Al-Jazeerah History  
	 
	
	
	Archives  
	 
	
	
	Mission & Name   
	 
	
	
	
	Conflict Terminology   
	 
	
	Editorials  
	 
	
	
	
	
	Gaza Holocaust   
	 
	
	Gulf War   
	 
	
	Isdood  
	 
	
	Islam   
	 
	
	News   
	 
	
	
	News Photos 
	  
	 
	
	
	Opinion 
	
	
	Editorials  
	 
	
	
	
	US Foreign Policy (Dr. El-Najjar's Articles)   
	 
	
	www.aljazeerah.info
	  
      
       
      
        
        
     | 
     | 
    
     
	Republican Presidential Debate:  
	Stealth Agenda of Gingrich and Cain  
	By Mirza A Beg 
	Al-Jazeerah, CCUN, June 27, 2011 
	   The Republican debate of June 13th moderated by John King of CNN 
	was generally a collegial affair. It was essentially a “Knock Obama” rally, 
	with understated minor differences among the candidates.   Except, 
	when CNN moderator John King asked former Godfather Pizza magnate, Harman 
	Cain, “You recently said you would not appoint a Muslim to your cabinet and 
	you kind of backed off a little bit and said you would first want to know if 
	they’re committed to the Constitution. You expressed concern that, quote, “a 
	lot of Muslims are not totally dedicated to this country.” Are 
	American-Muslims as a group less committed to the Constitution than, say, 
	Christians or Jews?”   Cain backpedaled a bit and said,” I would not 
	be comfortable because you have peaceful Muslims and then you have militant 
	Muslims, those that are trying to kill us. And so, when I said I wouldn’t be 
	comfortable, I was thinking about the ones that are trying to kill us, 
	number one. Secondly, yes, I do not believe in Sharia law in American 
	courts. I believe in American laws in American courts, period. There have 
	been instances –“   John King turned to other candidates and asked 
	their views on the subject. Some candidates were uncomfortable, but not 
	former speaker of the House,    Newt Gingrich. Trying to resuscitate 
	his dying campaign, stridently he said, “Now, I just want to go out on a 
	limb here. I’m in favor of saying to people, if you’re not prepared to be 
	loyal to the United States, you will not serve in my administration, 
	period.” He added “We did this—we did this in dealing with the Nazis and we 
	did this in dealing with the communists. And it was controversial both 
	times, and both times we discovered after a while, you know, there are some 
	genuinely bad people who would like to infiltrate our country. And we have 
	got to have the guts to stand up and say no.”   For those who do not 
	remember, Gingrich was approvingly referring to the Red baiting campaign in 
	early 1950s by the Republican senator Joseph McCarthy of Wisconsin. It has 
	been widely condemned and it lives in infamy as McCarthyism.   Yes, a 
	few Muslim citizens have engaged in terrorism against the US, but an 
	overwhelming majority of Muslims are productive and loyal citizens. It is no 
	secret that Muslim bashing is popular among some in the Republican Party. 
	They conveniently forget that some of the plots were thwarted by Muslims 
	contacting the police.     Sadly not one candidate on the podium 
	admonished Cain and Gingrich, as they would have, if such a sweeping 
	statement was made to malign other minorities such as Jews or Blacks. Even 
	sadder yet, it did not elicit much comment in the popular media either.   
	Not too long ago some Republicans did stand up to challenge such remarks, 
	but the party has changed.    In 2007 Republican debates, while others 
	remained quiet, John McCain condemned Mitt Romney’s remark that he will not 
	appoint any Muslim to his cabinet. McCain said, “I’m proud of the Muslims 
	who are currently serving in the United States armed forces and my sense is 
	that if they can serve in that manner, they can serve in any position of 
	responsibility in America.”     In December 2002, an intemperate 
	remark by Senator Trent Lott cost him the leadership of the Republican Party 
	in the Senate. Celebrating the 100th birthday of South Carolina Senator 
	Strom Thurmond, Senator Trent Lott, the Republican leader in the Senate 
	said, “When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We’re proud 
	of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn’t 
	have had all these problems over the years, either.”   Those remarks 
	were construed as racist, because in 1948 Strom Thurmond broke with the 
	Democratic Party on the issue of enforcement of civil rights legislation and 
	ran for the Presidency as a State’s Rights Party candidate.    The US 
	Constitution is secular. Thankfully our laws are not based on religious 
	preference. Although when not in conflict  with the civil laws, in some 
	jurisdictions it has accommodated people, who by mutual agreement wanted 
	their personal disputes settled by arbitration by religious tribunal. Courts 
	have enforced the result of such arbitration in case of Jewish, Mormon and 
	other religions as in contract law.    The spurious injection of Sharia 
	in the debate is a “Red Herring” to divert attention and garner cheap 
	popularity from the considerable weight of the xenophobic wing of the 
	Republican Party.  There is no monolithic Sharia law. These laws were 
	developed by different schools of thoughts in the 9th century to check the 
	creeping autocracy of the rulers. They are open to debate, and have evolved 
	on diverse lines through the ages.    The irony is that most rightwing 
	Republicans are opposed to the idea of separation of “Church and State” 
	notwithstanding the first amendment. That is why Rev. Pat Robertson found so 
	much traction in the Republican primaries in the 1980s. Rev. Charles Kimball 
	writes in his book, “When Religion Becomes Lethal “ that Ralph Reed, the 
	head of the Christian Coalition, famously referred to the practice of 
	running “stealth candidates” where the radical agenda would be hidden from 
	voters by focusing on hot button issues such as abortion or homosexuality. 
	By the time the voters knew what victorious candidate really advocated, they 
	would not know what hit them.    Some of the 2012 Republican aspirants 
	are not much different. Some want the United States to be under the Biblical 
	laws, while others in an effort to dupe them are stealthily raising a bogus 
	threat from the Sharia laws. To protect all, multi-religious as well as 
	irreligious citizens, would it not be better to, honestly adhere to the 
	principle of “Separation of Church and State”, no lying, no ifs and no buts? 
	  Instead of the loyalty test for ordinary law abiding citizens of any 
	faith or no faith, the electorate should reject stealth candidates whose 
	support the US Constitution is dubious. If elected they would have to take 
	the oath of office with fingers crossed.  
	   Mirza A. Beg can be contacted at
	mab64@yahoo.com  
	or at 
	http://mirzasmusings.blogspot.com/
  
       
       | 
     | 
     
      
      
      
      
     |