Herman Cain, a Republican presidential candidate, says Americans have the right to ban Muslims from building mosques.
“They have the right to do that,” Cain said on Fox News Sunday, expressing his concerns with Sharia law. “I’m willing to take a harder look at people that might be terrorists.”
Cain’s comments were in reference to a Tennessee town that is attempting to ban a mosque in its community. “That’s not discriminating based upon their particular religion,” he said. “There is an aspect of them building that mosque that doesn’t get talked about. And the people in the community know what it is and they’re talking about it.”
“Our Constitution guarantees the separation of church and state,” Cain said. “Islam combines church and state. They’re using the church part of our First Amendment to infuse their morals in that community, and the people in the community do not like it.”
Do the editors of National Review have the courage to call this guy out now?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMaybe if a mosque started referring to itself as literally "an establishment of religion" more people would see the problem with Cain's statement...
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAnd people wonder why conservatism is considered a dead letter by intelligent people.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseCan this guy be considered a crackpot now?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYep.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDoesn't sound like he wants to be president that much, maybe he's just been promoting his radio talk show.
I'm against PC but seems like if you run for president you have to play the game.
If he was talking about the mosque at the WTC, I could understand.
Did you noticed that this writer said "Hermain Cain, Republican presidential candidate"...I'd hope everybody reading this website would know that by now!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseCain is absolutely correct in saying that certain Islamic mosques are being built for a political agenda rather than a strictly religious agenda.
Our counter-terrorism community is well aware of how radical Islam has been exporting from Middle Eastern nations throughout Europe, the U.K. and now increasingly the United States. How has it been accomplished? By the failure of Western nations to realistically face the dual political-religious agenda of the radical streams of Islam.
The U.K. has already been overrun and if we continue down this primrose path with our Pollyanna glasses on, we will soon be unable to turn the tide in America.
We should not allow mosques to be built in the U.S. without investigating where the money is coming from and what teaching stream the mosque will be preaching. Leaving it all up to the local city councils is a FAILURE of Homeland Security on a MASSIVE scale.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI don't know whether Cain has a fuller argument than what is presented here -- I hope so.
But I wish he would stop using the phrase "separation of church and state." It isn't part of the text of the Constitution. Congress can't establish a church, and, certainly, it is fair to say that there are matters peculiar to the state and matters peculiar to the church, so that some sort of "separation" may properly be inferred. But the phrase has been used to justify all sorts of unwarranted intrusions and is therefore unhelpful.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou're certainly correct that the phrase does not appear in the text of the Constitution. However, neither does the phrase "can't establish a church." The text actually prohibits laws "respecting an establishment of religion." This is much broader than merely establishing an official church. It prohibits "establishments" and laws respecting them. The historical record reflects that "establishments" were legally-constituted regimes by which tax dollars were coercively funneled toward the propagation of a religion or -- and this is key -- several religions. I'm consistently surprised that "conservatives" routinely miss this point.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYours is not a "point" that conservatives miss; it's your contention. Given that several states actually had established religions before, during, and well after ratification of the First Amendment, the most reasonable reading of the amendment is as obvious as its clear terms: *Congress* shall make no law "respecting" establishment -- meaning no law telling states what to do about establishment one way or the other.
The clause has been mangled beyond recognition.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseCain has just declared himself OUT of the running. Legislating against building mosques is wrong and unAmerican. Legislate against the *activities*, not the gatherings.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseToday it's a mosque, tomorrow it's your church. This guy's a moron.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRJG - that's racist.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseCain's interpretation of the establishment clause reminds me of Justice Stevens' twisting of Voltaire's defense of free speech in *Young*. (Voltaire reportedly told an anarchist that while he disagrees with his opinions, he would fight to the death for his right to speak them.) Stevens ruled against freedom of speech for the appellant as "few of us would march our sons and daughters off to war to preserve the citizen's right...."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNo way the current Supreme Court would endorse Cain's twisted logic. Cain should probably look to amend the Constitution to allow us to ban houses of worship for faiths advocating social policy with which we vehmently disagree. He could look to the Middle East for examples...
Cain has a role to play in the primaries: He's there to siphon off the votes of die-hard haters so the other candidates can quietly ignore them.
It's a smart strategy, no doubt supported gingerly by the establishment. So long as Cain doesn't get too incendiary and become a distraction, the other candidates are probably happy to have him in there playing the role of wacko magnet.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseCain's comment is well within the mainstream of Tea Party thinking. He just needs to soften it up a bit to get some major applause at the next debate and put his "moderate" opponents in a dificult position. (Pawlenty in particular will be hard-pressed not to say "Amen, brother!" He needs Iowa.)
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNo....it is not simply a "Tea Party" thing. This is about maintaining the "Constitution" and preventing Sharia law from becoming entwined as it has in Britain, France, and numerous other countries.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOutstanding. Mr. Cain is a strong voice, very positive for the GOP side.
Nothing wrong with this proven, decent, serious CEO expressing such concern over the Terrorist threat, and supporting Americans who are concerned enough to reject something - I like his use of "every right".
Three cheers for Mr. Cain. A very welcome addition to what is looking like a good field.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSeems like being a former CEO is all you need to be considered a "welcome addition" to the GOP field by Old Man.
For all his platitudes about our candidates need to reach outside of the base to get votes, he cheers for something Cain said that probably damages with voters outside of the base and much of the base as well.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSorry Old Fan, I like you but I'm going to have to agree with Matt X on this one. Mr. Cain has an appealing personal story going for him and a little bit of charisma, that is it. If you ask him for specifics you find that there isn't much there there beyond the nice sound bite. I thought he might make a good candidate for a state wide office or a congressional seat because he is clearly not ready for the white house, but now I'm not so sure of even that. He sounds like he might be a bit of a bigot. First he says they shouldn't serve in the white house and now he is basically saying their freedom of religion is not guaranteed. Perhaps this apparent bigotry is just verbal clumsiness, even so this is still a problem. There are many Muslim Americans who are proud Americans, there are Muslims who have served in presidential administrations and served the country well. We can't assume that if you were brought up Muslim you are a terrorist. Yeah, some of them are and it is something that we need to be concerned about, but we need to paint with a brush that isn't quite so broad._
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse