Herman Cain Says Americans Should Have Right to Ban Mosques in Their Communities
- Posted on July 18, 2011 at 10:32am by
Billy Hallowell
- Print »
- Email »
GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain has made a number of controversial proclamations regarding Islam and its relation to American society. Last week, The Blaze reported on his vocal opposition to a Tennessee mosque. This revelation came following Cain’s statements back in March that he would be unwilling to appoint Muslims to his cabinet.
On Sunday, the former Godfather’s Pizza CEO expounded upon his Tennessee mosque comments, saying that he believes Americans should be able to ban mosques in their local communities. Politico has more:
Herman Cain says voters across the country should have the right to prevent Muslims from building mosques in their communities…
“Our Constitution guarantees the separation of church and state,” he 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 of that community do not like it. They disagree with it.”
While some have criticized Cain for being anti-Muslim, he claims that he is not discriminating against Islamic adherents. Cain, who grew up during America’s painful civil rights era, believes that the argument over mosques differs greatly from African Americans’ fight for equality. He claims that latter was comprised of laws that prohibited blacks from advancing, while the former is simply an effort to prevent Islamic law from leaking into American society. In addressing his past history, he says:
“I’m willing to take a harder look at people that might be terrorists. If you look at my career, I have never discriminated against anybody. … I’m going to err on the side of caution.”
Below, watch the dialogue between Herman Cain and host Chris Wallace:
Popular Stories
Does Misstated Marathon Claim Prove Paul Ryan Is Dishonest? (POLL) 694 Comments
Paper Details Obama Admin’s Alleged Secret Note Sent to Iran: If Israel Attacks, We Won’t Get Involved 501 Comments
Roseanne Barr: Most Billionaires ‘Violent Pedophiles’ & ‘Heartless’ Cocaine Addicts 351 Comments
‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 338 Comments
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 325 Comments
Faith
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 325 Comments
Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 338 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 249 Comments- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 148 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know Read More- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 302 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 325 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (366)
capitalismrocks
Posted on July 18, 2011 at 11:04amPeople have a right to religious freedom, even building a Mosque. However, the Islamic religion and its stance on a theologically run state and world does go directly against the Constitution, not to mention plain and simple common sense morals. Sharia Law is a hideous, disgusting attempt and dictatorial control of people’s lives and using religion as its transport, so while I see what Cain is saying overall, I think (IMHO) he means is we need to ban any Mosque that teaches Sharia Law and we need a Federal Law, and I think a clear Constitutional Ban of Sharia Law and any other law that makes any attempt to usurp or end-run the Constitution of the United States. We need something, clear, firm and concise on paper to shut the door hard and heavy and block Sharia completely from the United States permanently.
Report Post »A Doctors Labor Is Not My Right
Posted on July 18, 2011 at 11:26am(Repost)
Prior to the 17th Amendment, America had a much more sound solution to this issue of whether to allow Muslims (or anyone) to build a place of worship and to gain political power. Consider what our Founders said about factions, and then work to repeal the 17th Amendment.
Federalist Papers #10
http://constitution.org/fed/federa10.htm
“Hence, it clearly appears, that the same advantage which a republic has over a democracy, in controlling the effects of faction, is enjoyed by a large over a small republic, — is enjoyed by the Union over the States composing it. Does the advantage consist in the substitution of representatives whose enlightened views and virtuous sentiments render them superior to local prejudices and schemes of injustice? It will not be denied that the representation of the Union will be most likely to possess these requisite endowments. Does it consist in the greater security afforded by a greater variety of parties, against the event of any one party being able to outnumber and oppress the rest? In an equal degree does the increased variety of parties comprised within the Union, increase this security. Does it, in fine, consist in the greater obstacles opposed to the concert and accomplishment of the secret wishes of an unjust and interested majority? Here, again, the extent of the Union gives it the most palpable advantage.
(Continued on next post)
Report Post »A Doctors Labor Is Not My Right
Posted on July 18, 2011 at 11:31am(Repost)
(Continued from prior post)
“The influence of factious leaders may kindle a flame within their particular States, but will be unable to spread a general conflagration through the other States. A religious sect may degenerate into a political faction in a part of the Confederacy; but the variety of sects dispersed over the entire face of it must secure the national councils against any danger from that source. A rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts, for an equal division of property, or for any other improper or wicked project, will be less apt to pervade the whole body of the Union than a particular member of it; in the same proportion as such a malady is more likely to taint a particular county or district, than an entire State.
“In the extent and proper structure of the Union, therefore, we behold a republican remedy for the diseases most incident to republican government. And according to the degree of pleasure and pride we feel in being republicans, ought to be our zeal in cherishing the spirit and supporting the character of Federalists.”
Report Post »jzs
Posted on July 18, 2011 at 11:37am“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Isn’t it ironic that people who claim to support the Constitution so easily toss it aside on the basis of bigotry? This is no different than the opposition faced by Catholics, black and other minorities in the history of this country. The bigotry justified with a ludicrous stereotype based on the actions of 10,000 of a percent of the Muslim population (why not say all Republican pick up guys in bathrooms like Larry Craig?).
In the United States citizens elect leaders, who pass laws that judges enforce. By what magical power is that suddenly going to change? It’s not friends, this is simply straight up racism, no different than blacks have faced, and the associated stereotypes of blacks as ALL being lazy thieves who want to rape your white daughter.
Good luck Cain running on the Islamaphobia platform.
I’m appalled at the bigotry and in-your-face racism in the United States today. You‘d think we’d have learned a lesson after having seen and overcome this sort of thing so many times before in this country.
Report Post »sheria-never
Posted on July 18, 2011 at 11:44amI absolutely agree but it is already in our banking system. Called SCF Sharia complied finance.
If were not careful, we will end up like Britain. The Muslims are completely out of control, and nearly taken over. They were never made to assimilate.
Muslims coming to our country must swear their allegiance to our flag, and our Constitution.
We are Judeo-Christian
We will never be islamic
Report Post »BIGJAYINPA
Posted on July 18, 2011 at 11:47amDuring the 30′s many Americans were duped into joining German/American Bunds that claimed to be fostering better relations between the US and Germany. These “Bunds” were fronts for furthering the goals and values of the Nazi Party onto the “useful idiots”. Today those useful idiots are being duped by Islam and Diversity under the guise of “Religious Tolerance”. These vipers following the Son-of-Sam “religion” of the mysoginist pedophile that heard “voices” MUST NOT be allowed to build their nests in our communities….Just sayin’
Report Post »sheria-never
Posted on July 18, 2011 at 11:50amI absolutely agree but it is already in our banking system. Called SCF [Sharia complied finance.]
If were not careful, we will end up like Britain. The Muslims are completely out of control, and nearly taken over. They were never made to assimilate.
Muslims coming to our country must swear their allegiance to our flag, and our Constitution.
We are Judeo-Christian
We will never be islamic
Report Post »MONICNE
Posted on July 18, 2011 at 11:55amCain has every right to be verbally islamophobic, and even to act in bigoted ways. It proves hi is a REAL Taxed Enough Already person, and not a bleeding heart liberal, “constitutionality” sheep.
We do not want another knee-jerk, rights for all, compassionate dark person in the “white” house. Take Back America!
TEA
Susan Harkins
Posted on July 18, 2011 at 11:55amI say, cut the head of the howling Mosques’ Minuettes off.
That should do, for starters.
Report Post »A Doctors Labor Is Not My Right
Posted on July 18, 2011 at 12:02pm@jzs,
“Isn’t it ironic that people who claim to support the Constitution so easily toss it aside on the basis of bigotry?”
That, it is. You don’t have to abandon the defense of freedom of religion in order to defeat politically interested religious factions, as our Founders noted in Federalist Papers #10 (whether those factions be Muslims or Christians).
“You‘d think we’d have learned a lesson after having seen and overcome this sort of thing so many times before in this country.”
To be sure, those who offered the 3/5ths Compromise were AGAINST slavery, hoping to dilute the voting power of the slave-owners in the South, who intended to increase the number of representatives from their state by counting their slaves. This is why, for purposes of representation ONLY, the slaves were counted as 3/5ths of a person.
Further, we haven’t really gotten rid of racism – it is alive and well in the so-called “black community”, which defines its cultural identity by the color of its members’ skin, or by their members’ ancestry. If we really want equality, then let’s stop grouping ourselves by skin and ancestry.
If you have a moment, be sure to check out this video:
Understanding the 3/5 compromise…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxoV9q3UPbc
Ron Paul 2012!
Report Post »MightyInfantry
Posted on July 18, 2011 at 12:15pm@jzs
Racist? Shows how much you thought out your response take a second to use your brain and think. Islam is not a race it‘s a religion so not it’s not equivalent to anything race related. Get a clue buddy. Should they have freedom of religion? Yes. Should they be allowed to bring sharia law into our country? NO! Do you stand up for religions when they are forced to marry gay couples? Or for those opposed to having their tax dollars pay for abortions because it’s against their religion? Stand up for what‘s right not what’s politically correct. As far as islam being a religion of peace that’s like saying Wesboro is a church of tolerance.
Report Post »MightyInfantry
Posted on July 18, 2011 at 12:15pm@jzs
Racist? Shows how much you thought out your response take a second to use your brain and think. Islam is not a race it‘s a religion so not it’s not equivalent to anything race related. Get a clue buddy. Should they have freedom of religion? Yes. Should they be allowed to bring sharia law into our country? NO! Do you stand up for religions when they are forced to marry gay couples? Or for those opposed to having their tax dollars pay for abortions because it’s against their religion? Stand up for what‘s right not what’s politically correct. islam is not a religion of peace that’s like saying Wesboro is a church of tolerance. They are suspect wherever they go and whatever they do.
Report Post »JohnFourteenSix
Posted on July 18, 2011 at 12:26pm@ JZS The 1st Amendment says ‘Congress shall make no law’; a community of citizens standing up against the building of a mosque, church , temple, etc. does not violate the Constitution. We the people have a right to determine what we allow and do not allow in our community. Those that do not like the decisions of the local community are free to move to another community.
Report Post »That being said, we need to remember one thing concerning Islam. The portion of Shariah Law that requires stoning, cutting off the fingers or hands, etc is not compatible with the US Constitution and can not be permitted in this country. However, those that wish to practice Islam, minus those parts of Shariah that are unconstitutional, are free to do so. This leaves one glaring problem that no presidential candidate other than Mr. Cain, it seems, wants to address. How does one be a “good” Muslim if they do not follow all of Shariah?
SacredHonor1776
Posted on July 18, 2011 at 12:28pmI can’t agree with Herman, it sets up precedence for the opposition to eliminate religious liberta of other groups, including Christians.
http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/rightwing.pdf
I value my Christian liberty enough to see the danger in this kind of law. Anti-semitic, white supremecist, neo-Nazi and KKK communities would be able to kick out Synogogue or Black Churches.
Atheists and antitheists could kick out all Christians.
No this is a very dangerous point of view.
That being said I do think mosques should be investigated to see what they are actually preaching. If they promote violence, terrorism and Moslem law (against constitutional law), and illegal overthrow of government. Then
Report Post »conservative_teacher
Posted on July 18, 2011 at 12:46pmI had been supporing Cain up until that Chris Wallace interview. I can’t in good conscience support a candidate that is willing to trample on any part of the Constitution. Period. So once again I’m throwing my support to Ron Paul.
Report Post »Erabin
Posted on July 18, 2011 at 12:58pm“We are Judeo-Christian”
No, we’re not. Many people are, but the USA are not. See: Treaty of Tripoli.
Report Post »jcgrhp997
Posted on July 18, 2011 at 1:36pmMr. Cain is going to be attacked for his comments regarding Mosques. He should be prepared to point out that his suggestion that Islam must abandon Sharia Law in the US is not unprecedented nor unconstitutional.
Mormons (Christians) were forced to renounce polygamy in order for Utah to be accepted as a state.
In the United States, Halakha (Jewish law) is voluntary and cannot, therefore, be externally enforced on a family.
Ecclesiastical courts (Christian) in the United States are restricted to policing their own clergy, and do not supplant US courts (civil or federal) in cases where laws are broken.
In short, what Mr. Cain is saying is the accepted law of the United States, no religion may allow its belief system to supplant the rule of law. Regardless of whether your religion supports/promotes polygamy or the sacrifice of animals (Santeria), your practice must not conflict with the rule of law.
Sharia law is incompatible with US law in many respects. Until American Muslims recognize that Sharia cannot be externally imposed on families, and that families who choose to follow Sharia cannot do so in a way that violates the laws of the United States or any state thereof, Americans should have a right to prevent the establishment of a Sharia court (in the form of a Mosque) in their community.
Report Post »jcannon98188
Posted on July 18, 2011 at 1:38pmHermain Cain, you are a bigot and a true hatemonger. Earlier this year I was excited for your presidential run. What you were saying drew me in and I was fully prepared to support you in your bid for the presidency. But then you made the crack about not allowing Muslims to join your cabinet. Now this? It is an outrage and it is unacceptable. You claim it is because of the Muslim belief in Sharia Law, and that is contradicts the constitution. News Flash: Christians believe that when Jesus returns he will be the King of All! That of course goes against the constitution, should we start banning Christian churches as well? Christian churches also push a lot of christian legislature that goes against the constitution. Mr. Cain, you are being duped into your self-righteous attitude against Islam. Please, before you destroy your career, and your image any further, take the time to stop, and realize the error of your ways.
Report Post »Sincerely,
Jason Cannon
HKS
Posted on July 18, 2011 at 1:38pmI agree with Cain.
Report Post »Chet Hempstead
Posted on July 18, 2011 at 3:08pmJohnFourteenSix
Report Post »You can’t pass a local ordinance for the purpoise of religious dicrimination for two reasons. First, whether you agree or not, a pile of court decisions that will never be overturned long ago established that the fourteenth amendment extended the protections of the Bill of Rights to all levels of government. Second, I have never seen a state constitution that did not specifically reaffirm the rights stated in the Bill of Rights and restrain the state from actoing in violation of them.
Marci
Posted on July 18, 2011 at 3:20pmCapitalism has it right—Islam in America isn’t about just religion. It’s about having their own legal system, it’s past time that we quit cowering down in the name of “religious freedom” when it is NOT about that in the least for these Muslims. Their goal is to have their own society and as Cain put it eloquently, we are cowering down and allowing them to do so under the first amendment and then buckling under politically correct b.s. to allow them to live under their OWN laws. Courts should NEVER consider Islam in their judgments, but they have been, and it has to stop.
Report Post »Now this is Art
Posted on July 18, 2011 at 5:13pmHerman is THE man! muslims are evil, sharia is a freekin joke.
Report Post »SacredHonor1776
Posted on July 18, 2011 at 5:22pmhttp://www.times-herald.com/Local/Church-denied-permit-957724
Ok so apparently churches get denied zoning permits every now and then via vote of local council.
I suppose this goes on for Mosques as well.
They probably can take i lawsuits up with ACLU or other religious liberties advocacy groups.
But I wouldn’t want democratic mob vote deciding on zoning and what not. Believe me a isla patan community would star instituting Sharia on a local level, and ban other religions from their micro-caliphate. Athiests woul ban all religions probably. Christians would start descrimatin against other religions. Ant-Semites would go after he synogogues. All in all you would get all that’s bad in Democracy, as opposed to a Constitutional Republic
Report Post »sangreel
Posted on July 18, 2011 at 6:02pmWhere is the ACL http://www.aclu.org/ and why are they NOT demanding the separation of church and state on this issue? Why are they not filing suit against the Muslims that worship in public schools?
Report Post »Read: http://www.aclu.org/religion-belief This core belief they state they believe in and are more then willing to file suit against appears on its face does NOT apply to Muslims. I ask my self: Why have they done NOTHING?
Fantastic Four
Posted on July 18, 2011 at 6:34pmThese folks are the luckiest people on the planet….they get their Mosques repaired , restored or built by the United States American Tax Payer….because the christian in cheif said so.
Report Post »Contrarian51
Posted on July 18, 2011 at 8:56pmThis is getting ridiculous. Why does Mr. Cain insist on shooting himself in the foot over Islam? Why does one who would have us believe he is a serious candidate for President fail to understand that the decision about where ANY religion can build a house of worship is a matter for local government, and that’s what he should have said, and all he should have said. It’s a local matter. I like the guy but he needs to look at a clock. His 15 minutes are up.
Report Post »Stronge
Posted on July 18, 2011 at 10:06pm@sheria-never
“If were not careful, we will end up like Britain. The Muslims are completely out of control, and nearly taken over.”
Who told you this? Whoever it was, you should ignore them from now on because they’re lying to you. Sorry.
Report Post »john1417
Posted on July 18, 2011 at 10:48pm@jzs read what you said and then listen to what cain said.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
If the people in the town county or state say they dont want mosques there that is there choice. the constitution says CONGRESS SHALL NOT!!!! not the state not the county not the town. If they have enough muslims in the town county or state and those citizens want them there its the will of those peole in that town, county, or state and the other people who dont like it can move to another state.
Report Post »Stopit
Posted on July 18, 2011 at 11:14pm@Contrarian51
Report Post »You define the word ignorant, and are the root cause for where we are as a nation right now..
Eblaze44
Posted on July 18, 2011 at 11:46pmHerman Cain an believe what he likes. The problem is not whether the community should or could stop the building of a mosque for citizens to worship in if they are Muslims, because if you can stop the building of a mosque – the next step is to stop the building of a church. It seems everyone understands the inherent threat of the teachings of Islam and the Qur’an that their laws are greater than the Constitution and the civil laws of this country and their threat of preaching violence – but if you cannot stop the Rev Wright from preaching hate against American Citizens – how will you stop the local Imam?
Report Post »Eblaze44
Posted on July 18, 2011 at 11:50pm@MONICNE Posted on July 18, 2011 at 12:22pm
great terminology – comrades – reminds me of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics – Maybe we will become the United Socialist States of America – then we can have comrades too.
Report Post »TrueLiberal
Posted on July 18, 2011 at 11:58pmAs much as I hate to agree with JZS, I am stunned at the bigotry as it relates to this story.
I’m sorry, “Congress shall make no law…” is pretty plain. One does not need like a religion to tolerate it. Rosie O’Donnell does not like Christians, she is still not able to ban them. And don‘t tell me it’s because she is one person and we are many! There are reasons we protect the hate filled rhetoric of the KKK or the Neo-Nazis on the capitol steps.
Report Post »Lest you forget, we are a republic, not a democracy. “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.” -Ben Franklin
The fact we allow others to say and believe things we despise is what GUARANTEES we are able to say and believe as we choose. Do not presume you can allow rights to be taken from people you dislike and you will be left unharmed.
“First they came for the communists, I didn‘t speak because I wasn’t a communist. Then they came for the trade-unionists, I didn‘t speak because I wasn’t a trade-unionist. Then they came for the Jews, I didn‘t speak because I wasn’t a Jew. Then they came for me. There was no one left to speak for me.” -Martin Niemoller
Steve
Posted on July 19, 2011 at 3:31amJZS. Islam is a political ideology shrouded in a religion. Just thought you’d like to know.
And just in case you didn‘t know it’s political philosophy is to destroy this country. Well not just us any country that isn’t Islamic based and sharia ruled.
Are you OK with that?
Report Post »Just askin.
MONICNE
Posted on July 19, 2011 at 10:25amThe TEA Party does not tolerate Racists. Strangely, Cain’s demonization of Muslims is not without precedent in American politics – and our history of National race relations .
In the early years of the 20th century, throughout the South, white racists used a similar “threat” — the notion of black men as sexual predators who threatened white women — to justify an elaborate legal framework of segregation and repression that endured for decades.
Cain is an African American who is old enough to remember Jim Crow segregation.
Chris wallace asked him, “As someone who, I’m sure, faced prejudice growing up in the ’50s and the ’60s, how do you respond to those who say you are doing the same thing?”
Cain’s response: “I tell them that’s absolutely not true, because it is absolutely, totally different. . . . We had some laws that were restricting people because of their color and because of their color only.”
I guess we are doomed to repeat for Islamists what we did not learn for blacks. But because Cain is nut white, he will continue to use the Anti-Race Card (ARC) when his phobic policies are criticized.
TEA
Report Post »bluegost
Posted on July 19, 2011 at 12:35pmFreedom of religion has never ment freedom to do whatever you want in the name of religion. The muslim religion has always been inclusive with government, i.e., Sharia law.
Report Post »Sharia law and the CONSTITUTION can not exist together. Sharia law IS anti Constitution, therefor anti-American.
In America it is against the law to kill someone because they have been raped, or cut off the hand of a thief, or kill someone for being homosexual, etc., etc. If this is you religion it is unlawful to practice it in the USA.
liberty49
Posted on July 19, 2011 at 12:56pmHerman Cain has the guts to say what needs to be said to protect this nation and the Constitution. Thanks to Bill Clinton, everyone is afraid to speak the truth because it‘s not politically correct and they don’t want to ‘offend’ anyone. The only religion being trampled today in America is the Christian religion and all their beliefs. No one else will acknowledge the dangers of Sharia Law as it does not only involve religion, but the freedoms granted by our Constitution. No good Muslim can also be a good American because their allegiance is to Islam.
Report Post »MONICNE
Posted on July 18, 2011 at 11:03amIsrael is our best ally ever!
You don’t see them letting muslimists create mosque basketball courts all over Jerusalem, do you?
TEA & ZION
Report Post »rose-ellen
Posted on July 18, 2011 at 12:01pmThey have illigally annexed Jerusalem and are legally mandated to return it to the arabs[who comprise jews,christians and muslims.
Report Post »Sharia ,like the constituion can be interpreted any way you want.Banning mosques?Good luck with that one!As long as the genocidial anti-muslim bigots keep saying publicaly that muslims have the right to exist, it’s all alot of hot air.Though passionalty anti-muslim they lack the courage of their convictions when publicaly they refuse to call for the banning of islam .Till they do they are in fact cowards blowing hot air.
MONICNE
Posted on July 18, 2011 at 12:22pmSo, you seem to be an expert on Israel! You treat them like foreigners! What is up with that!
The Herminator knows how to work for our brave and long-suffering Israeli comrades – without disappointing them! (Unlike the nit-picking O’Bummer Administration.)
Tea & Zion = Rock & Roll
Report Post »Jefferson
Posted on July 18, 2011 at 3:18pm@ ROSE-ELLEN “Sharia ,like the constituion can be interpreted any way you want.”
I’m not an expert on Sharia, but I KNOW the Constitution (which will NEVER be replaced by Sharia)
and it is NOT open to INTERPRETATION. Unless you are sitting on the Supreme Court, or hold a Con-Con.
Cain doesn’t even know the difference between the Bill of Rights, and the Constitution. He was the Federal Reserve’s boy, and STILL is.
Not to mention he only got 6,223 in donations from the military, and Ron Paul got more than ALL of them COMBINED (36,739.79). Just like in 2008.
Ron Paul even got more than Ohmamma. (28,833.99)
That should tell you where the REAL support is coming from.
Oh and to the OP: TEA=ZION=STUPID
RON PAUL= GODFATHER OF THE TEA PARTY
Report Post »“Friendships with ALL nations, entangling alliances with NONE” Thomas Jefferson
Natures_God
Posted on July 18, 2011 at 4:29pm@ MONICNE
Report Post »Are you serious about Israel and Zionism?
If Israel was our best friend then why would they attack the U.S.S. Liberty?
They knownly killed those US Navy sailors. They totally knew it was a U.S. communications ship but still attacked it. This video will explain it all.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBmJyF9A4wc
Steve
Posted on July 19, 2011 at 3:38amrose-ellen.
The Koran does not mention Jerusalem because Mohammed never set foot in the city. Jerusalem was conquered by Muslim armies in 636 after the death of Mohammed. Muslim jihadists claim that the Koran mentions “The Furthest Mosque” — Al-Aqsa in Arabic – and that this is a Koranic reference to Jerusalem. This is a lie. The Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem had not been built when the Koran was written, so the reference is to some other (or any other) “furthest mosque.” In contrast, Jerusalem is and has always been a holy city to Jews. The daily prayers of the Jews are focused on Jerusalem. The Hebrew Bible mentions Zion and Jerusalem a total of 809 times.
Report Post »liberty49
Posted on July 19, 2011 at 1:03pmNo, they are not allowing Mosques and their citizens are not having to put up with TSA searches in the name of security!
Report Post »SpankDaMonkey
Posted on July 18, 2011 at 11:00am.
Report Post »They so mad they can’t call Herman a “RACIST”……………..
Guardog44
Posted on July 18, 2011 at 11:47amIs Islam a racist religion do they not want to destroy Israel?
Report Post »MONICNE
Posted on July 19, 2011 at 10:29amCain’s TEA perty backers are staring right at a “racist” problem, and they (like you) will try the Anti-Race Card (ARC) strategy to make black-spouted hate seem to be open and welcome. This will cause TEA party to lose credibility.
TEA
Report Post »Lloyd Drako
Posted on July 18, 2011 at 10:56amI thought Herman Cain was better than this. If this is the issue he intends to ride, he will not even win the Republican nomination, let alone the White House.
Report Post »Rational Man
Posted on July 18, 2011 at 11:01amWhy not ban Mosques if the community wants to? They ban Walmarts, porn shops and other stuff they don’t want in their neigborhood. Why not mosques? If they feel it is bad for them on some level, they vote it down. Happens all the time!
Report Post »fertlmind
Posted on July 18, 2011 at 11:02amYou couldn’t be more wrong
Report Post »Lloyd Drako
Posted on July 18, 2011 at 11:11amI‘m not questioning a community’s right to ban a mosque, though I think it is a stupid idea.
I‘m questioning Cain’s political wisdom in focusing on this particular issue at this particular time.
Report Post »A Doctors Labor Is Not My Right
Posted on July 18, 2011 at 11:22amPrior to the 17th Amendment, America had a much more sound solution to this issue of whether to allow Muslims (or anyone) to build a place of worship and to gain political power. Consider what our Founders said about factions, and then work to repeal the 17th Amendment.
Federalist Papers #10
http://constitution.org/fed/federa10.htm
“Hence, it clearly appears, that the same advantage which a republic has over a democracy, in controlling the effects of faction, is enjoyed by a large over a small republic, — is enjoyed by the Union over the States composing it. Does the advantage consist in the substitution of representatives whose enlightened views and virtuous sentiments render them superior to local prejudices and schemes of injustice? It will not be denied that the representation of the Union will be most likely to possess these requisite endowments. Does it consist in the greater security afforded by a greater variety of parties, against the event of any one party being able to outnumber and oppress the rest? In an equal degree does the increased variety of parties comprised within the Union, increase this security. Does it, in fine, consist in the greater obstacles opposed to the concert and accomplishment of the secret wishes of an unjust and interested majority? Here, again, the extent of the Union gives it the most palpable advantage.
(Continued on next post)
Report Post »A Doctors Labor Is Not My Right
Posted on July 18, 2011 at 11:24am(Continued from prior post)
“The influence of factious leaders may kindle a flame within their particular States, but will be unable to spread a general conflagration through the other States. A religious sect may degenerate into a political faction in a part of the Confederacy; but the variety of sects dispersed over the entire face of it must secure the national councils against any danger from that source. A rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts, for an equal division of property, or for any other improper or wicked project, will be less apt to pervade the whole body of the Union than a particular member of it; in the same proportion as such a malady is more likely to taint a particular county or district, than an entire State.
“In the extent and proper structure of the Union, therefore, we behold a republican remedy for the diseases most incident to republican government. And according to the degree of pleasure and pride we feel in being republicans, ought to be our zeal in cherishing the spirit and supporting the character of Federalists.”
Report Post »Guardog44
Posted on July 18, 2011 at 11:26amI am going to d be socially unacceptable but tell the truth Islam is a satanic cult. Do you want that in your neighborhood? I don’t want it in mine!!!!!!!!! It is a cult of control,hate,oppression and delusion.
Report Post »Guardog44
Posted on July 18, 2011 at 11:37amAll that being said God gave us free will to chose to live like we want. Our great Nation chose to give us freedom of religion no freedom from religion. We can pray for Islam and America that Gods will be done. We as Christians are called to reach people by loving them not through hate but Grace and Peace.
Report Post »Annie Fields
Posted on July 18, 2011 at 11:40amDAMN STRAIGHT! It’s NOT a constitutional issue! They’re only guily of NIMBY not outright BANNING it COMPLETELY from America. EXCELLENT argument as it compares to WalMart.
Report Post »Rational Man
Posted on July 18, 2011 at 11:45amLloyd Drako
Posted on July 18, 2011 at 11:11am
I‘m not questioning a community’s right to ban a mosque, though I think it is a stupid idea.
I‘m questioning Cain’s political wisdom in focusing on this particular issue at this particular time.
———————————————————————————————–
Oh ya, your right!……Polititians are supposed to lie!
Report Post »Well bad on Cain for telling it like it is instead of lying…………
SacredHonor1776
Posted on July 18, 2011 at 12:34pmNo we don’t want to give the left another Patriot Act against other Religions and beliefs including Chrisitians. They would use this to their advantage the next time they get into power… Just look at how Obama has expanded the Patriot Act.
Look the Department of Homeland Security might have an eye on you already;
http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/rightwing.pdf
Report Post »Rational Man
Posted on July 18, 2011 at 12:34pm@Annie Fields
Your right! It’s not a constitutional issue! It‘s a ’politically correct’ issue.
Report Post »If this was a Walmart or something else, it would be a big deal on a national level.
But because it’s a mosque and leftys are being politically correct or people choose to see it as racism or a constitutional issue, it gets blown way out of proportion.
It should not be a problem voting down a mosque in your community just on the public safety concerns alone…..IMO
It’s not our fault that violence follows Islam where ever it goes!
jcannon98188
Posted on July 18, 2011 at 1:42pmThey are in no way the same. One is a group of people. the other is a business. You guys say these people are a satanic cult. Well guess what? Even if they are, they are still constitutionally protected to worship as they please. They break no law by doing their worship services. To the idiot who pulled the “would you want them in your neighborhood?” crack there. A.) Yes I would. B.) Could you get any more nazi? The arguments you guys are making against Islam is the same arguments that Hitler made against Judaism. Grow up and look around, those who do not look at history are doomed to repeat it!
Report Post »Lloyd Drako
Posted on July 18, 2011 at 1:56pmI appreciate all your points about the Constitution, federalism, Wal-Mart and so on.
But I still insist that if Herman Cain wants to mount a campaign based on anti-Muslim sentiment, and if the Republican Party is then so foolish as to nominate him, it will get the beating it deserves.
No national political party has ever won when it campaigned primarily on a platform of racial or ethnic bigotry,whether the Federalists in 1800, the Know-Nothings in 1856, or the pre-LBJ Democrats in too many elections to name.
If Cain continues along this line, smart Republicans will rule him out, no matter how much they may long to use him to prove that they are not racist.
Cain himself ought to smarten up and stop flogging the Muslim issue, which I don’t believe his heart is in anyway.
Report Post »encinom
Posted on July 18, 2011 at 2:01pmCain is doing nothing but proving that tbaggers have no respect for the Consitution and are bigots to booth. What would stop a community from banning catholic churches or Hindu temples?
Report Post »Islesfordian
Posted on July 18, 2011 at 3:16pmRational Man, I apologize for misidentifying you on another thread when someone accused me of being you.
That said, anyone who equates a house of worship with a store when it comes to freedom isn’t taking the basic American ideas of inalienabl;e rights seriously. A church/synagoue/mosque is not like a Walmart.
Report Post »Rational Man
Posted on July 18, 2011 at 3:34pmGive it a rest Drako.
Cain is not basing his campaign on this issue. If I’m not mistaken, EVERYBODY is ‘basing’ their campaigns on the economy. There will just be a stink made over anything said that is perceived as politically un-corrrect by the left or progressive thinking ‘whatabe constitutionalists’. As seen above….
Forget the religious rights aspect! I still think it could be legitimately voted down by a town counsel over grounds of public safety. Show stats on Muslim violence, doctrine and historical evidence. If you can vote down a porn shop or Hells Angels convention center, eventhough one pistol packing member says he is peaceful. Then why not a group that promotes suicide bombing, calls America ‘The Big Satan’ and needs to be destroyed, genocide of Jews, killed almost 3,000 on 9/11/01 and so on and so on………………………….
They have no place in my neigborhood and that is the way I would vote!
So am I to think that you ‘wantabe constitutionalists’ would be okay with it if I was a satanist or something and believed in sacraficing babies and I wanted to build a ‘temple’ in your town? Maybe next to a day care center? Would you uphold my ‘constitutional rights’ to practice my ‘religion’ in your town where your kids live? Are you that stupid or would you tell me to hit the road? Would you leave me alone and not keep an eye on me and my fellow satanists? Would you insist on not profilling me and my kind when we dress in goat leg hip boo
Report Post »Islesfordian
Posted on July 18, 2011 at 3:44pm“So am I to think that you ‘wantabe constitutionalists’ would be okay with it if I was a satanist or something and believed in sacraficing babies and I wanted to build a ‘temple’ in your town?”
You’re not even trying to be rational now, man. If you believed in sacrificing babies we would consider that a crime and have you arrested… for trying to sacrifice babies. But if you just wanted to worship Satan without involving anything criminal like murder, well, that’s your own soul.
It’s really not that hard a concept. Don’t murder, steal, encourage sedition or treason, or generally disrupt the peace, and how you worship is none of our business. What a concept.
Report Post »Rational Man
Posted on July 18, 2011 at 3:56pm@Islesfordian
I don’t know how anyone that pays attention, could have mistaken you, for being me………………
Report Post »Sorry you don’t get it. Maybe I’m not articulate enough or something.
It’s not worth my frustration………
teapartyconservatism
Posted on July 18, 2011 at 10:52pm@Doc
The 17th amendment removed your right to elect well known local leaders to your State Assembly, who then similarly selected two equally trustworthy Congressional Senators.
The Founding Fathers spared Senators from campaigning to prevent corruption. After all, if one can‘t buy a Senator’s influence, then donating to a House member or President is pointless.
Progressives essentially had to transform formerly incorruptible Senators into longer serving House members by requiring them to campaign. With the entire law making process now vulnerable to temptation, only price remained to be negotiated. This invited whole scale corruption. The sad result is self evident.
Repeal both the 17th and 16th amendments to end corruption and remove the oppressive threat of federal retaliation. Have states collect all taxes by any Constitutional means citizens deem best, while respecting the obligation to provide proportionally shared funding sufficient for federal functions enumerated by the 10th amendment.
Any further agreements or cooperative functions voluntarily entered into by any states, not enumerated by the 10th amendment nor otherwise prohibited by the Constitution, will be enacted and enforced only within and by the participating states and shall remain beyond the purview of the federal government.
This will restore honest properly functioning limited federal government, resolve the debt, and save your freedom.
Report Post »Lloyd Drako
Posted on July 19, 2011 at 10:58amI’m sure Herman Cain has views on abortion and Obamacare–presumably against.
I’m sure he also has views on tax and spending cuts–presumably for.
But neither the MSM nor the conservative media have been reporting on them, because Cain has apparently gotten mired in the swamp of Islam-baiting.
Sad to say, his campaign may have peaked at “Deep dish.”
Report Post »warr9553
Posted on July 18, 2011 at 10:54ami think everyone has the right to believe what they wish.two ways to fix the bugit is one get reid of obama and two tax churches.
Report Post »let us prey
Posted on July 18, 2011 at 10:53amgood for you Mr. Cain.
An enemy invader must never be classified as a religion.
Report Post »MONICNE
Posted on July 18, 2011 at 12:26pmThat’s right – you don’t see anyone calling Israel a religion, do you? C’mon! They are an independent State, just like the United States, but more important than Puerto Rico.
TEA
Report Post »SimpleTruths
Posted on July 18, 2011 at 1:39pmThis country was founded by invaders from the Native American point of view.
Report Post »Sargon
Posted on July 18, 2011 at 10:50amHerman’s got my vote.
Report Post »Chet Hempstead
Posted on July 18, 2011 at 3:11pmWhat’s the point? If this clown puts his hand on a Bible and swears to uphold the Constitution, he’ll just be struck by lightning on the spot.
Report Post »WILLIAM E.
Posted on July 18, 2011 at 10:50amIs islam a religion ? If so it is also a dictator government & does not fit in a civilized society. It’s live my way or your out of here & or I’ll shove it down your throat through lies terror or whatever it takes You go Herman. Great opinion.
Report Post »BIGJAYINPA
Posted on July 18, 2011 at 11:02amIslam is a “religion” created by a mysoginist pedophile that heard “voices” telling him to kill anyone who would not belive the “voices” were from God. Kinda like a Son-of-Sam religion….Just sayin’
Report Post »encinom
Posted on July 18, 2011 at 2:16pmBIGJAYINPA
Report Post »Posted on July 18, 2011 at 11:02am
Islam is a “religion” created by a mysoginist pedophile that heard “voices” telling him to kill anyone who would not belive the “voices” were from God. Kinda like a Son-of-Sam religion….Just sayin’
___________________________
Sounds like the Mormon Church, or any other religion. You choose to beleive which prophits who hear voices.
agameofthrones
Posted on July 18, 2011 at 2:28pm@ ENCINOM: the word is prophet, not prophit.
Report Post »MONICNE
Posted on July 18, 2011 at 4:08pmBut the “voices” WERE heard by Joseph Smith (AKA, GOD) and also by Billy Graham a,d Pat Robertson.
Ronald Reagan changed from Catholic to Christian evangelical when a ‘live prop’ dairy cow spoke to him on a sound stage when he was filming an anti-Nazi newsreel fighter attack simulation. The cow told him thet Christ was the one Lord and that Communism was satanic. Ron’s life was instantly changed forever.
Thirty years later the universe was free and we were on our way to a 14 trillion deficit hassle.
TEA vs SATAN
Report Post »kickagrandma
Posted on July 18, 2011 at 10:50amYOU GO, GOD!!! Herman Cain appears to be YOUR man front and center. He is standing under fire, and we pray YOUR protection all around him, LORD.
GOD BLESS you, Mr. Herman Cain!
Stand tall in the TRUTH!
Report Post »Islesfordian
Posted on July 18, 2011 at 10:49amI like Cain’s bold stand against the threat of militant Islam and his knowledge of how they exploit our religiuous tolerance, but I am concerned that he is taking a stand that requires a rather sophisticated and nuanced argument in a political campaign. Clear and simple are the stands that a politician should take when appealing to the general public. I am afraid that he has chosen a fight that will too easily be mischaracterized. That itself speaks to his political naivete. I believe he knows what is right when it comes to general policy, but I am not sure he knows what battles to fight and how.
Report Post »stillshocked
Posted on July 18, 2011 at 11:02amHe is not your typical politician…and for that I am mighty glad!
Report Post »CicerosGhost
Posted on July 18, 2011 at 11:06amAlthough I can appreciate your concerns, the “battles” which he faces have been intentionally brought to the fore, by choice. The choice of the media.
They seek to exploit what THEY PERCEIVE are “weaknesses” and so these matters are portrayed as paramount.
Our responsibility, as informed citizens, is to refocus our attention to the matters which actually are probative.
Resist the distorted narrative.
Report Post »MrButcher
Posted on July 18, 2011 at 11:27amThat’s a bit of an understatement, Isles.
Cain wrongly declares, “Islam combines church and state.” If that is Mr. Cain’s logic and justification for banning Mosque construction then where is the conservitive outcry over what Gov. Perry is doing in Texas? Is Gov. Perry not using his office and position to proselytize, pray for rain and money and essentially combining church and state? Furthermore, can communities also ban the building of churchs and synagogues if they so desire?
What Cain is saying is not nuanced. It is contrary to everything America stands for and represents. It is sectarian reactionism. It is Religious Tyranny. Facsism with a Christian face (opps, that’s redundant.)
The very fact that so many think it is a good idea to marginalize, demean and persecute .08% (muslim‘s don’t even make up 1 full percent of the 300 million Americans!!) of the Country’s population reveals the statist and totalitarian streak currently brewing in parts of the GOP and Tea Party bodypolitik.
Religious Freedom is one of the cornerstones of our Republic. If it is compromised even a little then America’s mad plunge into impotence and irrelevance will be hastened tenfold.
I think conservitives will ultimatley reject this approach. But getting there will be ugly.
Cain is done.
Report Post »trolltrainer
Posted on July 18, 2011 at 11:32amMr. Butcher,
You and I are in complete agreement here. It deeply saddens me to see the same people who brought us the tea party, who think of themselves as libertarians and constitutionalists, who claim they believe in freedom…To be completely blind on this single issue. We are either free or we are not…And if we are free than EVERYONE has the same rights in this country UNTIL they break the law. Then they will be dealt with by the legal system.
Report Post »Islesfordian
Posted on July 18, 2011 at 1:40pmButcher, there is a far cry from the State, or simply members of the government, acknowledging religion and their ENFORCING it. It robs me of no freedom if the governor or the entire apparatus of the state bows down to Ashteroth or to Satan himself, as long as I am not penalyzed or discriminated in the least by them for refusing to join them. But Muslims who an Islamic state seek one that will privelege IN LAW Islam and force non-Muslims into a second class Dhimmi status. Of paramount importance in this regard are blasphemy and apostacy laws.
Report Post »Islesfordian
Posted on July 18, 2011 at 1:47pmTo those backing Cain in this radical move because he recognizes the threat, let me ask you this: Do you think there is a chance at all that he will get elected with this stance unless the public fully wakes up to the threat? I bet almost all of you will say, NO. But if the public is fully awake then would there not be better ways to galvanize them to fight against militant Islam that doesn’t blow a hole into the fabric of our principle of religious freedom? I mean, if the majority KNEW that radical Islam hides within mosques then it really isn’t able to hide, is it?
Report Post »trolltrainer
Posted on July 18, 2011 at 2:01pmIslesfordian,
I understand where you are coming from. Every time the Muslim problem comes up on any discussion board it always degenerates into the FACTS that Islam is inherently evil and that they do want to be the ruling class. There is no doubt of this. But…This is NOT an Islamic country, this is America. We need to be careful outlawing any group, be they nazis, communists, blacks, jews, rebels, catholics, asians…Whatever. Any group may have designs to take over the government and change policy to their views. It is our responsibility to make sure that does not happen. But they are still entitled the freedoms this country grants any of its citizens, and that includes freedom to worship how they see fit and also free speech where they can criticize the very way of life of the country that gives them these very freedoms. I always got a kick out of the 1980s brand of neo-nazis who lacked the comprehension that if they were protesting the nazi German government, or Stalin’s Russian government they would have been shot on sight!
Muslims are just as entitled to their mosques as we are to our church. At least under the law of the land. If/when they break the law of the land they are to be held accountable and punished. Trying to outlaw something never succeeds in destroying it, only makes it stronger. Look at Christianity! :-)
Report Post »JRook
Posted on July 18, 2011 at 3:27pmIslesfordian I have to tell you I am somewhat surprised at your comments here, as it is the type of contestable extension logic that lead to the type assault on liberty and personal freedoms contained in the Patriot Act. The notion that the construction of a house of worship, regardless of religion, would expose the community to immoral, anti-American activities and violence is a manifestation of a paranoia that should have no place in public policy or civil discourse. If the Muslims who are chartering this church are citizens then they are covered by the same freedoms and protections afforded within the constitution and bill of rights. To even consider the possibility that these freedoms and rights are subject to the interpretation or restriction by the community is to advocate for majority rule at the expense of the individual. That it would seem rips at the very heart of the individual liberty cornerstone of our country.
Report Post »Islesfordian
Posted on July 18, 2011 at 3:54pmJROOK, I couldn‘t tell whether you were surprsied that you agreed with me or that you didn’t. It wasn’t clear to me exactly what you thought my position was. Perhaps I didn’t make myself clear.
I think Islam is a dangerous religion, that it isn’t naturally peaceful and that radical elements hide within mosques and use them to spread concepts of sharia law and jihad that are inimical to American constitutional freedom, BUT, and this is a big but, attacking that problem by undermining the concept of religious freedom is a dangerous, and frankly unnecessary, step. We don’t need to deprive all Muslims of the reight to worship just to target the dangerous radicals within the Muslim community. NOR SHOULD WE. Doing that is rather like undergoing chemotherapy to deal with acne, or like electing a fascist government to get us through an economic crisis.
Report Post »MrButcher
Posted on July 18, 2011 at 4:00pmBravo Jrook and TrollTrainer!!
Report Post »JRook
Posted on July 18, 2011 at 4:27pm@Islesfordian Got it, we are in the same ballpark here. But then again when one looks at history it is tough to identify a religion that is not dangerous and has not resulted in countless human beings loosing their lives. My father always said that more people have been killed in the name of God, as interpreted by their religious beliefs, than for any other reason. It is a difficult and complex battle when both sides believe they are doing Gods will and he is on their side. As with China, India and now UAI i have become more involved in international business opportunities and the vast majority of business people I deal with seem to reflect the old JFK line..”For, in the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children’s future. And we are all mortal.” One need only read posts from some of the more zealot individuals here to understand the challenge that greater understanding, acceptance and coexistence still pose almost 50 years after JFK’s observation. Let us not forget that there were communities in the early days of American that, out of collective paranoia, burned witches at the stake. And they didn’t even have a chance to apply for zoning on their dark castles or permits for the flying monkeys.
Report Post »Islesfordian
Posted on July 18, 2011 at 4:49pmJROOK, When you start calculating all thise who have been killed in the name of God don’t forget to include those killed in the pursuit of communist utpoianism, for that cuase too is an idealistic one, a FALSE ideal, but still an ideal. Man is governed by two sometimes competing desires: the desire to survive, to get by, which includes getting along with others, AND the desire to be good. This second desire leads to idealism that pulls us away from the self and worldly concerns. It can lead us to the height of philanthropy, which impels us to better get along with others, tolerance and all that, in a word, LOVE. But it can also, through distortion and self-deception, lead us to harm others “for the greater good”. A good man will lay down his life for his friend because he knows that there are more important things than life. But another man may take that same knowledge and kill another because there are more important things than the life of one man. Outwardly a man dies for the sake of something greater, but the motivations are 180 degrees apart.
A petty man may never do great things, but he will never do great harm either. Evil is the price that we pay for glory. If you want greatness to come from men then you will have to be ready for great evil as well. It isn’t religion that makes men evil. It is men that make religion evil. What is the difference between Saint Francis and Torquemada? Not their creed but their hearts.
Report Post »Islesfordian
Posted on July 18, 2011 at 5:00pmBy the way, Butcher, I am deeply piqued that you omitted me in your grant of kudos. I feel slighted and will have satisfaction.
Pistols at dawn.
Report Post »Islesfordian
Posted on July 18, 2011 at 5:01pmOh, on second thought, dawn doesn’t work for me. I like to sleep in on Tuesdays. And I’ve sprained myright thumb which makes holding pistols a little uncomfortable.
Shall we say rasberries at eleven?
Or how about now?
Ppphhhhbbbbbbttttttt. There. That will teach you.
Report Post »lylejk
Posted on July 18, 2011 at 10:49amI saw the interview; title here is misleading. He said that in the context that if such a mosque is a threat to Constitional adherence to the law (i.e., ban Shi’ria). I 100% agree with Cain. I will add that this doesn’t just have to apply to Mosques. I would do the same for any crazy cult like those in Waco, Texas too if they try to come to my community. You go Cain. You are among my short list but haven’t 100% decided yet. :)
Report Post »CicerosGhost
Posted on July 18, 2011 at 10:49amHe’s running for a federal office. What difference does it make what his opinion is regarding THIS subject?
The first amendment states “CONGRESS shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”
This prevents ANY intervention from the federal government in these matters.
The relevance of this is roughly comparable to asking, of Mr. Cain what his opinions are regarding local zoning changes or traffic light positioning.
These are matters for the states and for the localities, period.
His reasoning is sound.
Report Post »stillshocked
Posted on July 18, 2011 at 11:00amDo you not understand Sharia Law? Do you want our country to be divided up into Islamic states with their own set of Islamic laws? That’s what the long-term consequences could be if we don’t address the issue NOW.
Report Post »CicerosGhost
Posted on July 18, 2011 at 11:12amStillshocked,
I do not, but the subject is state and local, not federal.
In order to establish, in law, a community ruled by Sharia within the US, a state must permit it. This is, in my opinion, highly unlikely.
Report Post »Godfather.1
Posted on July 18, 2011 at 11:20amCICEROSGHOST
Apparently you have not heard of the Fourteenth Amendment. It applied the bill of rights to the states. Thus, state and local governments must also abide by the Fist Amendment, meaning that they cannot institute Sharia law nor ban a Mosque.
Report Post »CicerosGhost
Posted on July 18, 2011 at 11:40amGodfather,
Really? Which part of the 14th?
If you are referring to, “No state shall abridge the privileges or immunities of the citizens of the United States” then, you also have fallen for the logically distorted contemporary interpretation.
The first prohibits ONLY congress from either establishing or infringing on the freedom of religion.
This is a limitation of federal authority, NOT actually a protected privilege or immunity of the citizens of the United States.
We may believe it right and proper to enforce a different standard, but the text does NOT actually state what you suppose.
Report Post »rose-ellen
Posted on July 18, 2011 at 12:13pmHiding behind zoning laws and community standards makes him a coward without the courage of his convictions.If you want to ban islam then say so.To cast aspersions on the religion,and harrass and bully muslims is the tactic of cowards without the courage of their convictions.Publicaly calling for the banning of a religion makes you unamerican.Hence these cowards don’t publicaly do that but resort to bullying and harrassment.Those muslims go about their business as free people here, silently and with nothing to explain or apology for,building mosques as the cowardly bigots are exposed as both.
Report Post »Godfather.1
Posted on July 18, 2011 at 12:48pmCICEROSGHOST
Apparently you are not aware that over the past hundred or so years, the Supreme Court has incorporated the Bill of Rights through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and applied the Bill of Rights to the states, absent a couple of Amendments. Thus, according to the Supreme Court, whose interpretations are the law of the land, the First Amendment does apply to state and local governments.
I thought tea partiers were supposed to be experts on the Constitution. Clearly, as evidenced your and Cain’s statements, that is not true .
Report Post »CicerosGhost
Posted on July 18, 2011 at 1:27pmGodfather, I am aware.
They are wrong. The text is what it is. Regardless of the SC’s interpretation.
Secondly, the authority of the SC to apply the “weight of law” to their decisions (AKA Stare Decisis; the application of decisions to cases NOT actually heard by the supreme court) is an authority NOT granted the supreme court by the constitution.
In fact, the application of that authority violates Article one section one of the constitution, which grants CONGRESS ALL legislative authority.
It may be sensible to amend the constitution to reflect different standards, BUT a “tradition” of ignoring the ratified text of the constitution is not one of the authorized methods of amendment.
Report Post »CicerosGhost
Posted on July 18, 2011 at 1:30pmRose?
Did he call for the banning of a religion or are your exercising your right to hyperbolic distortion?
He did suggest that communities had the right to define, for themselves, the nature of their OWN communities.
Why shouldn’t they?
Report Post »Godfather.1
Posted on July 18, 2011 at 2:12pmCICEROSGHOST
Regardless of whether you think the Supreme Court is incorrect, Supreme Court rulings are the law of the land. Therefore, because the Supreme Court has ruled that the First Amendment applies to state and local governments, it applies to state and local governments.
I don’t know where you get your information but stare decisis does not violate the Constitution and it is not legislation. Rather, it is the interpretation of the law, which is exactly what the Supreme Court does, interpret the law. Courts must rely on earlier decisions otherwise there would be no consistency to our courts and rule of law. That is how a common law system works.
Whether you like it or not, that is how the US legal system works. You can disagree with a Supreme Court ruling but it is still the law. Therefore, a state or city could not ban a mosque, just like it could not ban a church, synagogue, or another house of worship.
Report Post »CicerosGhost
Posted on July 18, 2011 at 2:59pmGodfather,
What I think, is inconsequential, and irrelevant. What was actually ratified, is.
The constitution does grant specific immunities and privileges such as habeas, the right to a speedy trial or the right to bear arms, or immunities such as protection from ex-post facto laws or unlawful search and seizure.
Had the ratified text of the first amendment included either protections or immunities it would have read, [No law shall...] instead of [congress shall make no law...]
There is no such interpretative fungibility in the second. Those protections are inviolate.
The right to bears arms shall not be infringed.
Had the first also have been inviolate it would have read, when ratified, “the freedom of religion shall not be infringed.”
Yet, it wasn’t.
One may resign themselves subject to the “interpretations” but such is an abdication of your own reason.
Report Post »Godfather.1
Posted on July 18, 2011 at 5:22pmCICEROSGHOST
The fact of the matter is that the Supreme Court has ruled time and time again that state and local governments are bound by the First Amendment. Thus, state and local governments may make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. If a city council adopted an ordinance restricting mosques from the city limits, that would be a law that is infringing on the free exercise of religion.
As the Supreme Court has stated, laws must be secular in purpose and cannot target specific religions.
By the way, I appreciate the fact that you able to engage in an honest debate, which is more than I can say for most people on this site.
Report Post »CicerosGhost
Posted on July 18, 2011 at 6:36pmGodfather,
A supreme court decision or interpretation may not alter the actual ratified text. There is a process by which the ratified text may be altered, known as the amendment process. The poor reasoning and logic employed by any supreme court justices are not part of it.
By now you must recognize that the text of the first does not logically confer a protection or immunity and given that, the 14th does not (or at the very least, may not) apply.
It may be common accepted practice. It may even be reasonable. What it isn’t is either logical or constitutional.
Report Post »Godfather.1
Posted on July 18, 2011 at 9:47pmCICEROSGHOST
You are correct in saying that Supreme Court decisions do not change the text of the Constitution. However, that does not mean that Supreme Court decisions are irrelevant.
After the Miranda ruling, all law enforcement officers are required to give those warnings, otherwise any statements made are inadmissible as being obtained in an unconstitutional manner. Miranda did not change the text of the Fifth Amendment but instead provided what law enforcement officials must do to comply with the Fifth Amendment. Until that decision is overruled or an amendment is passed, Miranda is good law and must be followed by all, including state and local law enforcement.
The same goes for any interpretations of the First Amendment and the free exercise clause. In numerous cases, the Supreme Court has ruled that state must local governments comply with the First Amendment. Therefore, a city or state would be prohibited from banning mosques as that would be a violation of the free exercise clause. The text of the Constitution has not been change, but the Supreme Court has stated that that is how it is to be applied, hence, it is the law.
Report Post »CicerosGhost
Posted on July 19, 2011 at 12:50amGodfather?
“Hence it is the law”?
Really?
Article 1 section 1….
“All legislative authority is vested in CONGRESS….”
Yes, it actually stipulates ALL, not some or most, but ALL…..
This tends to dissolve the contention that the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States could carry ANY “weight of law”…..
This also tends to undermine the constitutionality of Stare Decisis…..
Personally, I believe it would be prudent that such authority be vested in the Supreme court, with some limitations. The decisions should be enforceable for a short period and that during that period the congress be obligated to resolve the conflict legislatively.
That authority requires an amendment, first.
For now though, the text is self evident, not fungible.
Report Post »Godfather.1
Posted on July 19, 2011 at 1:59amCICEROSGHOST
What then is the purpose of the Supreme Court if their decisions don’t hold any weight?
Supreme Court rulings are not legislation, period. Like any other courts, they interpret the laws, legislation passed by Congress, and determine how those laws are to be applied. Until new legislation is passed or the court overrules itself, that is how the law is applied from thereon. It is distinct from legislation, it is merely interpretation.
If what you say is true, why then can no state outlaw abortion after the Roe v. Wade ruling? Why are all police officers required to give Miranda warnings before interrogation? The constitution does not provide specifically for either one, but the Supreme Court has found that each must be complied with in order to comply with the Constitution. Thus, it is the law and every state and city must abide by those rulings.
If the legislature does not like how the court has interpreted a law it can pass a new one. If the legislature and states don’t like the interpretation of the Constitution, they can pass an amendment. That is how our legal system works. You may believe that it should function differently, but the reality is that is how it works.
Report Post »CicerosGhost
Posted on July 19, 2011 at 10:22amGodfather,
There is no question as to whether “what I’ve written is true”, the actual text is self evident.
You are being confused by assumed but not granted authorities. The Supreme Court has assumed authorities. Granted authorities are granted by the constitution, but the language granting them was never actually written, proposed or ratified by amendment.
This isn’t revolutionary. It isn’t a secret. The first supreme court grappled with this issue, until they assumed the authority following their own decision (See Marbury versus Madison). Yes, judicial review of federal statutes was an authority which they assumed by a decision, not by the constitution.
They were cognizant of the violation. THEY made a choice. The rulings, applied as law, flow from the false premise that the Supreme Court actually has that authority under the constitution.
You asked “why the states can’t/haven’t…..” The answer is simple, they too have accepted the role the supreme court has assumed. Acceptance and tradition, though are also not methods of amending the constitution.
Report Post »Godfather.1
Posted on July 19, 2011 at 1:51pmCICEROSGHOST
So we are supposed to believe that you have a better understanding of the Constitution than all the Supreme Court Justices from the last 200 years?
The duty of the courts is to determine what the applicable law means. The Constitution is the supreme law of this country. How then is the Supreme Court to apply the constitution in its rulings if it does not first determine what it means?
If there were no judicial review, law in this country would be erratically inconsistent. Who would determine whether something is Constitutional or not? If it is the legislature, then the Constitution’s meaning would change with every election as everyone has their own interpretation.
The point is, Marbury v. Madison is settled law and judicial review is permissible under the Constitution, regardless of whether it is explicitly provided for. You may believe that it is unconstitutional and that our legal system does not follow the Constitution but the fact of the matter is that the Supreme Court can and does strike down laws as being unconstitutional and the rulings are binding across the country.
So back to the main point of this topic, Herman Cain is wrong. A state or city cannot ban a mosque because the Supreme Court has found that the First Amendment applies to the states. You may believe this is unconstitutional, but is accepted law and will continue to be applied as such.
Report Post »CicerosGhost
Posted on July 19, 2011 at 2:40pmGodfather,
Mr Cain is not wrong. People SHOULD have the right to determine for themselves, the nature of their own community. Stip clubs, liquor stores, even major retailers are denied license to develop land within a community every day.
The first may have been deemed a list of protections but logically, it isn’t. It is a list of restrictions to federal authority. When coupled with the text of the 10th amendment, it seems rather clear that the federal government may not assume authorities not granted it by the Constitution. We are where we are though.
If one reads the Tennessee constitution, the applicable passage states, “That all men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own conscience; that no man can of right be compelled to attend, erect, or support any place of worship, or to maintain any minister against his consent; that no human authority can, in any case whatever, control or interfere with the rights of conscience; and that no preference shall ever be given, by law, to any religious establishment or mode of worship. ”
What it doesn’t state is that no community may decline the permits for use of an existing structure or deny the permit or zoning required to construct a physical structure.
According to the Tennessee state constitution. The citizens of this town should retain the authority to exercise discretion regarding development of lands within their community.
Report Post »skape101
Posted on July 18, 2011 at 10:49amCan we vote against a God Fathers Pizza in our community?
Report Post »fertlmind
Posted on July 18, 2011 at 11:01amSure you can.
Report Post »They do it to walmart all the time.
Why not do it to a mosque that is in essence designed to work directly against the public interest?
The community should decide.
calebgs83
Posted on July 18, 2011 at 10:48amMuhammad was a mass murderer, pedophile, and rapist among other things; why is Islam a respected religion? The Koran spews the same hate as Mein Kampf. Cain is exactly right, Islam demands the merging of church and state, that is called sedition. All of Islam should be banned in America as a terrorist organization.
Report Post »Rational Man
Posted on July 18, 2011 at 4:40pm“All of Islam should be banned in America as a terrorist organization.”
Well heck ya! After all it is a terrorist organization. All one has to do is listen to their Imams, (preachers). Read their book!
Report Post »rockstone
Posted on July 18, 2011 at 10:48amI hope you didn’t quit your day job Mr. Cain. This is America sir. You can build a mosque in America sir.
Folks. If a President Cain can tell someone they can’t build a mosque, how long do you think it will be before someone tells you you can’t build build a church?
Report Post »let us prey
Posted on July 18, 2011 at 10:54amAn enemy invader must never be classified as a religion.
Report Post »stillshocked
Posted on July 18, 2011 at 10:56amExplain to me how any other mainstream religion interferes with America’s justice system.
Report Post »rockstone
Posted on July 18, 2011 at 11:08am@ LET US PREY
You’re right. The Native Americans should have slaughtered the Christians at Plymouth Rock.
How silly of me!
Now…. What to do about those greedy Jews who run the banks and destroyed our economy?
Got any ideas on that? I think that with a little creativity, we could make that seem like an invasion of some sort.
Report Post »sarc/
MSMOM
Posted on July 18, 2011 at 11:37amThe Federal Gov already does this all the time, only it’s Christian churches that are discriminated against. I guess as long as it‘s christianity it’s fair game. Stop with the dbl standard. If people were hollaring praise jesus as their bombs exploded the left of this country would demand all churches be investigated. However because it is Muslims we must respect their feelings and views. Where do you draw the line as to what constitutes “freedom of religion”
Report Post »rockstone
Posted on July 18, 2011 at 12:03pm@ stillshocked
“Explain to me how any other mainstream religion interferes with America’s justice system”
Correct me if I am wrong. Do witnesses in court still swear on a Bible in this country?I sthe court systme still the justice system? You tell me.
Now, I do know that Presidents swear on one. And probably other elected officials also.
Would you like that changed also? Because if you ban mosques, you’re on that road.
Report Post »let us prey
Posted on July 18, 2011 at 12:27pm@rockstone
Report Post »The country is giving religious status to an invader called Islam. This is violating the principles of national security. Talk about Plymouth rock if you want to, but that just reminds me of how much Mass really sucks. Maybe you are from there and if so I am sorry for you. Mass is full of wonderful American History and now it is inhabited by progressives and deviants. The idea of America being a multicultural community has only diluted our national identity. We are all Americans here, and immigrants, not Americans must adapt. IMO
no sarcasm for you.
Rational Man
Posted on July 18, 2011 at 4:45pm“Folks. If a President Cain can tell someone they can’t build a mosque, how long do you think it will be before someone tells you you can’t build build a church?”
Cain did not say that!!
Report Post »He said it should be up to the communities. That is small government, unlike what we have now that wants to force stuff like a violent hate group, (Islam), on us against our will.
Try to get it right, if you can………………..
missy8s
Posted on July 18, 2011 at 10:45amIf a so called “religion” advocates pedophilia, slavery, rape, stoning, amputation, castration, hanging or beheading because a person refuses to convert it’s not really a religion is it?
Report Post »stillshocked
Posted on July 18, 2011 at 10:46amExcellent point!
Report Post »CicerosGhost
Posted on July 18, 2011 at 10:51amYou’ve made a good point.
Thank you.
Report Post »trolltrainer
Posted on July 18, 2011 at 10:52amThese are all crimes and if they have taken place they should be prosecuted.
Report Post »Jackers
Posted on July 18, 2011 at 10:55amAnd Herman Cain would be absolutely correct… Islam is an ideological doctrine with a thin veneer of religion… Check out the site, Atlas Shrugs, to learn more of how well Muslim immigration is working out in Europe…
Report Post »A Doctors Labor Is Not My Right
Posted on July 18, 2011 at 11:01amOur Founders already dealt with the issue of factions in Federalist Papers #10.
Just return to the Constitution, and these issues take care of themselves!
Federalist Papers #10
Report Post »http://constitution.org/fed/federa10.htm
rose-ellen
Posted on July 18, 2011 at 12:27pmWe used to do stuff like that and today men women and children are murdered every day by their fellow citizens for all kinds of reasons.[ and we traffic in sex slaves and pedophilia and we have indentured servitude].Their penal codes are cultural and vary among muslims countries and across time.They can practice their religion as long as [like any other religion] it doesn’t violate our laws.What they do in their homelands is their business,not ours.Of course we supported brutal oppressors for our interests.We should have an open door policy for women and gays from muslim countries since you’re so outraged at cultural practices in some muslim countires.Put your money where your mouth is and bring in MORE oppressed muslims.Hypocrites!
Report Post »hauschild
Posted on July 18, 2011 at 10:45amI think if you listen to the context of how Cain presented his argument, it makes sense. No other religion (that I am aware of) infuses religion with law, making them non-mutually-exclusive, as does Sharia. I think this is Herman was pointing out.
And, if we still need to be reminded that Islam is not something will make America stronger, we’re hopeless, really.
Report Post »rose-ellen
Posted on July 18, 2011 at 12:41pmWhat’s a law? here a law is what the state says is a law.Free people have the right to live by their sense of a “higher” law as long as they don’t break secular law.All religions have “laws” thaty may or may not be compatible with secular law. Tortally irrelevnt to the fact that people have the right to believe in any religion they choose.
Report Post »Barry
Posted on July 18, 2011 at 10:45amGo Herman.
Report Post »stillshocked
Posted on July 18, 2011 at 10:43amHooray for you, Herman Cain! Even though many Muslims don’t want Sharia Law…there are those who see the truth Mr. Cain is talking about and how a foothold in our society can erode our justice system.
America needs to address this and protect OUR justice system:
http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/2011/July/Muslim-Extremists-Seek-Sharia-Law-in-UK-Towns/
Report Post »fertlmind
Posted on July 18, 2011 at 10:40am“I’m willing to take a harder look at people that might be terrorists”
Report Post »Me too!
It’s the main problem that I have about how we handle our security.
Mr. Cain has the balls to say what many people believe.
Islam wants to take over and control the world.
They want to kill all non believers and eliminate our rights under the Constitution.
Why should we let them wedge their way into our legal system just so they can destroy it?
Cymry
Posted on July 18, 2011 at 10:42amGo Herman, Go Herman, Go Herman…….with your bad self! :)
Cain-Bachmann 2012.
Report Post »SacredHonor1776
Posted on July 18, 2011 at 10:48amOn a side note if one can ban mosques, others could use that as precedence to ban churches. Be careful what you wish for, it might come back to bite you in the ass.
I know there are alot of atheists, and anti-theist liberal communists that would love to ban Christians as they see them all as fundamentalists out to usurp the constitution and turn the nation into theocracy. While they sit around defending Muslims doing the same thing strange enough. Hypocrisy really, when if they had the true convictions their anti-religion should cover all forms of religion equally. But I digress…
Report Post »rose-ellen
Posted on July 18, 2011 at 12:33pmWanting is not a crime.Except to 21st c american genociicists.[and they say the muslims are intolerent!]
Report Post »MONICNE
Posted on July 18, 2011 at 10:39amTher was also a recent story out of Dearborn Michigan about a community that sucessfully bannned the YMCA/YWCA from building a new Community Center with basketball, pool and chapel (but no mosque). They complained at a public meeting that the “Y” would create consciousness about “C.”
As a COMMUNITY, if you can say no to the Y, you can slap down a muslim dream just as well.
TEA
Report Post »stillshocked
Posted on July 18, 2011 at 10:43amAmen!
Report Post »hauschild
Posted on July 18, 2011 at 10:48amI’m no rocket scientist, but I think the gist is that normal Americans – if they get a choice – would choose NOT to invite “problems” into their communities. Others, don’t mind the problems because there is something in it for them, usually financial or similar.
You’ve gotta remain vigilant in times like these.
Report Post »MONICNE
Posted on July 18, 2011 at 11:06amThis is not rocket science, more like, hypertheologyroidism.
Report Post »JRook
Posted on July 18, 2011 at 11:30amhypertheologyroidism Wait wait. did Palin approve this word?
Report Post »hauschild
Posted on July 18, 2011 at 11:41amI think it’s in the dictionary right before strategery.
Report Post »SacredHonor1776
Posted on July 18, 2011 at 12:08pmCan a community have the right to ban right wingers, conservatives, constitutionalists, veterans, and christians?
Remember this administration has deemed these (which I can say I’m a part of on some accounts) as extremists and terrorists. Note: I’m libertarian with some conservative beliefs, and a constitutionalist.
I‘m seriously certain what Caine is asking for wouldn’t pass constitutional muster in the Supreme Cout, as it would ban ‘free exercise clause’.
http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/rightwing.pdf
That’s not to say, I do think we need to keep an eye open on the Mosques and make sure none are preaching violent shar’i a laws, or terrorism.
Report Post »MidWestMom
Posted on July 18, 2011 at 12:10pmhypertheologyroidism ???? Can’t find that in my dictionary.
Report Post »Erabin
Posted on July 18, 2011 at 1:02pmMonicne, I will assume you’re lying unless you provide proof for your story about the banning of the YMCA.
Report Post »MONICNE
Posted on July 18, 2011 at 1:42pmERABIN, amd MidWestMom
Glenn tells us to do our own research, therefore you are on your own mission (if you decide to challenge the truth that this material you question did, indeed appear on the Internet in a Glenn Beck- produced directory.
TEA
Report Post »Rational Man
Posted on July 18, 2011 at 4:59pmThank you for pointing out the hypocrisy and real prejudice against Christians with that story.
Report Post »It’s pretty clear that the left hates Christianity and embraces Islam. Eventhough Islam will destroy them when their ‘useful idiocy’ is no longer beneficial to Islam’s cause.
We are already hearing statements to that effect from overseas Muslim leaders.
How stupid can one get?
powhatan
Posted on July 18, 2011 at 10:37amEach community should have a duty, to do as they please about any building..without Federal interfearence.
Report Post »fastfacts
Posted on July 18, 2011 at 11:11amTHIS WILL PROBABLY HIS HARDEST THING TO OVERCOME IN HIS CAMPAIGN…
Watch his great ad though talking about Obama’s lack of leadership: http://url2it.com/ftfr
Report Post »agameofthrones
Posted on July 18, 2011 at 10:37amSorry to step on any toes, but I agree with him. Islam is not just a religion, it is also their form of government. They think nothing of our laws and will break them without a care, but they are very mindful of Sharia. If the citizens of a community view an Islamic mosque as a threat to their safety and security and way of life, then they should have a right to ban it. Christians are forced to do away with any display of religios images or expression in the public square, but it seems that the libs bend over backward to accomodate the Muslims. Backward is the best description of Islam as well. Not many of us want to live the way they did in the 12th century. Their religion is a deterrent to peace and progress.
Report Post »JRook
Posted on July 18, 2011 at 10:37amInteresting so citizens and I guess that would certainly mean the legislature should not have the right to infuse their morals in the community. So a legislature should not be able to put forth an abortion bill thta infuses their morals into the community that is inconsistent with the majority opinion in the community and inconsistent with current secular law. Actually, I agree with him.
Report Post »MONICNE
Posted on July 18, 2011 at 10:40amMr. Caine is absolutely correct, we in America do NOT need to be told we are intolerant.
Report Post »NJTMATO
Posted on July 18, 2011 at 10:44amThe way you have stated your position JROOK, I believe, I agree completely. There is a difficult fine line however…as the comment below yours indicates, I wouldn’t want anyone to ban a church, synogogue, etc….however, if a community IS say Evangelical and there is an Evangelical church, they would be able to stay there (in business)….if there are no Catholics or Jews, then most likely, a Catholic Church or a Synogogue would not build or stay in that community as no one would attend and therefore, they would not be in business….sort of like a free market huh? This issue is difficult. And, separation of church and state is NOT in the Constitution, so the PEOPLE actually DO have the choice here for no legislation as the government isn’t supposed to legislate religion. Ugh, my apologies, I won’t run on any further.
Report Post »stillshocked
Posted on July 18, 2011 at 10:51amThe issue of abortion is not necessarily a “moral” issue. The decline of societies first begins with the devaluation of human life and I disagree that the “majority” of Americans support abortion.
Report Post »JRook
Posted on July 18, 2011 at 11:04am@stillshocked of course it is all about how you ask the question. If asked “are you in favor of abortion”, I would answer no. But if you asked “are you in favor of the government limiting or eliminating a woman’s right to have reproductive choices such as contraception and abortion” I would also say no. Particularly, since the overwhelming majority of people who are pro life base their position on religious and moral grounds. The issue gets particularly cloudy when consider the positions within other religions such as Judaism.
Report Post »JRook
Posted on July 18, 2011 at 2:58pm@NJTMATO Beg to differ on your constitution statement…The First Amendment reads “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” I would think this would be applied to a local government practice by the court. Article VI specifies that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. As far as the free market reference, certainly good point, but I think it is more an issue of freedom to assemble and free exercise of religion question. Whether people like what the religion stands believes or represents to its members, short of illegal acts, would not be a reason to curtail this.
Report Post »Islesfordian
Posted on July 18, 2011 at 5:12pmIf asked “are you in favor of slavery”, I would answer no. But if you asked “are you in favor of the government limiting or eliminating a mans right to own a slave” I would also say no. Particularly, since the overwhelming majority of people who are pro life base their position on religious and moral grounds.
Different issue, JROOK, same reality. There was a time when the majority of abolitionists were motivated by religion, as most people were religious. Atheism says nothing about whether slavery is wrong because all atheists barrow their most of their morality from religions. Check Neitzhce on what morality menas in the absense of God.
It should matter what a person’s motivation for a moral or political position is. All that should matter is whether it is right or not.
Report Post »TomBombadil
Posted on July 18, 2011 at 10:36amI am in two minds about this idea. But I believe I come up against it.
I want a community to be self-determinent, but also I do not want a community to be able to ban Evangelicals, Catholics, Protestants, or whomever they want. People will find some way to claim that the religion they’re against was bridging church and state.
And anyway, sorry, Mr. Cain, you didn’t get the intention of the separation of church and state. And it’s not technically in the constitution. Minor gaffe which seems to be taken as fact these days.
Report Post »MONICNE
Posted on July 18, 2011 at 10:41amWe are missing the real point, which is the Constitution applies to real Americans, and not muslims (or muslim supporters).
Report Post »AzDebi
Posted on July 18, 2011 at 10:43am@TOMBOMBADIL:
U.S. Mosques: Terror Mills?
Posted 06/20/2011 07:04 PM ET
Investor Business Daily
“Homeland Security: An alarming new study shows homegrown terrorists
are not just radicalized in prisons or chat rooms but in mainstream
U.S. mosques. Now if someone would just tell the White House.
A survey of 100 randomly selected mosques in America finds 81% of them
feature Islamic literature — not including the Quran and Sunnah — that
advocates violence. And 85% of the imams running the mosques actively
recommend these tracts.
Only 19% of the mosques do not disseminate Islamic materials
sanctioning jihadi violence, according to the peer-reviewed data
collected by two scholars sponsored by the Washington-based Center for
Security Policy. If accurate, this turns everything we’ve been told by
Washington on its head.
Despite pleasant platitudes to the contrary, the majority of mosques
Report Post »are not preaching interfaith tolerance and assimilation. While some
do, they are the exception — the fringe. It’s the mainstream mosques
that are actually radical. Fully four of every five, in fact, may be
potential hotbeds for terrorist activity…”
trolltrainer
Posted on July 18, 2011 at 10:45amYep, bottom line is we have freedom of religion and that includes Muslims. Many towns in the south wanted to deny blacks at one time, that was no more right than this idea.
If…and this is a BIG “if”…If they can prove that a mosque is promoting violence or any other illegal activity then the government does have the right to shut it down. But they do not have the right to regulate what people believe, whether it is that homosexuality is wrong, blacks should be shipped back to Africa, Hitler was a fine leader and should be emulated, white ******* babies should be killed, or that infidels deserve death…These are simply concepts and are allowed in this country for better or worse.
Report Post »Dale
Posted on July 18, 2011 at 10:52amCain’s comment that the Constitution guarantees church/state separation. Sorry Herman, THAT is not in the Constitution. While I supported him, that is too major a gaffe (or ignorance) to ignore.
Report Post »lylejk
Posted on July 18, 2011 at 10:53amWould you allow the crazy waco cults from Waco to exist in your home town? I say nay. Again, any sect that tries to trump itself over Constitutional rules and laws should be disdained and not allowed imo. If the charter for the Mosque refutes Shi’ria in favor of adhering to Constitutional edicts, then I have no beef with said Mosque. :)
Report Post »LOOKING_BOTH_WAYS
Posted on July 18, 2011 at 10:54amBut saying .. The separation of Church and State …. is so much easier then saying
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
just saying …………………………………………….
Report Post »Oldphoto678
Posted on July 18, 2011 at 11:08am@MONICNE
We are missing the real point, which is the Constitution applies to real Americans, and not muslims (or muslim supporters).
I’m sure that you wish that were true with all your heart, but it’s not. The founders intended that our
Report Post »inalienable rights were for all.
Just more proof that you are in fact to stupid to understand the intent of the founders, the law, or the constitution.
SacredHonor1776
Posted on July 18, 2011 at 11:53amRemember the government left already considers fundamentalists extremist terrorists and would use a law like this to ban churches.
http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/rightwing.pdf
Report Post »sWampy
Posted on July 18, 2011 at 1:21pmIslam is not a religion, period, sturdy history, study the founding of this oppressive form of government without borders, Islam is no more a religion than the bar room bet by El Ron Hubbard known as Scientology is a religion.
Report Post »Chet Hempstead
Posted on July 18, 2011 at 3:16pmMONICNE
Report Post »You are wrong people have rights, they’re not a present from the government. The Constitution doesn’t give us our rights, it just promises to protect them. And nowhere in the Bill of Rights do the words citizen or American appear.
Chet Hempstead
Posted on July 18, 2011 at 3:24pmSwampy
Report Post »Even if Islam wasn’t a religion, which it is, Muslims would still have a right of free assembly which is especially meant to protect political groups, including those advancing unpopular causes, so they would still have a right to use property that they own as a mosque. They would also still have the right to advocate changing the law, if that’s what they want, I don’t think it is in most cases. Evan if I’m wrong about that, there are only about two million Muslims in the whole country. We should be able to say no to their agenda without depriving them of their rights.
MONICNE
Posted on July 18, 2011 at 4:15pmDebi can prove that 85% of mosques contain anti-peaceful literature. So that fact peaks for itself.
Can you imagine if 85% of all homes had PG-13 or R rated materials present? O-M-G
TEA
Report Post »MONICNE
Posted on July 18, 2011 at 4:18pmThe Bush Doctrine placed the US at WAR with terrorists or terrorist supporters, so what is the issue?
GW said, “You are with us, or, against us. If you support our enemies you are against us.”
Report Post »