Herman Cain in fight for Presidency (Washington, Madison: how much, rated, distance)

[FlyingFox]

Originally Posted by vsmoove

Open minded guy who wants Muslims to take loyalty oaths and thinks neighborhoods can ban mosques? Are you serious or are you just trying to stir conversation?

Thank you. Herman Cain's anti-Muslim bigotry is disgusting...

Fox News Interview:

CAIN: "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."

The irony here is that 200 years ago, the "people" (remember, the ones being discriminated against aren't people) in Murfreesboro thought slavery was great. And frankly, it doesn't matter if there were 99 whites and 1 black in Murfreesboro in 1811 and every white guy voted for enslaving the black guy. IT IS STILL WRONG. That's why we have a Constitution - to protect minorities.

Herman Cain requiring a "loyalty test" for any Muslims in his administration is stupid (can't someone just claim they aren't Muslim?) AND unconstitutional:

From the U.S. Constitution, Article VI:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of 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.

But Herman Cain is onto something. I mean, if he's trying to help the KKK, getting a "loyalty test" accepted by American society will be the greatest weapon for racists. Just imagine... a black guy walks into a restaurant. "Hello, we only serve those who are card-carrying members of the Southern Heritage Loyalty Foundation." A hispanic guy applies for a job. "I know you're American, but you scored mediocre on our loyalty test so we have declined your application." A Jewish gal applies to college. "We regret to inform you that despite stellar SAT scores, you did not pass the interview portion of the loyalty test."

[Sophiasmommy]

Islam is not just a religion, it is a culture as well. May I introduce you to the term "Sharia Law?" That's what Cain was referring to. Besides, I believe that your righteous igdination is fake. Are you as upset at the fact that people at the recent CBC referred to HC as an " oreo" and " Uncle Tom", or are you only upset if these so called racist epithets are hurled by a person with a (R) after their name?

Originally Posted by FlyingFox

Thank you. Herman Cain's anti-Muslim bigotry is disgusting...

Fox News Interview:



The irony here is that 200 years ago, the "people" (remember, the ones being discriminated against aren't people) in Murfreesboro thought slavery was great. And frankly, it doesn't matter if there were 99 whites and 1 black in Murfreesboro in 1811 and every white guy voted for enslaving the black guy. IT IS STILL WRONG. That's why we have a Constitution - to protect minorities.

Herman Cain requiring a "loyalty test" for any Muslims in his administration is stupid (can't someone just claim they aren't Muslim?) AND unconstitutional:

From the U.S. Constitution, Article VI:


But Herman Cain is onto something. I mean, if he's trying to help the KKK, getting a "loyalty test" accepted by American society will be the greatest weapon for racists. Just imagine... a black guy walks into a restaurant. "Hello, we only serve those who are card-carrying members of the Southern Heritage Loyalty Foundation." A hispanic guy applies for a job. "I know you're American, but you scored mediocre on our loyalty test so we have declined your application." A Jewish gal applies to college. "We regret to inform you that despite stellar SAT scores, you did not pass the interview portion of the loyalty test."

[tigers84]

Originally Posted by FlyingFox

That's why we have a Constitution - to protect minorities.

The above statement couldnt be more wrong or absurd.

The concept of "minority" and/or minority protections didnt exist when the consitution was written.

The overriding purpose of the consititution was to define and LIMIT the powers of (the federal) GOVENMENT over the INDIVIDUAL and to RESTRICT the former's control and oversight of the INDIVIDUAL. The individual was considered the supreme body under the constiution. No group or set of people was guaranteed or assigned "special privleges" due to their demographic profile. That is strictly a modern construct and, IMO, is being grossly abused.

[FlyingFox]

Originally Posted by Sophiasmommy

Besides, I believe that your righteous igdination is fake. Are you as upset at the fact that people at the recent CBC referred to HC as an " oreo" and " Uncle Tom", or are you only upset if these so called racist epithets are hurled by a person with a (R) after their name?

I don't give a damn if it's a Democrat, a Republican, or an independent. Bigotry and discrimination is wrong, period. At one of Obama's election rallies, two Muslim women were asked to go elsewhere because Obama campaign officials didn't want their headscarves to be seen by the camera behind Obama lest it reinforce the idea that Obama is Muslim. Imagine what the outrage would have been if someone in a yamaka, or wearing a cross, or an amish bonnet, was asked to move so they were out of camera shot. It was extremely bigoted.

It may seem hard to believe in a country filled with partisan cheerleaders, but there a few independent thinkers still out there.

Islam is not just a religion, it is a culture as well.

What does this mean? An American Muslim goes to McDonalds and wears Levis and plays with fireworks on July 4th and listens to Taylor Swift and watches 30 Rock and Modern Family. Do you mean to tell me that American Muslims have the same culture as Muslims in Malaysia, Pakistan, Nigeria, Egypt, etc.??? Please tell me you are kidding. It must hurt to think of the world so one-dimensionally. Catholics in Ireland do not have the same culture as Catholics in Spain, Italy, Mexico, etc. They share the religion, yes, but they do not share the same culture.

Perhaps you mean to say that Muslims in America do not have "American culture." As in, you don't like the fact that practicing Muslims don't drink alcohol, don't eat pork, don't celebrate Christmas, and fast during Ramadan. If that's what you truly mean, then you need to open your mind and re-read the US Constitution. If the Rasheed family next door eats hummus for breakfast instead of Lucky Charms, GET OVER IT.

May I introduce you to the term "Sharia Law?" That's what Cain was referring to.

Sharia ("Sharia Law") has been blown up into a bogeyman and is unfortunately repeated by every Islamophobe without any understanding of what sharia actually is. Sharia how Muslims are supposed to live their life and practice their religion. Thou shall not kill. Thou shall not steal. Thou shall treat thy parents well. There are also rules regarding trade, charity, marriage, divorce, inheritance, funerals, pilgrimage, food (similar to kosher rules), etc. Nobody freaks out when someone mentions Talmudic law or Christian law... which is observed by Americans every single day. The whole concept of marriage was a religious contract entailing rights and obligations for husband and wife: Catholic marriage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This thread could use a big spray of bigotry-be-gone.

[FlyingFox]

Originally Posted by tigers84

The above statement couldnt be more wrong or absurd.

The concept of "minority" and/or minority protections didnt exist when the consitution was written.

The overriding purpose of the consititution was to define and LIMIT the powers of (the federal) GOVENMENT over the INDIVIDUAL and to RESTRICT the former's control and oversight of the INDIVIDUAL. The individual was considered the supreme body under the constiution. No group or set of people was guaranteed or assigned "special privleges" due to their demographic profile. That is strictly a modern construct and, IMO, is being grossly abused.

I said nothing about special privileges. I'm talking about the rights of the individual. Because the PEOPLE elect the GOVERNMENT, placing limits on the powers of GOVERNMENT so that it cannot infringe upon the rights of the PEOPLE will, in theory, provide minorities protection from mob-rule. Ex: "We don't like you because you have blond hair. We just voted on a new law allowing us to imprison all blondes. Goodbye!"

[tigers84]

Originally Posted by FlyingFox

I said nothing about special privileges. I'm talking about the rights of the individual. Because the PEOPLE elect the GOVERNMENT, placing limits on the powers of GOVERNMENT so that it cannot infringe upon the rights of the PEOPLE will, in theory, provide minorities protection from mob-rule. Ex: "We don't like you because you have blond hair. We just voted on a new law allowing us to imprison all blondes. Goodbye!"

Actually, the consitution is supposed to protect ALL PEOPLE from Government intrustion. Minorities are not a special group, or specifically protected more so than non-monorities.

All citizens are guaranteed the right of due proces under the law. For example, as the law prohibits illegal aliens from being here, those violating that rule are rightfully to be deported or jailed, while their enabler/employer, if found knowledgeable of their illegal status, would also be penalized.

Of the 27 Amendments to the Bill of Rights, none address hair color.

It seems you are confusing mob rule with majority rule. This is still a majority rule country, although as Republic we vote in people who implement those views.

The purpose of the Constitution was to provide a framework for an effective government which protected, aided and abetted ALL its citizens. Minorities are NOT a distinct class. PS: You can look it up.

Also, I understand and respect your desire to discontinue a debate your are clearly losing. Very wise!

[RoslynHolcomb]

I'm amazed at the number of people who believe this country was set up under the principle of majority rule. Madison said in Federalist #10 "Majority rule is tyranny." The last thing the Founding Fathers wanted was majority rule. They had lived under those principles and knew better.

[Box]

Originally Posted by tigers84

Actually, the consitution is supposed to protect ALL PEOPLE from Government intrustion. Minorities are not a special group, or specifically protected more so than non-monorities.

Not true under the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. Different minorities such as people of color, women, and religious groups are given different types of protection i.e. heightened scrutiny, strict scrutiny, and rational scrutiny.

Levels of Scrutiny Under the Equal Protection Clause

[tigers84]

Originally Posted by Box

Not true under the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. Different minorities such as people of color, women, and religious groups are given different types of protection i.e. heightened scrutiny, strict scrutiny, and rational scrutiny.

Levels of Scrutiny Under the Equal Protection Clause

"The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
No State shall...deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Exactly. Equal protection that is not special or specific to a particular group or people. The SAME laws and protections apply to ALL, according to the Constitution.
Or, as many different "classifications" you list, perhaps the only non-minorities offered no such "different types of protection" are christian, straight caucasian males. That seems fair....NOT!

[Box]

Originally Posted by tigers84

"The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
No State shall...deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Exactly. Equal protection that is not special or specific to a particular group or people. The SAME laws and protections apply to ALL, according to the Constitution.
Or, as many different "classifications" you list, perhaps the only non-minorities offered no such "different types of protection" are christian, straight caucasian males. That seems fair....NOT!

Um you just compeletly contradicted yourself in that post.