Cain Apologizes for Anti-Muslim Remarks


Herman Cain apologized — kinda — for saying that communities should be allowed to prevent mosques from being built. After meeting with some Muslim leaders he issued the following statement:

While I stand by my opposition to the interference of Shariah law into the American legal system, I remain humble and contrite for any statements I have made that might have caused offense to Muslim Americans and their friends. I am truly sorry for comments that may have betrayed my commitment to the U.S. Constitution and the freedom of religion guaranteed by it. Muslims, like all Americans, have the right to practice their faith freely and peacefully.


Let me translate that: “While I’m still deluded enough to believe that Muslims are on the verge of taking over the United States, imposing Sharia law on all Americans and beheading Christians en masse, my advisers have finally convinced me after weeks of contradicting myself while pretending not to be an ignorant bigot that I had better make a statement that puts the issue to rest.”

I don’t buy it for a second. It’s not as if the right of Muslims under the First Amendment were ever in doubt in the first place. He doesn’t have any commitment to the U.S. Constitution because he doesn’t have the first clue what it says — remember, this is the guy who said that the federal government has no jurisdiction over bankruptcy laws when, in fact, that is one of the few specific powers given to Congress in the Constitution. For demagogues like Cain, the Constitution is the equivalent of the American flag — a fetish object, not a real thing. If Cain had any commitment to the Constitution in the first place he would never have claimed that the First Amendment didn’t protect the right of Muslims to build mosques.

Comments

  1. Abby Normal says

    I am truly sorry for comments that may have betrayed my commitment to the U.S. Constitution and the freedom of religion guaranteed by it.

    Interesting use of “betray.” Usually in this context “betray” means to reveal one’s true intentions, as in “He tried to play it cool, but a tick of his eye betrayed his anxiety.” So one could interpret this as saying he’s sorry being a good patriot got him in trouble. I wonder if that was intentional.

  2. pHred says

    Good grief, you would have to mention the terms fetish object and American flag here – now I have a mental image of Cain wearing Constitution Speedos – ICK ICK ICK!

    During one of the whole worship the flag phases that this country goes through I got in an argument with a flag fetishist – burning the flag was a terrible crime against humanity but his (older middle age overweight white male) wearing tight American flag Speedos was okay ???? I know which one I consider a higher abuse of a symbol. Urgh.

  3. Chiroptera says

    For demagogues like Cain, the Constitution is the equivalent of the American flag — a fetish object, not a real thing.

    The same can be said about the Bible. For most of them anyway.

  4. Dennis N says

    I really want to give him credit for the apology; it seems the criticisms actually made it into his head in a way he understands. It’s not a “I’m sorry if you were offended…” That said, I think he still wishes the government were wholly Christian.

  5. Chiroptera says

    Dennis N: It’s not a “I’m sorry if you were offended…”

    I was struck by that, too. It is nice to see someone in that corner actually apologize for an error, especially when they really were in error.

  6. MIchael Heath says

    Dennis N:

    I really want to give him credit for the apology; it seems the criticisms actually made it into his head in a way he understands. It’s not a “I’m sorry if you were offended…” That said, I think he still wishes the government were wholly Christian.

    I don’t see it that way at all. I perceive him doing exactly what Ed described.

    True contrition would have him explicitly pointing out that the Constitution explicitly protects Muslims’ individual rights to build and congregate in a Mosque. Mr. Cain has created a false conflation that Islam enjoins church and state which results in our numerated 1st Amendment protections not applying to Muslims. He doesn’t back away from this conflation in this statement which is the dominant defect in his past argument.

    Therefore we have no idea exactly what he’s apologizing about. So from my perspective this is a particularly disingenuous version of the “I’m sorry if you were offended” argument.

  7. Phillip IV says

    I remain humble

    Sorry, Herman, but that ship has sailed, lost its way, collided with an iceberg, broken in two parts and exploded.

    That moment when you said you felt suitable to be US President? That was the clincher. Humility would have made you realize, at that very moment, that if you take a list of people named Herman and rank them by suitability for the presidency, your name ends up just above ‘Hermann Göring’ and just below ‘Herman Munster’.

  8. The Very Reverend Battleaxe of Knowledge says

    For demagogues like Cain, the Constitution is the equivalent of the American flag — a fetish object, not a real thing.

    CON’STUSH’N?!! THAT IS WORSHIP WORD!! YANG WORSHIP WORD!! YOU WILL NOT SAY IT!!

  9. Dennis N says

    True contrition would have him explicitly pointing out that the Constitution explicitly protects Muslims’ individual rights to build and congregate in a Mosque.

    I think if you look at it in the context of what he is able to understand, it was the upper limits of what we could expect. He’s shown that he doesn’t understand the Constitution well enough to make that statement.

    Muslims, like all Americans, have the right to practice their faith freely and peacefully.

    I think taking this at face-value, leads the obvious conclusion that Muslims have the right to build mosques. As far as I know, he hasn’t “clarified” his remarks yet, but I am sure he will be on Bryan Fischer or Tony Perkins’ show in the coming weeks, where we’ll get the unvarnished truth either way.

  10. pHred says

    I am confused as to exactly how …

    “I remain humble and contrite for any statements I have made that might have caused offense”

    is really any different than the more typical wording of

    “I am sorry if you were offended”

    If you change tense that makes it a better apology ?

  11. Phillip IV says

    @ pHred:

    It’s not the tense, it’s the agency. “I made remarks that might have caused offense” leaves the offense potential, but still admits that it would have been the remarks that caused it. “I’m sorry if you were offended” is already a bit weaker, because it leaves open whether the potential offense is attributable to the remarks or the recipient. “I’m sorry that you chose to be offended” is the most disingenuous version, putting the blame squarely on the listener, rather than the speaker. The honest version would be “I apologize that (or if) I offended you”, but you hardly ever hear that one.

Leave a Reply