A few months ago, Republican presidential candidate and Tea Party favorite Herman Cain stated that he would not be comfortable appointing a Muslim in his cabinet or as a federal judge. He cited the supposed danger of spreading Sharia or Islamic law and used Oklahoma as an example. Talking to Glenn Beck, Cain explains that a Muslim could serve in his administration–but he or she would have to prove their loyalty to the Constitution. Cain would not impose this presumption of disloyalty on a member of any other religion. Despite this clear bigotry, Republicans do not feel that Cain's statements are disqualifying. Watch:
Beck: You said you would not appoint a Muslim to anybody in your administration.
Cain: The exact language was when I was asked, “would you be comfortable with a Muslim in your cabinet?” And I said, “No, I would not be comfortable.” I didn’t say I wouldn’t appoint one because if they can prove to me that they’re putting the Constitution of the United States first, then they would be a candidate just like everybody else. My entire career, I’ve hired good people, great people, regardless of their religious orientation.
Beck: So wait a minute. Are you saying that Muslims have to prove their, that there has to be some loyalty proof?
Cain: Yes, to the Constitution of the United States of America.
Beck: Would you do that to a Catholic or would you do that to a Mormon?
Cain: Nope, I wouldn’t. Because there is a greater dangerous part of the Muslim faith than there is in these other religions. I know that there are some Muslims who talk about, “but we are a peaceful religion.” And I’m sure that there are some peace-loving Muslims. (h/t: NewsOne)