Herman Cain followed up his Sunday comments on banning the construction of mosques at a private gathering later in the day, as reported by Stacy McCain. But it’s not a clarification or a walk-back — “I don’t back down one iota” — he just repeats that Islam doesn’t separate religion and government and the Muslim Brotherhood is behind the construction of some mosques.
I’m the last person to defend Islam, and I’m not doing so now, but Cain is clearly wrong. Yes, of course, Islam is more than just a spiritual system — it’s also a political system, a system regulating economics, war, the subjugation of infidels, personal hygiene, and every other aspect of life. And of course radical elements — i.e., orthodox Muslims — are behind the construction of many, if not most mosques in the West. Both of these facts make Islam a unique danger to our Republic and are arguments for enhanced scrutiny of mosques and all Muslim organizations, the use of undercover agents to infiltrate them and track their activities, a resumption of the use of ideological exclusion in visa and immigration matters, and the categorical rejection of all special demands, whether wearing a hijab in a driver’s license photo or giving legal authority to sharia courts in family-law matters.
But — if Muslims want to build a gathering place, consistent with normal zoning and fire-safety laws and the like, where they just worship and break bread with their fellows, they have every right to do so; suggesting otherwise is dangerous folly, cutting down the law to get after the devil. If a large and growing Muslim population represents a threat to liberty — and I believe, with Cain, that it does — then that’s yet another reason to reduce future immigration. But once you admit people, we’re bound to judge them individually, by the same yardstick we use for everyone else.
Yes, I was hoping for a clarification from Cain that made sense, as I think that whether he's my guy or not, the primary benefited from having his voice. But with that, I think I just took himself out of any serious contender status he had and will now be viewed as a fringe candidate.
I also don't imagine he did himself any favors with his highest profile local backer in Atlanta, Neal Boortz, who's sort of non-naive libertarian.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThanks Mark. I don't agree with you on anything, but I very much appreciate your intellectual honesty on this score.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf we go by what you say, we might as well all lie down now in submission, Mark. Our future is going to be about as bright as the U.K. - overrun and overruled by radical Islam.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMark,
I think you are missing Cain's point which is that neither Sharia nor the Koran recognize recognize a political space independent of Islam. "Moderate Muslims" may choose not to talk about that, but that doesn't change the necessary connection between the religious and the political in Islam. There is no "render unto Caesar" in Islam.
This reminds me of the questions surrounding American communist organizations in the 1950's and 1960's. The Soviet Union organized and paid for many of those organizations with the intent of helping to overthrow the U.S. government. Politically it was a touchy subject because it would only help those organizations if their members were rounded up and arrested. That woudln't have been a smart thing to do. But they were working with a foreign government to overthrow our own.
Would American Muslims prefer a Muslim ruler? Would a devout Muslim ruler be able to rationalize, within Islam, the separation of Mosque and State? If the answer is yes, then please explain how. If the answer is no, then Cain's point stands.
(Sidenote: England has carved out significant space for Sharia Law because the Mosque and the state can't be separated.)
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo, following your logic, if a Christian fundamentalist/Evangelical preacher or group denies that there is or should be a separation of church and state under the Constitution, I have the right to prevent them from opening a church or an installation in my local community?
I think there are a few people in this country with those beliefs. I don't deny them the right to advocate such a thing, although I think it would be unconstitutional to implement their ideas. But the Constitution protects everyone's right to advocate even crazy ideas.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe question is whether or not Islam stakes out ground as a political entity claiming the power of the state. It does, universally so (at least as I understand what I've read). If the United States ever became a Muslim-majority nation then the Constitution could no longer be relevant (for similar reasons England has made accommodations to Sharia law). Their ideas would be implemented whether you thought them constitutional or not. The best we could do is cross our fingers and hope that they would abandon Sharia and the Koran.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRocky, you are correct. IF the US became a majority Muslim country, and IF that majority wanted Sharia, and IF that majority was able to amend the Constitution to impose Sharia, then we would have Sharia law, and it would be constitutional by definition. That is how the Constitution works. Those are big IFs and we would both oppose it, but sometimes democracy turns out that way.
What Cain said, however, is that a local community can prevent a mosque from being built based purely on opposition to the Muslim religion. That is not just unconstitutional, it verges on totalitarianism. Even if a mosque advocates for Sharia law, that advocacy is protected, unless and until there is an imminent threat of force and violence in a situation where it might be possible to achieve that goal unlawfully. Short of that, even the craziest ideas are protected by the First Amendment.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYour answer assumes that a majority Muslim US would respect the rule of law codified in the Constitution, rather than just unilaterally rejecting it's validity and imposing sharia by force. I find this to be far fetched, but would gladly review any historical examples you have of expansionist Islam following this course. One could argue that it's being attempted in UK and Europe, and one would have a point, but Islam isn't the majority there. Yet. We'll see what happens when it is. IMO, it will either a)forcibly subjugate the minority population to dhimmitude or b)not need to bother, finding itself ruling by default through the repeated concessions and retreats of the indigenous society to it's sharia demands.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhatever one may make of it, historian Will Durant ranked Mohammed above Jesus as an historical figure on the grounds that he involved himself in not just religion, but also politics and government. Msgr. George Higgins (R.I.P), labor columnist, correctly rejected the extreme form of separation of Church and State espoused by JFK in his pandering speech to the Baptist ministers. After a Catholic was elected, people like Lawrence Lader and Dr. Bernard Nathanson (who later switched to the pro-life position) made the Catholic Church the villain on abortion; and too many Catholics bought the idea that they should not favor laws against abortion or else it would undermine what they took to be the correct position on Church and State as inaccurately presented by JFK. Romney's position on the influence of one's faith on political and governmental decisions was much better than the simplistic JFK distortion.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGood catch regarding Will Durant.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGee, how enlightened this Krikorian post is! Religious freedom is a good thing, what a refreshing concept!
Perhaps we should add an Amendment to the Constitution to ensure this! In fact maybe it should be the first one we add!
Idiot.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIslam is not a religion in the traditional sense.
It is more an ideology, like communism
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe First Amendment protects ideologies just as much as it protects religions.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYes, you are quite right.
Why it was just the other day when I remembered we imported so many unrepentant communists during the Cold War and allowed the building of Communist union halls.
How silly of me to forget.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI don't see this as a separation of church and state issue but rather a separation of church and terrorism issue.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou think the state is actually terrorism? This is a confusing comment.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAre you being purposely obtuse, or are you really not understanding?
Of course I was not calling the state terrorist.
Is it clearer to you if I say I see this as an issue of those charged with Homeland Security to do their job in separating mosques for worship purposes from mosques with an agenda to radicalize right under our noses in this country?
Make a distinction between the mosques that are truly serving the religious needs of their communities from those that are being established strictly to radicalize adherents to the Islamist-jihad cause with the borders of the U.S.
How long can our security services continue to pretend this is not rampant?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMuch as we love Bro. Cain, he just oozes "not ready for prime time." He does well on some issues, but he is a mess on more than a few...
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIslam is a direct threat to The West.
Allowing islamic immigration and the construction of mosques will lead to civil war.
Islam is incompattable with The West
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, AND IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH. Just keep repeating it to yourself. It compensates for actually having to employ critical thinking and intelligible distinctions.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse