Herman Cain. Bigoted. Imprudent. Idiotic:
Presidential candidate Herman Cain has reiterated his position that any Muslim serving in his administration would be forced to take a loyalty test with this statement: "That's not discrimination. It's called trying to protect the American people. This nation is under attack constantly by people who want to kill all of us, so I'm going to take extra precaution."
...Even if it weren't bigoted and imprudent, however, Cain's logic should be disqualifying for its sheer idiocy. Think about it. His plan for deciding whether someone is a sleeper jihadist or worthy of being trusted in the White House is essentially to ask them, "Do you swear you're loyal to the United States?" This would happen in a "one-on-one conversation," where the former CEO would do what, exactly? Apparently being in a room alone with a man is enough for Cain to tell his intentions, because no one has ever lied in the history of mankind, or been misjudged when telling the truth [Conor Friedersdorf, "Herman Cain's Anti-Muslim Bigotry Should Be Disqualifying," The Atlantic via National Journal, 2011.06.13].
Yes, we should get excited about Herman Cain... excited about throwing his bigotry and fear-mongering out of the running for the GOP nomination.
Cory Heidelberger: burying his head in the sand while begging, pleading for another 911.
Not on your life....or that of my children.
Protocol is in place that ensures that the US Constitution survives an extinction level event; it will survive the machinations of the sovereign movement to which Mr. Cain and Mr. Ellis are members.
Let them eat whatever they want.
I get the feeling Ellis wouldn't even bother asking a Muslim if he was a loyal American before he decided whether or not to give him a job. Democrats either. Or for that matter, over half of the Republicans. If you're looking for someone even more idiotic, narrow-minded, discriminatory, and prejudicial, Cory, that would be Mr. Bob Ellis.
Hey Bob, how about you show us YOUR litmus test (short form please.)
For your reader's general edification, Cory, here are 20 questions you cannot ask in a job interview (by law).
1. Birthplace
2. Birthplace of parents, spouse or other close relatives
3. If applicant is a native or naturalized citizen
4. Foreign languages that applicant reads, writes or speaks fluently
5. How applicant acquired fluency in foreign languages
6. Wife’s maiden name
7. Mother’s maiden name
These questions provide information about a candidate’s national origin and ethnic background.
If the job requires fluency in a foreign language, question 4 is acceptable.
8. Has applicant ever worked under another name
9. Marital status
10. Plans for marriage or pregnancy
11. Number of children
12. If applicant has child care problems
13. Information about spouse’s job plans
These questions could be found discriminatory against women or married people. If relevant to candidates’ willingness to do the job (working overtime, traveling, etc.), they can be asked providing questions are framed in job-related terms, not personal terms. (Ask, “Are you able to
work overtime or weekends on very short notice if needed?†Don’t ask, “How will you handle child care problems if we need you to work overtime?â€)
14. If applicant has ever been arrested
15. Type of discharge from military service
16. Names of clubs, societies or lodges to which applicant belongs
17. If applicant owns a car
18. Whether applicant lives in a house or rents an apartment
19. Whether applicant owns or rents a home
These questions can be viewed as discriminatory toward a protected class of employees. For instance, certain minorities may be as a group more likely to have been arrested than whites, or less likely to own a car or a home. Hiring decisions based on such questions have to be justifiable as directly pertaining to candidates’ ability to perform the job.
20. Height and weight
21. If applicant has a disability
22. If applicant has AIDS or other serious diseases
Medical questions are allowable only after an offer has been tendered. Many employers require that a job offer be contingent on the new employee passing a physical. And even the physical has to have some bearing on ability to do the job. Never ask medical questions during the
selection process.
20. Applicant’s age
You can only ask age if you need to verify candidates meet minimum age requirements to hold a full-time position or work a certain number of hours (i.e., over eighteen).
Muslims may scare you, but sovereigns will kill you: http://missoulian.com/news/local/article_bbf0e0d6-9538-11e0-8dfb-001cc4c03286.html?mode=story
Bob could you please do some live blogging during the Republican debates? I would love to see your real-time responses to the candidates answers. Do you think that Cain was a little too hesitant on the Muslim question? I wanted to see the other candidates agree to a Muslim litmus test.
All I have to say is that I continue to support President Obama and will in his upcoming reelection, however, I also like Mitt Romney, as he is the only Republican I can stand. As he was in 2008, Mitt seems to be the only moderate and stable one in the bunch.
Like Obama, Romney has that "Presidential Stature" about him. In my opinion, Mitt has the charisma, and disposition of Reagan and Eisenhower combined, but with his own personality.
"Do you plan to kill me?" is often the first question I've been asked in an interview (hint: answer no, even if the actual answer is yes).
Four comments:
1) This is why we have campaigns to hear the candidates on a variety of issues. On many issues, I'm quite warm to Cain. Unless he renounces this position or clarifies it to my satisfaction, my warmness is significantly changed. See #3 below.
2) Assuming the context of who he would require is his Cabinent and other political appointees, legally and Consitutionally all such appointees are currently required to take a loyalty oath (Christians, atheists, Hindus and Muslims). Bill's list applies to non-political appointees and private sector applicants. If at any time one's oath to nation, its leaders or policies violates one's religion/conscience, they are by their honor to resign. Regardless of one's religion (or lack of religion), I have no problem with ANYBODY taking a loyalty oath for a high level government position. I do have a problem if it is only applied to certain people.
3) Besides the internment of Japanese Americans, at the time of the founding of this nation, there was a movement to deny citizenship rights to Catholics. But for the relationship between Charles Carroll of Maryland (Catholic) and George Washington, it is likely such a denial of basic rights would have been written into the Articles of Confederation and Constitution. As a Catholic, I greatly appreciate the understanding of our non-Catholic founding fathers for America to be who She aspires to be it was critical to extend inalienable rights to all without regard to creed or religion. This appreciation makes me sensitive to implicit, explicit, or symbolic denial to other creeds.
4) As much as it might appear easy to beat up on Bob, we do have to acknowledge and recognize we are now engaged in three wars all fighting the same enemy (radical terror-minded Islamic jihadists). To deny extra precaution and measures to identify potential enemies in our midst is myopic and naive. In an effort to probe one's sincerity in a loyalty oath (applied to all and not just Muslims) I would have no problem for a Muslim considered for a high-level or security sensitive position in our federal government being asked questions about their Koranic understanding on views on jihad as articulated by radicals.
Similarly, if the Pope were to express the view a particular war didn't meet the Just War Doctrine, if I were being considered for a position where my views on a war or security would be relevent, I would consider it appropriate as a Catholic to be asked if I agreed with the Pope. And, if I disagreed with the Pope, I think it appropriate to be asked if I would resign if I changed my mind.
One more time for all concerned. We are not at war with the Muslim faith. I can't emphasize this strongly enough.
Troy, could we ask those same questions of every job applicant, regardless of religion?
If we are going to condition government employment for people of certain faiths on extra interrogation and oaths (which, as Brett ably notes, are a sham, since it takes little extra effort to lie about them), then I want to subject Kristi Noem and all female Christian fundamentalists running for office to extra scrutiny. Some Christian fundamentalists believe in male headship (I listened to some on the radio this noon -- appalling sexism and rationalization piled all around it). I thus have concerns that Noem, perhaps Bachmann, certainly Sarah Palin, and other female Christian fundamentalists serving in government may actually be following their husband's orders. I want to know that the authority I'm granting with my vote is vested in the person on the ballot, not a spouse hiding in the shadows. Does that concern deserve the same merit as Cain's claims?
Cory,
First, my comments are restricted to those in the highest level of government or in a security position. Second, they do take an oath to the country and its laws.
So, to this point, I think it wholly appropriate for the President, including President Obama, to probe all relevant aspects of a person he is considering to be in his inner circle for a full understanding of what tangible and intangible values the candidate brings with him/her and how it might affect decision-making.
Let me give you an example. If Governor Dauguard asked me to be on the Water and Natural Resources board, it is pretty unlikely my religion is relevant. But if he were to ask me to be on the Pardons and Parole Board, it is likely to come up because my faith has fundamentally formed my views on rehabilitation, forgiveness and being generous with giving second chances. In the former, the Governor probing my religion would possibly be "bigoted" but in the latter it would be "prudent."
More importantly, being honest with regard to such probing actually leads to less discrimination. There are Catholics who might approach the Pardons and Parole responsibilities differently from me as their formation is different than mine. But, if the Governor (or in this case the President) were to be considered "bigoted" for probing, the easy thing might be to just "discriminate" against all Catholics.
As my buddy Fleming said, "we are not at war with the Muslim faith." But we are at war with Islamic terrorists. Muslims who have reconciled their faith with national loyalty should be considered for any position based on their qualifications without regard to their faith. Depending on the position, one's view of God (or the lack there of) may or may not be relevant. If relevant, the only way to insure non-discrimination is sometimes to be open to probing on the issue.
With regard to your comments about Noem, Bachmann and Palin, your "concern" belies two things. First, a different understanding of Scripture than my understanding of what most fundamental religions teach (I'm not a "fundamentalist" so my understanding may be wrong just as I think yours is). Second, anybody who knows Noem knows she is her own person with regard to her political views and her partnership in business matters with her husband and siblings indicates your characterization correct. Similarly with Palin, you now have evidence of 24,000 emails which have shocked the MSM at her administrative skill, engagement on the detail of issues, and have absolutely no evidence of "following her husband's orders."
But, just as I trust (and expect) President Obama and prospective President Cain to ask pertinent questions sincerely and listening for honest answers, if you have concerns about this matter, I think you are free to probe the issue with her. Just be prepared for an answer that conflicts with your current view.
I'm opposed to all unfair discrimination. But, just as I discriminate in selection of my Doctor based on my perception of their tangible and intangible qualities/skills, while I might disagree with my President's decision, I do give him full discretion to set his own priorities.
We always say "tolerance" is a good thing. But the goodness or badness of tolerance is determined by the object to which it is attached. Tolerance of wife beating is a bad thing because wife beating is a bad thing. Tolerance of giving our President (or Governor) the capacity to probe the inner person where the inner person might be relevant to the job is a good thing because we bring the inner person to everything we do.
"I’m opposed to all unfair discrimination." But, fair discrimination is ok?
Red state failure in a nutshell.
Larry, like tolerance, discrimination must be attached to an object. I would expect President Obama, Bush and Cain if he were to become President to discrimate against a racist for the head of the Human Rights Division of the Justice Department. So would you.
Values and views matter. The constant canard "discrimination" is bad and "tolerance" is good is both a lie and improperly used by both conservatives and liberals to denigrate the other. The end result is the public debate is cheapened. President Obama "discriminated" against and was "intolerant" of strict interpretation of the Constitution with his selection of Judge Sontomayer (sp?) just as President Bush did the same with his selection of Alito against the liberal view.
When liberals take the high moral ground of criticizing Bush's selection for being "discriminating" and "intolerant" with the selection of Alito or praising the choice of Sontomayer (or the converse with conservatives), we talk past each other which is a bad thing.
I'm pretty sure President Obama "discriminated" against naming a person to lead the Libya offensive who supports the Quadafi regime. To have an intelligent debate on anything, "discrimination" must be considered in context of the object to determine "good or bad."
Good points, Troy. I don't know if this makes a big difference, but consider your parole board example: is there any question that the governor might ask you the Catholic that he couldn't justifiably ask me the atheist?
If the governor asks, "Are you a Catholic?" or the President asks, "Are you a Muslim?" that's a problem. The greater problem is if the governor or president takes your allegiance to a particular faith, as Cain appears to do, as a sign that you are more inclined to do evil and less qualified to serve in public office.
The governor should certainly ask parole board members where they stand on rehabilitation, generosity, justice, victims' rights, etc. The President can certainly ask about loyalty to America (a rather silly, unrevealing question) and about policies and principles. But none of those questions or subsequent decisions should be predicated on faith. Cain is reprehensible for portraying Muslims as inherently less American and less trustworthy than members of other religions. (Hmm... I wonder if he has special loyalty oaths in mind for Mormons and atheists.)
I'll even grant that if I vote against Kristi Noem or Sarah Palin just because she goes to a fundie church, I deserve a stern upbraiding. If Kristi or Sarah demonstrates that her adherence to male headship doesn't go anywhere past spiritual leadership in the home (if that far), then I drop that issue and focus on voting against her for her utter vacuousness on policy.
What about at the local level, Troy? I'm on a rant about race relations in South Dakota lately. How does your definition apply to interviewing a tribal member trapped in a cycle of of prejudice telling an employer that he or she pledges allegiance to a sovereign entity outside the jurisdiction of the host state of South Dakota?
...and I will grant Troy's point on discrimination. We refer to "discriminating tastes" as a positive thing, as simply making astute choices. Preferring German engineering to a Yugo is clearly intelligeent discrimination. Mr. Cain's discrimination is uninformed and offensive.
Larry, unless the position requires pledging allegance to the nation, its laws and Constitution (which every Native American does when they join the military), I see no relevance to the question in private employment. Maybe if there is a security clearance in the position.
Cory,
Let me try to answer your questions.
Parole board question to me as a Catholic and you an atheist. I think the question is about the same- what has formed your views with regard to the job. I couldn't answer the question honestly or completely without incorporating my views on forgiveness and mercy as they are relevant. Your answer would be much more secular. But they are answers the President/Governor should consider. And rejecting me and accepting you, is not bad discrimination but good discrimination. If they want someone to advocate their views, it is their perogative. Alternatively, I might get selected because he wants a contrary view as he still gets to make the final decision. My point is our pursuit of "tolerance" without regard to the object to be tolerated doesn't serve any of us.
I agree "If the governor asks, “Are you a Catholic?†or the President asks, “Are you a Muslim?†that’s a problem" if the context is discriminating in a bad way. More than once I've said things and to a trained eye it was said both with a Catholic lens and Catholic terms and they immediately say, "You are Catholic aren't you." I had a client say it to me in the past six months. I took no offense because the context wasn't offensive. Too often we have become to sensitive to react as though something is "bad discriminatory."
I also agree it is a bigger problem if the governor or president takes your allegiance to a particular faith as a sign that you are more inclined to do evil and less qualified to serve in public office. Until I see Cain's actual words, I reserve judgment on if that is what he is saying. It is wholly conceivable the "loyalty oath" he is calling for is so he as properly vetted someone who might come into question and speak with authority to their allegiance if the question arises. John Kennedy (and Al Smith before him) were asked a question by the public which was grounded in misinformation and misunderstanding of what a Catholic is. With today's reality of our war with Islamic terrorists, there is a great deal of misunderstanding of Islam and its adherrents. I personally think having a President be able to say "Question of loyalty asked and answered to my satisfaction" serves the Muslim and his faith well. To not ask the question, does a disservice in my mind to everyone.
To this comment "But none of those questions or subsequent decisions should be predicated on faith." I agree but I don't agree until I see his words in context he is "portraying Muslims as inherently less American and less trustworthy than members of other religions." Context and meaning is everything.
Mea culpa accepted regarding Noem and Palin. :)
I don't want to get into a long conversation about "male headship" as it is a big distraction.
What I will say is often I too have recoiled when I've heard certain ways fundamentalists describe this. But I will say after talking to them about it, after getting around the specific vernacular particular to their faith, the idea isn't nearly so offensive and is part and parcel to my own views. In fact, I think likely yours too. Every father and mother divide certain roles in raising children and running a family with the same goal: To have a functional family developing good values and ethics. Too much is made how different people choose to divide and share their responsibilities.
How about a little tolerance Cory? :)
Interesting, Troy, the recent comment from your client. I can understand your not taking offense... but did the client take any action on the basis of his observation? Like, "Oh, you're Catholic, so I'm not doing business with you"? Or, "Hmm, Catholic... I need to ask a few more questions about your personal faith before I invest any more money with you [or whatever your clients do] and risk seeing my money go to Rome"?
The parole board: what formed our views may be historically interesting, but does it matter? Isn't the only relevant question in that interview, "What are your views?" I'm still thinking the religious question doesn't need to be asked. If I'm governor or President, I don't ask my people whether they go to church; I ask whether they can do the job. Even practically speaking, I don't see religious persuasion correlating to effective performance of duties or ability to salute the flag and serve the country. (We'll see if I'm naïvely ignoring the stealth jihad.)
We agree that loyalty to America, the Constitution, democracy, etc. is good. But if the President does a disservice to everyone by not asking the Muslim the loyalty question, does the President not do a disservice by not asking every potential appointee that question? [Far too many negatives in that sentence.]
You're right: headship is a big distraction. Brief response: a religion that automatically deems the man the head fails to properly discriminate among individual differences that may often make the woman better equipped to lead. (Erin and I: co-heads.)
There are liberals I recoil with their very words and there are liberals who cause me to cheer (either in agreement or disagreement). The views are the same but the thought, values, and formation that lead to those views are different. I similarly recoil or cheer with comments by conservatives.
Too often people (both liberals and conservatives) are willing to give a pass to someone solely on their views (or expressed views) with little thought to their underlying values, etc.
Not to pick on Wiener (but he is the most recent) but people in Congress knew of his lack of personal integrity for years. (I'm not commenting on his web activities but his automatic impulse to lie and blame others). He had no friends in the House. Even liberal members of Congress refused to socialize with him. But, they sure were willing to let him be a spokesman because he was good at wedge issues and strong articulation.
His views were correct in the mind of liberals but they knew he was a snake. What they refused to consider was his formation. It is the key.
I feel like you're reaching, Troy, on that word "formation" to tie it into the above argument. The discussion here is about whether we can legitimately peg religion as cause for discrimination in selecting public servants. Weiner's sleaziness was not a product of his Judaism, was it? Was there any point where his House colleagues or voters could have said, "Oh, Weiner's Jewish? We better ask him some extra questions to determine whether he's into porn and online sex chats"?
Weiner, Ensign, Clinton, Gingrich... none of those foiblers change the inherent bigotry in Cain's anti-Muslim campaign ploy.
Cory,
I'm trying to weave a complete idea using different applications. Don't get distracted because I don't stay with religion (Wiener being a liar has nothing to do with his Jewishness).
If you can't follow me, it might be more my inability to communicate. Examples trying to make the formation point before I go back to religion:
Liberal candidate holds economic positions consistent with liberal orthodoxy. When rationale is probed (formation), it is revealed he hates rich people because he believes they have done nothing meritorious to gain the wealth (actually reason for hatred is unimportant). The hatred is revealed in formation.
Conservative candidate holds orthodox economic position and it is revealed his rationale relates to a hatred of poor people. Again, the formation is faulty.
One's Faith (or lack thereof) has a significant impact on formation. To the extent one's position allows for opportunity for use of one's values to make decisions, the more important it is to understand what underlies the values. Now let me use some examples where one's religion I think is appropriate (Not that being of a particular religion is automatically a disqualifier but only might be.:
Jew: If the position somehow relates to the interests of Israel.
Christian: If the position somehow relates to the interests of Israel (some Christian faiths have different views on Israel) or dealing with Muslim's directly (some Christian faiths have strong views on Islam as a heresy making it and all Muslim institutions invalid).
Muslim: If the position somehow relates to security of this nation. Certain components of Islam have views regarding the sovriegnty or legitimacy of a nation that doesn't incorporate Sharia.
Athiest: If the position somehow relates to Individual Rights. (some atheists hold a position no rights are inalienable or objective but all are subjective based on certain circumstances).
My examples are not a statement on the rightness or wrongness of these positions held by certain members of a particular faith (or have no faith) but as a matter of US law or the perogative of the President, certain views must be vetted to determine the fitness of the person for the position.
Now to the original question: We are at war with people and ideas who adhere to particular view of Islam. It is wholly legitimate to determine if a Muslim being considered for a position of trust to protect our nation holds views consistent with protecting our nation.