The problem is, it isn't testable by us, and it could involve a fatal outcome for the US, especially when Muslims become a more significant percentage of residents, say in 2050+.

It is already well-established that Muslims will demand concessions to their religion by our government (or any government), witness Sweden's problems, Canada's problems, and the UK, where they demonstrate for Sharia Law to be imposed, and for separate schooling.

The line must be drawn clearly and unambiguously--not in the US!

Your example of Catholicism is false, simply because Catholicism does not contain jihadism or anything like it, nor does it have something like Sharia Law.

I would think that any normal person would be aware of the stark evils around the world perpetrated by Muslims in the name of Muhammad, especially to Jews and Christians. Perhaps you do not read your newspapers or watch TV. To excuse their horrors on some count or another is mind-boggling, witness the current example in the Sudan.

There is no test that would prove the loyalty of a Muslim to the US over Islam. In fact, the instructions given in the Haddith for Muslims living in a foreign country say that Muslims are allowed to conform to the society they are in, until they are called by their Islamic leaders to perform whatever is asked in the name of Muhammad.

There is a test of whether a Muslim follows his religion's teachings--he performs jihad. If he renounces jihad, the question is can he be believed in the face of Koranic instructions to lie to, cheat, and steal from, or even kill, unbelievers. Then too, in that event, he is no longer a true Muslim, and can face the extreme penalty for recidivism--death, which has occurred in the US.

Until he does perform some kind of jihad, he is suspect, and should not be accorded access to sensitive information or allowed to make US government decisions. After he has performed jihadist acts on us, he is a criminal, and should be dealt with harshly.

If this be bigotry, so be it. Blame the media, The Koran, The Haddith, countless Fatwas, and Sharia Law.

The issue is not race. It is Islam.

This means the issue is religious bigotry rather than racism, not a big step up. I hope I am reading you wrong.

The Bush Admin launched a "crusade" (their word)... Why would a Muslim sign onto that?

The fact that Mitt rules out a "National Security" Cabinet position for a Muslim tells us all that he is totally tone deaf to the middle east (keep in mind, his statement said it would not get him any "American" votes, not enuf Muslims in America) NEVER MIND that the entire muslim world thinks all we want is their oil... and a qualified Muslim could assuage their doubts...

This election is about what is best for America... not Mitt. But he just wants to be President, not neccessarily a good president.

tom

“…based on the numbers of American Muslims [as a percentage] in our population, I cannot see that a cabinet position would be justified. But of course, I would imagine that Muslims could serve at lower levels of my administration.”

It's not 100% clear from just that snip, but it appears that he is not simply refusing to guarantee a slot for a Muslim on his (prospective) cabinet - a perfectly reasonable statement - but that he is actively refusing to consider a Muslim for any cabinet position, regardless of their qualifications, purely because of their faith.

While I also disagree with Ijaz' position that improving US-Islamic relations & understanding requires a Muslim on the Cabinet, it is a rather morally indefensible piece of bigotry on Romney's part.

Of course, that's exactly what plays well with the GOP base these days, so I'm sure it will only go down in the 'plus' column for the primaries.

Since being a Muslim is a faith, it can be any ethnicicity (ie black, white, persian, arab, chinese, etc).

So if anyone (Romney or Hillary) appoints a white-Muslim person to their cabinet does it count? Or does it have to be a tie-dyed arab Muslim (the stereotypical version everyone expects)?

Appointing a muslim-chinese (for example) to the post, what kind of name-calling would commence from that choice? (ie like Rice is an oreo-cookie, black on the outside, white on the inside).

Romney's answer, however, seems to imply that Muslims would be welcome only "at lower levels." IOW, *he* seems to've taken it the way I initially did.

Hopefully, his campaign will announce that they're not in fact ruling out Muslim cabinet officers.

Americans of the Islamic faith in his cabinet as advisers on national security matters

Not as National Security Advisor or Homeland Security Advisor (posts which already exist) but, apparently, additional Cabinet-level advisors.