s candidacy it was exciting. What a resume, good on the stump, conservative ideals, worked for the federal govt but really became famous as a business executive who turned around companies in trouble…heck he saved Godfather’s Pizza and I love pizza, that alone gave him extra points in my book.
Cain showed so much promise, he was good on the stump and was even better during the first debate, but now his campaign is dead, he may not know it yet but all that’s left is for it to fall over. The cause of death is the same as so many presidential campaigns before him, known in the Latin as Bardus Superstitiosus Orationes (stupid bigoted statements).
The first hint that Cain’s mouth did not have a self-control switch is when he announced that he would not appoint a Muslim to his cabinet. Now a president’s cabinet is supposed to act as his closest advisers, and he should be able to pick whoever he trusted most to fill those positions. But making a public claim that he will pick his advisers based on religion even if it were true, showed problem with his brain’s “Warning You Are About To Say Something Really, Really Dumb” switch.
Cain seemed to back off that original statement last month, he started saying that he would appoint Muslims as long as they stated their loyalty was to America. He supported that by saying he would make that same loyalty judgment about all of his appointees, no matter what the religion. Something that sounded reasonable if it was the first thing he said, but coming after the “won’t appoint Muslims at all” comment, it seemed hollow. As long as he didn’t make the same mistake again the Cain campaign was still alive.
Should Congress Remove Biden from Office?
But sufferers of Bardus Superstitiosus Orationes usually find a way to become repeat offenders, and Herman Cain is no different.
This weekend Herman Cain was interviewed by Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday. The former Godfather Pizza Executive doubled-down on his opposition to a mosque in Murfreesboro, Tennessee, and he showed a disturbing lack of knowledge about the first Amendment to the constitution.
“Our constitution guarantees separation of church and state,” said Cain. “Islam combines church and state. They are using the church part of our First Amendment to infuse their mosque in the community and people in the community don’t like it. They disagree with it. Sharia law is what they are trying to infuse.”
Cain makes the same mistake that the ACLU types every year around Christmas. There is no Constitutional separation of Church and State. This is what the first amendment to the constitution says:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
See not there! Whether you agree with the ACLU that there should be a separation of Church and State or not, any first year law student should know the original reason for the religion part of the first amendment was to keep the Federal government from trying to control religion. Many of the individual states already had an “official” religion, and the founders were worried about the Federal Government supplanting that local authority.
Like many Americans, I have a problem with Muslims who wish to make Sharia law public policy, the civil rule must take precedence over everything. However Sharia law being observed within the context of a Mosque is allowed under the Constitution as long as that law is subservient to civil law. Remember the amendment is supposed to protect the religion from government, not the other way around. Constitutionally the above statement would also be true if the words Sharia law were removed and Halachic Law (Jewish religious law) was substituted. It does not mater of there are parts of fundamental Sharia Law are particularly brutal as long as the government enforces the fact that a particular code of religious law is subservient to civil law no one will be allowed to be brutalized and everyone’s right will be protected.
So Herman Cain is wrong about the constitution here, and even worse that little speech filter failed him again. But Cain wasn’t done (if you cannot see two videos below click here):
CAIN: They could say that. Chris, lets go back to the fundamental issue that the people are basically saying they’re objecting to. They’re objecting to the fact Islam is both a religion and a set of laws, Sharia law. That’s the difference between any one of our other traditional religions where it’s just about religious purposes. The people in the community know best, and I happen to side with the people in Murfreesboro.
WALLACE: You’re saying any community, if they want to ban a mosque?
CAIN: Yes. They have a right to do that. That’s not discriminating based upon religion.
We are supposed to be protecting religion from government. Despite his protestations Herman Cain is saying the Mosque is not allowed to be built because is a Muslim place of prayer. If Murfreesboro wants to ban the building of the Mosque, could a different community be allowed to ban the building of a Synagogue, Catholic Church? That is simply not allowed in the American Constitutional system. I am not an expert in the Murfreesboro case, there may be a very valid reason for stopping the Mosque construction, but Herman Cain did not present one on Sunday.
And even worse for the Cain campaign, when paired with his earlier faux pas, Cain was beginning to look like a real bigot.
Here’s the real confusing part. Corporate America today his the ultimate home of political correctness. During my last stint working for “the man” at Viacom, there were regular sensitivity classes for sexual, racial and religious discrimination. Not only were there classes but there were memos, booklets, hats and special meals at the company cafeteria. The most important lesson the onslaught of training tried to impart on the employees was it didn’t matter what the person who made the statement meant, it was only important how the person who heard the statement took it. It makes one wonder how the hell did Herman Cain make it through the Corporate world without learning to keep his mouth shut? It’s scary that the guy has never learned to guard his tongue against making insensitive comments.
For those of you who think Cain’s lack of a quality control speech filter should not hurt his nomination chances answer this. If Cain can’t control himself when talking about Muslims or any people who may be different, but people whose votes he wants, how can he control himself during difficult negotiations with China? Or Russia? Or Saudi Arabia?
Here’s another question for those of you who like me, feel that belief in the founder’s vision of the Constitution is important for the eventual nominee, if Herman Cain does not understand the founders intentions behind the First Amendment, doesn’t it make one question his knowledge of the rest of the constitution?
Today Herman Cain gave his reasons that Mitt Romney could not win. His first reason was one of the primary reasons I would have problems supporting Romney during the primary season, Romney care. The second reason was very troubling, Cain didn’t believe a Mormon could win in the south.
Forgetting politics for a moment, this is the same country that just three years ago did what most people though was impossible, we elected someone who was half African-American as President, an event that as an African-American who has faced discrimination much of his life, Herman Cain should appreciate. Is he now using religious discrimination as a reason Romney should not be nominated?
If Herman Cain’s campaign was not dead after his discussion with Chris Wallace on Sunday, its dead now and quite frankly it deserves to be dead. After showing much promise, Cain has shown a total lack of verbal control a failure of basic political skills.