: | SPECIAL NOTE : Please feel free to share and publish any of my articles, and kindly credit the author, thank you.

PROFILES - Google-12 Million | Personal | Interfaith Speaker : OldNew | Muslim Speaker : OldNew | Motivational Speaker | CV

Wednesday, December 7, 2011

Texas Faith: Should sexual immorality disqualify an otherwise capable candidate?

Two new paradigms including the integrity test for the candidate are explored, Media has completely missed out on this one. Cain is history, he had a chance for a graceful comeback, he blew it. The integrity test is embedded in our pledge of Allegiance and I seriously doubt if any one of the candidates will pass the test. Should we take a chance with Gingrich to betray another vow? 

Morality brigade: Cain and Gingrich
Should this moral standard, and the public attention that goes along with it, disqualify an otherwise capable candidate from holding office? Is the nation better off because of it? Ten Texas Faith Panelist at Dallas Morning News respond including;

MIKE GHOUSE, President, Foundation for Pluralism, Dallas

The office of the President is about trust and we the people of the United States of America, expect the trustee to tell the truth and nothing but the truth.

A person’s character is judged by how he/she acts or reacts to incidents in life. We all have the capability to mess up the intricately held web of life, or strengthen it in building a cohesive society for the good of every American.   The decisions a President makes in critical moments are an extension of his or her personality and can ruin the lives of millions of people who were merely a strand in the web.  Each candidate has to pass the tests of integrity for us to place our trust in him or her. 

Herman Cain is history now. His arrogance got him into the corner and left him with no choice but to suspend the campaign.  Had he gracefully resigned at the very beginning of the process and announced that he will prove his innocence, he would have had a big window to come back at least on a VP ticket, he blew it.

I hope he is innocent; however I trust the claims of the women, shame on those men for belittling a woman’s testimony and finding faults with her instead of him, as though it would absolve him.  It also reflects poorly on the Republican Party for not asking him to resign earlier on.

Newt Gingrich probably will not pass the integrity test either; the political ad “Serial hypocrite” by Ron Paul raises millions of questions about him. Do we need to compel him to acknowledge those nefarious dealings or would he volunteer the truth.  

One of them allegedly broke the wedding vows, the other admitted it. Now, they may have broken their pledge to the nation and the media is yet to explore it. With one mouth they pledge, “… one nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all.” And with the other, one would not hire a fellow Muslim American in his cabinet and other would make the lives of the fellow Americans difficult because they believe in a different faith or have a different orientation. What does indivisible, liberty and justice mean to these men?

Should we give them a chance to betray another vow? “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."  

A new paradigm of disclosure needs to emerge. Is it difficult for the candidate to lay everything on the table at the announcement of one’s candidacy? The fear is legitimate, if the candidate is aware and did not disclose, or was not aware of his own wrong doing, and then do we need to invest our trust in him or her? In the land of plenty, we have a lot more qualified candidates than we can imagine, but they don’t come forward for the scrutiny and disclosure. We need one candidate to take that first step and disclose everything and lose it out, it will open us to discuss that issue and perhaps a decade later our societies will value integrity and give birth to new qualifications to accommodate the Cains and Gingrichs.

 Mike Ghouse is committed to building a cohesive America and offers pluralistic solutions on issues of the day to the media and the public. He is a speaker thinker and a writer on the topics of pluralism, cohesive societies, Politics, Islam, interfaith, India and Peace. Over a thousand articles have been published on the topics and two of his books are poised to be released on Pluralism and Islam. Mike's work is reflected in 4 website's and 27 Blogs indexed at http://www.mikeghouse.net/ and you can find all of his current articles at www.TheGhousediary.com


  1. Voting for him is like bringing back a soul of Bush Jr in the body of Newt!