“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!” – Samuel Adams

Herman Cain Wouldn’t Appoint Muslim Judges, Cabinet Members

Herman Cain

You know what you’re getting with Herman Cain–another reason I’m liking him a lot as a 2012 presidential candidate.

When asked whether he would appoint a Muslim to his cabinet or to the judiciary, he didn’t pull any punches:

No, I will not. And here’s why. There is this creeping attempt, there is this attempt to gradually ease Sharia law and the Muslim faith into our government. It does not belong in our government. This is what happened in Europe. And little by little, to try and be politically correct, they made this little change, they made this little change. And now they’ve got a social problem that they don’t know what to do with hardly.

The question that was asked that “raised some questions” and, as my grandfather said, “I does not care, I feel the way I feel.” I was asked, “what is the role of Islam in America?” I thought it was an odd question. I said the role of Islam in America is for those that believe in Islam to practice it and leave us alone. Just like Christianity. We have a First Amendment. And I get upset when the Muslims in this country, some of them, try to force their Sharia law onto the rest of us.

A key difference between America (which is not a theocracy) and nations where Shariah law is adhered to is that Islamic cultures usually force not only their moral and behavioral code (i.e. criminal code) on all citizens regardless of religious beliefs, but also forces their theological code on everyone. In other words, everyone is expected to observe certain ritual practices of Islam, and is expected to pay respect to certain Islamic theological precepts.

Cain mentioned Oklahoma and the law they crafted to prohibit Shariah law from being recognized in the United States. The people of Oklahoma overwhelmingly approved this law, but a federal judge blocked implementation of the law.

Neil Cavuto asked Cain about these comments on his show on Fox News, and Cain further clarified that he expects any prospective cabinet members he might have to be fully dedicated to our country, as well as the principles espoused in the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution.  He allowed that there could be a a case where a Muslim might convince him that he (the Muslim) was more loyal to America and American principles than to Shariah law, but it sounds as if Cain doesn’t expect such a case to arise too often.  Based on the principles of Islam which are antithetical to American principles, I would have to agree.

Recognition of Islamic Shariah law has gained much ground in Europe, and with American liberals pushing for America to “be like Europe,” we would be foolish not to be alert to this problem. Shariah law is at odds with Western concepts of freedom, freedom of conscience, human rights, respect for innocent human life, and more. Honor killings of children and wives over real or perceived offenses is definitely incompatible with our values and our way of life.  Islam is spreading in Europe and throughout the world, and where ever it goes, freedom is trampled underfoot.

Western values, especially American values, are based on an entirely different foundation.  As seen in our founding document, the Declaration of Independence, our nation has from the beginning been founded on the Christian worldview and has recognized God as the source of all our liberties.  Our Constitution is founded on those same values, and as our founders have pointed out, these values are indispensable to the good health and maintenance of our republic:

The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity. – John Adams

The genuine source of correct republican principles is the Bible, particularly the New Testament or the Christian religion…and to this we owe our free constitutions of government. – Noah Webster

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice ? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. – President George Washington

We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion…Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. – John Adams

It is equally clear that the founders intended that our nation remain founded on Christian principles.

The real object of the First Amendment was not to countenance, much less to advance Mohammedanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity, but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects [denominations] and to prevent any national ecclesiastical patronage of the national government. – Justice Joseph Story / J. Story, III, Commentaries on the Constitution

Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers. – John Jay, First Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court

Further, the lessons of history teach us that for most of our history, our nation has been firmly seated on Christian principles:

The Christian religion is the religion of our country. From it are derived our prevalent notions of the character of God, the great moral governor of the universe. On its doctrines are founded the peculiarities of our free institutions. – foreword of McGuffey’s Reader, 1836 (McGuffey’s books were the mainstays of American education for generations)

If we pass beyond these matters to a view of American life, as expressed by its laws, its business, its customs, and its society, we find everywhere a clear recognition of the same truth. Among other matters note the following: The form of oath universally prevailing, concluding with an appeal to the Almighty; the custom of opening sessions of all deliberative bodies and most conventions with prayer; the prefatory words of all wills, “In the name of God, amen;” the laws respecting the observance of the Sabbath, with the general cessation of all secular business, and the closing of courts, legislatures, and other similar public assemblies on that day; the churches and church organizations which abound in every city, town, and hamlet; the multitude of charitable organizations existing everywhere under Christian auspices; the gigantic missionary associations, with general support, and aiming to establish Christian missions in every quarter of the globe. These and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation. – Holy Trinity Church v. United States, 1892

Our First Amendment guarantees freedom of religious expression in America; religious freedom has always been one of our most deeply held values.  Muslims and people of other faiths continue to be free to worship whomever in whatever manner they choose so long as that expression does not violate the criminal laws of our nation. Unfortunately, the honor killings and disrespect for freedom of religion common among serious adherents to Islam makes many tenets of Islam incompatible with American law and the American way of life.  It would be a mistake to take into the lawmaking and law-executing function of our government anyone who has a conflict with our values.

We are free to abandon our Christian heritage and embrace another worldview, even Islam.  But in doing so, we would be abandoning the basis for all our freedoms, for the unparalleled success and affluence we have enjoyed as a nation. We would be utterly foolish to do so.

Herman Cain understands that, unlike our current president who can’t even bring himself to properly utter our national motto.  We need a president like Herman Cain who understands our nation, our history, our heritage, what has made it great and what can make it great once again.

Herman Cain on Muslims in his administration

Herman Cain on Cavuto


Try us out at the new location: American Clarion!


37 Responses to “Herman Cain Wouldn’t Appoint Muslim Judges, Cabinet Members”

  1. Herman Cain understands what has made our country great ? I thought what made America great was tolerance of race and religion.

    It wasn’t too long ago that blacks like Mr Cain were thought to not have enough sense to vote and that their voting would be dangerous to America and thus they weren’t allowed to do so. If Mr Cain had been around one hundred years ago , he wouldn’t have let members of his own race be a part of his Cabinet if one goes by his logic.

  2. Unlike some of us who dwell obsessively on every bad thing our country has ever done, Mr. Cain (even though his ancestors are those who were mistreated) is able to see beyond the mistakes of the past and acknowledge all the unique goodness about America that has no parallel anywhere in the world.

    That’s one of the many reasons I get excited at the thought of his candidacy.

  3. For better or worse, Black people had to prove their worth. They have done so. Muslims, not so much. Islam dictates many behaviors, treatment of gays and women for example, that are in strict violation of US Constitution and law (How come the lefties miss this one, or is it just more convenient to ignore it [at their peril, methinks]). Islam also permits lying to Infidels (that’s me, and maybe you, too). So much for the oaths required of gov’t workers… A look at world history pretty much tells the story. “If it quacks like a duck…” To be fair, the invention of the “0″ was a one hit wonder, thanks very much, but they can keep my share of the rest. The US has done more for the whole world than the rest put together, by orders of magnitude. Let’s do what it takes to keep it that way. It’s called the FOOD CHAIN- big fish eat little fish- second biggest is just the first loser. Pick one, and consider your children and grandchildren as you do so…

  4. It sounds as he is repeating the same process that was used to mistreat his ancestors.

  5. It sounds as if Herman Cain isn’t gullible enough to believe the enslaving pap which is fed to black Americans by the Left today.

  6. Nontheless, Mr Cain chooses to exclude an entire culture just like his culture was once excluded. .The scary thing is that he doesn’t even realise that he is just repeating his own culture’s history..

  7. Nontheless, Mr Cain chooses to exclude an entire culture just like his culture was once excluded. .The scary thing is that he doesn’t even realise that he is just repeating what happened to his own culture.

  8. The uprsiing against Sharia law is just another way for conservatives to try to capture stupid voters and influence the uninformed. No foriegn laws will ever be allowed to exonerate people who violate criminal code in our country. That’s set in stone and if you know what you’re talking about, you wouldn’t be concerned. There are occasionally cases of tort law where all involved parties have asked for foriegn or religious laws to be used to arbitrate decisions that have wound up in the courts. These are private, contreractual matters between parties or domestic matters dealing with marital dispositions that are NOT in conflict with our laws. Get your facts straight before you denigrate 5 million law-abiding US citizens who have exactly the same civil rights as you do.
    Finally, for Hermain Cain, or anyone, to broadcast and then repeat that they would violate several articles and amendments of the constition is really stupid.

  9. Yes!! Talk about American Exceptionalism – Racial and religious tolerance is the most exceptional thing about our country.

  10. The same thing was said in Europe a few years ago…where Shariah Law is now beginning to reign.

    The Left in America (and worldwide) has shown great zeal for tearing down the Judeo-Christian moral code upon which our nation was founded and replacing it with relativistic nonsense that leaves us wide open to embrace things like Shariah.

    Liberals ignore what is already happening in Europe for only one of two possible reasons: (1) they are suicidally ignorant and blind, or (2) they are okay with this encroaching evil. I tend to believe #2, for it fits best with the Left’s general embrace of whatever is most evil at the moment.

    Finally, Herman Cain has said nothing about violating any part of the U.S. Constitution. Rather, his decision not to employ Muslims in his administration is an effort to protect the Constitution from those Muslims who have no respect for it or the values it represents.

  11. It is indeed. What a pity there isn’t more of it from the Left.

  12. It is indeed. What a pity there isn’t more of it from the Left.

  13. If Cain doesn’t want Muslims in his cabinet then I think it is safe to say he most likely WOULDN’T want or allow them holding any public office.either. THAT’S CONSTITUTIONAL ? LOL

    Your last paragraph caused me to sit down. You say Cain is trying to ‘protect the Constitution’ by not allowing members of a religion to hold office . But the heart of our Constitution and laws is that we don’t discriminate against things like race, gender and religion. You are way off on this one.

    Mr Cain is welcome to his beliefs, but you can’t ‘protect the Constitution’ by breaking one of it’s most cherished beliefs.

  14. Members of the president’s cabinet and certain other appointed positions serve at the pleasure of the president.

    Our constitution prohibits a religious test that would disqualify a person from holding elected office.

    The people who serve in a presidential administration do not run for office nor do they apply for a job in the administration like a regular job. The president picks who he wants to serve in his administration, subject to the advise and consent of the Senate. The Constitution does not prohibit a president from skipping over a person who might or might not be a good fit in the administration based on the fact that in the president’s estimation that person would NOT serve the interest of the United States or his administration well because that person was a devout Muslim–and Shariah makes it clear that human rights are a secondary or tertiary consideration, that honor killings are okay, that it’s okay to beat the crap out of your wife or otherwise treat her like property, it’s okay to lie to people who don’t believe In Islam, and so on.

    If a Muslim could demonstrate or had demonstrate that his Islamic beliefs were not so serious that those beliefs would come into conflict with the values of the Declaration or the Constitution, and the individual was otherwise highly qualified for the position, Cain would likely hire them–and said so. (I can think of one such Muslim person I know that fits this description…but only one)

    Some people take the constitutional prohibition against a religious test to the absurd conclusion that even a voter cannot weigh the religion of the candidate and vote accordingly. In addition to flying in the face of the good counsel of Chief Justice John Jay (who ought to know what he’s talking about), such nonsense ignores the fact that the constitution is prohibiting an institutional barrier on the basis of religion, not the good judgment of a president or a voter. (Of course, the real reason some people promote such absurd conclusions is because they want to deceive Christian voters into abandoning what should be their #1 criteria for selecting a candidate: does the candidate reflect Christian values?

    A person is entitled to believe whatever they want in America. They are also entitled to express their religion freely…so long as that expression does not cause harm to the United States or a U.S. citizen (e.g. some of the Shariah tenets I mentioned above).

    Beliefs and actions are two different things. If the president has reason to believe that a potential administration official’s beliefs will translate themselves into actions that will be harmful to the US or US citizens, he has an obligation to NOT consider that person for his administration.

    Our freedom of religion and prohibition of an official religious test does not obligate us to be a nation of suicidal morons.

  15. Agree with much of what you say, but Cain is not excluding just individuals. He is excluding an entire religion. Seems like to do that,he is going against one of the Constitutions main ‘ principles ‘ which is in America we don’t exclude whole classes of people.

    Business owners also don’t hire people that are running for office and they are private employees picked by him. That business owner can’t discrimminate against an entire race either. I guess Cain legally has the right not to appoint members of an entire religion to his cabinet if he were President, but I still say that excluding an entire race for whatever reason , is against constitutional principle. Sorry

  16. One who must uphold the Constitution cannot do so by employing those who are forbidden from doing so. Islam does exactly that, (ask your local middle eastern gay or woman or rape victim) as well as permitting Muslims to lie to Infidels (me & maybe you). So much for US oaths of office. This crap has no place anywhere near US gov’t or law, nor should it be tolerated in our society. The greatest nation in the history of the world was not founded or built on lies. Case closed.

  17. My Muslim friends believe that the Koran tells them it is allowable to lie under ONLY extreme conditions like if your life is being directly threatened. Like Christians interpret the Bible differently, you and Cain are assuming that all Muslims are radicals demanding
    Sharia Law. You need to bone up or learn more about how the Muslims study and interpret the Koran differently.

    There are many Muslims in the U.S. who don’t want Sharia law in America. I don’t think that people like you who most likely have never read the whole Koran or studied it in any depth should claim to have some inner knowledge that all Muslims can’t follow the Constitution because of their faith. That isn’t true.

  18. Oh I know there are Muslims who, like Christians, “interpret” their holy book differently.

    The scary part is, those who “interpret” the Quran in the most contextual manner (how anyone should read any document) are the ones who want to impose Shariah on the entire world. In Christianity, it is the heretics who are most comfortable with evil; in Islam it is the orthodox who are most comfortable with evil.

    I’ve read figures that estimate the U.S. Muslim population at anything from 1.3 million to 7 million. If we take the middle and go 3.5 million, and assume that only 10% of that 3.5 million is of the serious Quran-believing variety, that is still 350,000 people within our own borders who loathe our way of life. Who are they backed up by? Pew claims about 1.5 billion for the world Muslim population, and if you assume the same 10% who take Islamic teachings about the dominion of Islam and how to treat infidels seriously, that’s 150 million hostile Muslims backing up 350,000 hostile Muslims within our own borders.

    Until a whoooole lot of moderate Mustlims start standing up and denouncing the violence preached by the mullahs and practiced by too many of the adherents, trust of Muslims is going to remain very low–for good reason.

  19. I actually agree with what you have said. Cain even says there might be one or so Muslims in America who puts American law above Sharia, but that he doubts that is the case considering what he says he knows about Islam. Then when asked if he would appoint a Muslim, he said ‘ I will not’ so it is obvious that he doesn’t believe there is a single Muslim in America that can be trusted since he adamantly states he wouldn’t appoint a one of them.

    That is my point in that it is exactly what happened to his own race, where many Americans once felt not a single black should have the right to vote or sit at a lunch counter with whites. Cain’s view on Muslims and the view of those who once maligned his own race are inherently discriminatory and racist because these views malign an entire group of people as identical rather than considering each person’s views individually, which I thought was a basic belief of our country- ..

  20. OH HEAVENS NO! WE CAN’T HAVE ONE OF THEM TERRORIST FOLK AS A JUDGE. THEY’S ALL MESSED UP IN THE HEAD BY THEY’S RELIGION THAT IS DIFFERENT THAN MINE. Can we grow up children, and just accept the fact that not everyone has the same religion as us and that this thing called “America” (which isn’t mentioned in the bible, at least not in my copy) isn’t as important as everyone likes to think?

  21. Unlike Muslims, black Americans have never had a written, codified, organized philosophy of their own which dictated any specific set of behaviors (e.g. that indicated they were less intelligent than whites, that they were less able or willing to work hard, that they were less human, that they were less worthy of the same rights of anyone else–just to cite a few of the reasons people have given for discriminating against black Americans). Such excuses were just a bunch of made up bunk, and even if they had been true, there was no guiding organized philosophy that would ensure such behavior would be frequently or consistently seen in the black community, let alone perpetuated generation to generation.

    That is not the case with Islam. Since the 7th Century the philosophy of Islam, taught by the imams and codified in the Quran and Hadith, has been breeding violence, oppression and disregard for human rights of those who do not adhere to it.

    So you see, Cain has a documented and historical basis for being highly suspicious of Muslims and their loyalty to American principles. There was no such basis for the imagination-fueled bigotry of white racists of the past.

    This comparison is as fallacious as the comparison of bigotry against blacks versus the rejection of homosexual behavior: one is founded on an illogical and illegitimate basis (the color of a person’s skin) that is morally neutral and innate, where the other is founded on the observable and documented actions. It’s an innate physical quality versus a behavior. Muslims can believe whatever they want, but when those beliefs are translated into airliners crashing into skyscrapers or blowing up buses, we cross the boundary into the territory of legitimate judgment and discretion. Skin pigmentation and beliefs don’t kill people; actions do, and history will tell you that virtually every terrorist attack on the U.S. in the last 30 years has been perpetrated by adherents of Islam.

  22. Are you okay with a religion which says it is moral and acceptable to subjugate or kill those who don’t follow your religion, which says it’s okay to kill your wife and children if they dishonor you, which says your religion must have complete supremacy in the world?

    Are you okay with such a religion? Does such a religion conflict at all with American values?

  23. I see you are back on the argument that you can’t make an analogy or comparison between a ‘belief’ like Islam and ‘skin’ color , because one is an inherent trait( being black ) and the other( Islam ) is a chosen belief. Yeah, well okay one is inherent and one isn’t.

    If I walk out my door and see ten blacks sitting together and also see ten Christians sitting together and say that none of either group can serve in my cabinet, then it doesn’t matter that one group is inherently black and the other group ,being Christians, is a choice, because I have just demonized all these people because they are in a specifc group. That is the basis for group discrimination

  24. Yes, I’m back on that argument because it remains valid and relevant to the issue at hand.

    If 19 of 19 terrorists who hijacked airplanes and flew then into things had been Christians who did it in the name of Jesus, you’d have a pretty good case for not wanting Christians in your administration. Take that and expand it to the number of terrorist acts committed against the United States over the last 30 years, and if virtually every one of them had been perpetrated by a Christian in the name of Jesus Christ, you’d have an even better case for not wanting any Christians in your administration.

    The thing is, this scenario is true…only of Muslims, not Christians.

    Again, what’s the behavior?

  25. Looping in all Islam with a few EXTREME SECTS is like saying that all Christians are Mormons. Such simplifications are what get us into trouble in the first place. To answer your question, no, I’m not okay with a SECT of a religion that says it is moral to kill those who don’t practice the same faith. Of the nearly 2 Billion Islamic people out there, only a very small percentage practice a violent sect of the faith. I can see why some would though, with the gross simplifications you seem to make.

  26. Clearly sir you are a moron… And I love you for it

  27. Catholism is far more destructive than any other religion that has ever existed, Catholics kill everyone because they were told they were special.

  28. What “sect” do these terrorists, wife beaters, child abusers and people contemptuous of the freedom of others belong? Are they confined to the Shia? Sunni?

    Yet again I will ask: of the 19 terrorists who hijacked civilian airliners on 911, how many were Muslim?

    Of all the terrorist acts committed against America in the last 30 years, how many were committed by Muslims in the name of Allah? How many were committed by Christians in the name of Jesus Christ? How many by Buddhists in the name of Buddha?

  29. Really? Why don’t you name some Catholics who have killed others in the name of Christ in, oh, say the last 10 years? The last 100? Buehler? Buehler?

  30. You can say all day long that you’d like to discriminate against someone because of their religion, but the fact is, it doesn’t matter what you think, or which passages of their holy scriptures you want to quote, you can’t freakin’ do it and Herman Cain has basically disqualified himself from being president (although I hope he gets nominated because Obama’s relection would be easy) I say this because, having made an open threat to the constitution, it just doesn’t seem that enough Americans would want him in office to get him anywhere near the White House.
    I’ll also point out that Christianity calls for the destruction of all Jews who don’t return to Israel for the return of Jesus. But that’s not violent or in conflict with the constitution, is it? To try to hijack me to Israel when I’m perfectly happy living here in Missouri? No one’s done this lately but they’re all saying that the signs are here…
    I have tons of Christian friends, no one I know takes this stuff seriously – BUT radical fundamentalist troglodytes like Herman Cain and Mike Huckabee will talk openly about it.
    Where do we come up with these freaks?

  31. You can say all day long that you’d like to discriminate against someone because of their religion, but the fact is, it doesn’t matter what you think, or which passages of their holy scriptures you want to quote, you can’t freakin’ do it and Herman Cain has basically disqualified himself from being president (although I hope he gets nominated because Obama’s relection would be easy) I say this because, having made an open threat to the constitution, it just doesn’t seem that enough Americans would want him in office to get him anywhere near the White House.
    I’ll also point out that Christianity calls for the destruction of all Jews who don’t return to Israel for the return of Jesus. But that’s not violent or in conflict with the constitution, is it? To try to hijack me to Israel when I’m perfectly happy living here in Missouri? No one’s done this lately but they’re all saying that the signs are here…
    I have tons of Christian friends, no one I know takes this stuff seriously – BUT radical fundamentalist troglodytes like Herman Cain and Mike Huckabee will talk openly about it.
    Where do we come up with these freaks?

  32. Members of the president’s cabinet serve at his pleasure. He doesn’t have to give a reason for hiring them, or for firing them. And if he has good reason to think they cannot uphold the ideals of our country, he SHOULDN’T hire them as members of his cabinet. Don’t allow multicultural nonsense to make you suicidal.

    And no, Christianity does NOT anywhere call for the destruction of a single Jew, much less all Jews for any reason whatsoever.

    You desperately need to educate yourself before you open your mouth and prove to the world that you don’t have a clue concerning what you’re talking about.

  33. Members of the president’s cabinet serve at his pleasure. He doesn’t have to give a reason for hiring them, or for firing them. And if he has good reason to think they cannot uphold the ideals of our country, he SHOULDN’T hire them as members of his cabinet. Don’t allow multicultural nonsense to make you suicidal.

    And no, Christianity does NOT anywhere call for the destruction of a single Jew, much less all Jews for any reason whatsoever.

    You desperately need to educate yourself before you open your mouth and prove to the world that you don’t have a clue concerning what you’re talking about.

  34. You’re right. The Crusades weren’t about that at all. YOU’RE DUMB!

  35. I never claimed that “all Muslims are Jihadists.” Nowhere will you find that I have ever said that. Here is what I said:

    et again I will ask: of the 19 terrorists who hijacked civilian airliners on 911, how many were Muslim?

    Of all the terrorist acts committed against America in the last 30 years, how many were committed by Muslims in the name of Allah? How many were committed by Christians in the name of Jesus Christ? How many by Buddhists in the name of Buddha?

    Out of that, you found one nut job (Timothy McVeigh) who happens to be Catholic (but who did not commit his acts in the name of Jehovah, Jesus Christ, the Pope or anyone else in Christendom) who committed a terrorist act in contradiction to the moral principles taught by the Bible.

    Marvelous job of proving my point! Thank you!

  36. It seems you have a deficiency in either integrity or cognitive function.

    I believe I made it abundantly clear to any reasonable person that I was not talking about belief but about the behavior.

    As discussed in this and other threads, ideas have consequences, and those consequences are seen when some individuals who adhere to them take those beliefs to their logical conclusion.

    Not all adherents of a given religion, philosophy or worldview will live out the teachings and precepts of that philosophy (which is why some Christians commit immoral acts, and why some atheists behave as if human life really were valuable). However, a certain percentage of any belief system will take those beliefs seriously enough that they will actually attempt to live them out.

    We’ve seen such serious people live out the assumptions of atheism, evolution and humanism (Stalin, Lenin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao, and many others). We’ve also seen such serious people live out the assumptions of the religion of Islam (19 of them did on 911, and we saw the results).

    What percentage of a given belief system will actually take those beliefs so seriously that they will dedicate their lives to living them out? We cannot know. Which individuals among a given belief system will actually take those beliefs so seriously that they will dedicate their lives to living them out? We cannot know.

    But obviously, as you pointed out with the number of Christians who have committed acts of terrorism against the United States in the name of Jesus Christ in the last 30 years (versus the number of such acts committed by Muslims), we can make a pretty good guess concerning the ideological source of violence and oppression, and be extremely careful about allowing such radical ideas to hold sway within our government.