He started well and certainly sounded promising. A businessman with appeal and a clear message coupled with financial experience in a Federal Reserve Bank and ability to appeal to minority Americans from the right side of the political spectrum; what's not to like?
Well, this sort of ill-advised comment might be one objection:
Cain Says Local Option on Mosque Building
The linkage of building a house of worship by those which embrace the most widely practiced religion in the world to the controversy over the World Trade Center proposal for a Muslim Community Center is a stretch. The characterization that somehow a mosque in your town leads inexorably to adoption of Sharia law seems equally over-the-top.
If you put synagogue or temple or tabernacle or shrine in place of mosque, how would that sound? If you swapped out African-American, Latino, Native-American or Asian for Muslim, would it still work for you?
Isn't the law connection a parsing of terms that somehow ignores the Torah and the Bible as the source of our often-touted Judeo-Christian ethics? We don't get kosher dietary restrictions because we built a synagogue in town. We didn't have to abstain from meat on Fridays in my childhood neighborhood because St. Somebody's church was built down the street. You can have a mosque without sharia contorting your legal structure.
The sort of populist pandering that Cain appears to have stepped into in this instance will not work out in his favor.
Here is some more on the Murfreesboro mosque:
Tennessee Town Resists Islamic Center
If you can make an objective argument on zoning restrictions to deny that location, go for it. If, however, the restriction is based specifically on the objections to the religion, then it would clearly be a violation of that meddlesome ol' First Amendment.
7 comments:
I would beg to differ, Mr Rasimus.
For sure, the First should be upheld. But did the Founders envisage accommodating a pre-modern 'constitution' within the one they wrote?.
Americans seem to me both fair and pragmatic. If these objections are on religion then that is wrong.
But what of objections on the grounds of way of life?.
Based on your profile you are obviously not naive or ignorant. I would however suggest that you do a little more research on the nature of the Islam presented in the Koran and demonstrated by history. It is not an easy issue. There are plenty of statements by Muslims that world domination by any means is their goal. The Koran makes it acceptable to use deception and violence to achieve that goal.
The biggest issue is how we can deal with this type of threat without violating who we are as Americans. I don't have an answer but I would trust someone like Cain to work toward an acceptable one than I would trust our current leadership.
Good topic.
Grace and peace.
Pumice, you start your rebuttal with a very personal attack. Although education doesn't equal intellect, I've also got a bit of experience along the road.
Regardless, I've read considerably on Islam. Much like Christianity it is not a unitary religion. It is deeply divided in sects. Interpretations of the Koran, like interpretations of the Bible often are done to suit the preacher rather than capture the message.
World domination has been the goal of many religions. Certainly some Muslim sects seem to embrace that today and others have in the past. Similarly Christian directions to proselytize and convert the world can be found. Conquistadors or Inquisition?
The point is that we have a First Amendment. We all stand up for the principle when it seems to support our own position. It gets damnably tough to apply the First Amendment when the protected action is outrageous and abhorrent. Whether the product is inflammatory artwork, advocacy of unpopular positions, support of a vile dictatorship like the American Nazi Party or publication of violent gangsta rap music or videos, the First Amendment still applies.
We would be foolish to discard that baby of freedom with the bathwater of discomfort.
Sir:
I watched the interview and the replay. A lot of what he said has been mis-characterized. Mr. Cain is opposed to the establishment of sharia law, to which is what the local citizens are concerned and opposed. Mr. Cain said he does not oppose the building of the mosque provided it is for religious purposes only. He is however, opposed to the establishment of sharia law. He also, claimed to have talked to the local citizens. I trust this will help clarify Mr. Cain's statements.
No easy conundrum, is it...
Personally, after much research and honest soul-searching, I've come to the conclusion that mohammedism is in fact a totalitarian political ideology masquerading as religion.
Further, it's at least as big a threat to our way of life as Communism.
When the so-called "moderate-muslims" begin arising en-masse to protest the actions of their more militant brethren, I might be able to see it as potentially benign -- until then, frankly, they smell an awful lot like The Enemy to me.
I'm not advocating any real action at this point, but I'd be lying if I said anything other than "we really better watch our six with this bunch..."
I *WANT* to be wrong about this -- and I continue to hope and pray that the needed reformation will occur...
God help us -- and God Save Our Republic!
Any Mouse: I watched Cain's interview with Chris Wallace on Sunday. He had made is statements before, but Wallace brought it up and the position is consistent.
Yes, Cain objects to Sharia law and so do the citizens of Murfreesboro and for that matter I'd probably say that 8 out of 9 members of the Supreme Court would as well. Not sure whether the loner would be Ginsberg or Breyer. Bottom line is we are in no real danger of abandonment of our body of law in favor of Sharia.
The scary point in Cain's argument is that he seems totally willing to allow local communities to determine what is and what is not allowable freedom in America. That local community choice is exactly what gave the South the Jim Crow laws after the Civil War and which led to Plessy v Ferguson.
And, DD, I can draw a parallel between the reasoning you have put forth and that of the Third Reich with regard to the threat of the Jews or for that matter the basis throughout the bloody history of pogroms in Europe.
Do not misunderstand me. I'm against jihadists and terrorists. I'm opposed to theocracy of any type. I would be uncomfortable under the Shogunate or Torquemada. I merely point out that we have a First Amendment and it deals at least in part with the individual's right to practice a religion and that includes building a house of worship.
The local laws applicable are zoning restrictions. If you could build a Baptist church there you can probably build a Mosque. If you couldn't build a Mosque, it better be because you couldn't put a Kwik-Mart on that corner either, not because you don't trust the religion.
Your response mystifies me.
"Pumice, you start your rebuttal with a very personal attack."
What I said was,
"Based on your profile you are obviously not naive or ignorant."
I guess one of the problems with the internet is we can't read tone of voice or body language. That was not sarcasm or tongue-in-cheek. I meant it literally.
In response to your statements about world domination, I would suggest that there is a difference between converting the world and dominating the world. There have been armies marching under the banner of the cross, true. But in doing that they violate the teachings of the Bible. The first three hundred years of Christianity saw it spread by the slave class with no swords or death threats. Islam, in seeking world domination by the sword, is totally in agreement with the teachings of the Koran I read. The first three hundred years of Islam saw it spread by armies that gave people three choices: Submit as slaves, convert as second class believers or die. That attitude is alive in the world today and is gaining ground in the Muslim world.
I still don't know how we as a free society will deal with it and keep our freedom.
Post a Comment