Over at Outside The Beltway, Doug Mataconis has declared that Herman Cain has committed a mortal sin and said he would be very reluctant to appoint any Muslims to his Cabinet. More specifically, he would require an extra oath of loyalty before he’d appoint them.
On the surface, Mataconis has a point. That extra oath would be utterly pointless. Let’s take the case of Major Nidal Hassan, the Fort Hood shooter. When he committed treason when he killed 13 of his fellow soldiers and wounded another 32. When he did that, he violated both his oath as an officer in the United States Army and his Hippocratic Oath as a doctor. Both were apparently inferior to his duty as a Muslim to wage jihad against the infidels. Does anyone think that a third oath would have checked him?
Further, in radical Islam, there’s a whole tenet that says that it is OK to lie and deceive the unbelievers in order to protect and promote Islam. Given that, another oath — or a thousand oaths — wouldn’t achieve a damned thing.
However, in Cain’s defense, he’s raising a point that ought to be addressed — the loyalties that radical Muslims hold that transcend our laws, our ways, and even our nation. That is a very serious danger. Perhaps not at the level of presidential appointments, but in some very real, very dangerous senses.
For example, the above-mentioned case of Major Hassan.
Or, perhaps, the case of FBI Special Agent Gamal Abdel-Hafiz, who has stated that he cannot in good conscience investigate his fellow Muslims.
Or, in a sign that the problem of radical Islam is far from just a US concern, this report out of Londonistan.
The danger here isn’t one that Cain and his oath would address. In Hassan’s case, a lot of people saw danger signs that he was turning towards radical Islam. In Agent Abdel-Hafiz’s case, there was conflict over how to handle his refusal. And in London, it is being reported that actual examples of radical Islam are being covered up.
In each case, the concern is “political correctness.” The fear of being called a racist (which shows how knee-jerk the term has become, as “Muslim” is hardly a race) and a bigot and prejudiced and hateful and discriminatory and… well, all those things that liberals like tossing around. (And FASCISTS, too! Forgot that one!) The warning signs are there, they are being observed — but the observers are too frightened to act or speak out.
And they’re not afraid of the radical Muslims, but their own fellows who offer them no physical danger, but threaten them in abstract ways.
As I said at the outset, Cain’s proposal is fundamentally absurd. But it does raise some very valuable points that we need to discuss.
After all, we wouldn’t want Attorney General Eric Holder to call us “cowards” for not having these discussions, would we?