He has since apologized profusely, but Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain went on Fox News and said he supported citizens in a Tennessee community that are trying to prevent the building of a mosque in their town. His reasoning was that Islam is both a religion and a set of laws. He didn’t explain how it was different from Judiasm in this respect. In fact, he denied that any other religion has a set of laws associated with it, which is odd considering things like this:
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.” – Matthew 5:17
“The Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John. Since that time, the good news of the kingdom of God is being preached, and everyone is forcing their way into it. It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the least stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law.” – Luke 16:16-17
It was always a stupid argument that Islam should be treated differently from other religions because they have a set of laws that are followed to varying degrees depending on the country. In this, it isn’t different from Judaism’s split between the Ultraorthodox, the Orthodox, and the Reform movement. In any case, the First Amendment precludes government from making laws that impact one religion and not others. Fortunately, Cain finally recognized this and said he was sorry for betraying his commitment to the Constitution.
Now, someone put me on some far-right pro-Israeli mailing list that I can’t seem to cancel, and I occasionally look at their deranged offerings. Today, I got a treat.
Some conservatives are becoming just as big a problem as liberals when it comes to
discussions over islam. If speaking forthrightly about the threat of sharia is taboo even amongst conservatives, then we are in even greater danger than I thought. Herman Cain has been attacked for saying he would not appoint a muslim to his cabinet. Is it wrong to question whether one can be a devout muslim and at the same time protect and defend the constitution of the United States of America which is antithetical to islamic law? There is a very good reason why there are no free islamic countries. Sharia law is not compatible with freedom, individual liberty and human rights. Islam is not simply a personal faith but a totalitarian political ideology which seeks to dominate and subjugate us. This is an issue that must be discussed and shame on those conservatives who would silence any such discussion for fear of being called names and being accused of “racism” and bigotry. You are part of the problem and are doing damage to this country by succumbing to political correctness. All one has to do is look to Europe to see what can be our own future. Unfortunately Herman Cain seems to have caved.
Below that there’s the main article, which opens and closes with the following:
Herman Cain is being lynched for taking a stand. And the people doing it are Republicans and self-proclaimed conservatives. Commentators who complain about the “race card” are eagerly laying down the “bigot card” because Cain did what few candidates are ready to do. He clearly spelled out the problem with Islamic involvement in American public life…
…What did Cain say that was so wrong? He questioned how Muslims could reconcile a theocracy with participation in American public life. And he came out on the side of communities fighting back against mosque projects. And that’s bigotry. Don’t ask why it’s bigotry. It is. And if you don’t believe me, go ask CNN or the Washington Post.
It’s offensive to suggest that Herman Cain is being lynched. But to answer the question about what Cain did wrong, it’s pretty simple. He lent support for an effort to do something that is plainly unconstitutional on its face…passing a law or ordinance that bans mosques but not churches, temples, synagogues, or any other buildings where people gather to worship together.
And that doesn’t even get into what’s wrong with the idea itself, which is that Muslims are secretly plotting to impose Shariah Law on the American people. It doesn’t get dumber than worrying about people undermining the Constitution and then gutting the First Amendment in response.
I’m also kind of sickened by the way far-right supporters of Israel are pushing these theories on the rest of us. Whether it’s Pam Geller or IsraPundit, they may think they’re protecting Israel’s interests, but go ask Norwegians whether they’re more supportive of Israel than they were a month ago. I’m more likely to get gunned down at a political meeting by one of IsraPundit’s less stable readers than I am to die in some Islamist terror attack.
So, should I deny them their right to pray in their synagogue?
This is no way to advocate for Israel.
