Some time ago I posted on Facebook that I would support Herman Cain for president. Now one of my friends, whom I respect greatly, raised some concerns about this claiming that Cain has some very radical views. My friend did provide me with the links to prove his points, to which I am very grateful, saves me some legwork.
One view that was brought up was the fact that Herman Cain said that he would not place a Muslim in his cabinet that supported Sharia law.
Apparently this is a big deal to some on the left. So I responded with the following:
I read the transcript and watched the video. What Cain argued was that there are some Muslims who are against the Constitution because it runs contrary to Sharia law, and this is really nothing new. Much of the hatred towards the Constitution is based upon Sharia law because the Constitution preaches equality, and after reading the Qur'an and Sharia law, equality of something that SOME Muslims don't want. The regime in Iran proves this point view clearly by stoning women and hanging homosexuals. Rights and protection under law is only for a few under Sharia law, whereas under the Constitution equal rights and protection is for all (even though our history hasn't lived up to these ideals completely). The Constitution was intended for equality, while Sharia law is based upon inequality. (I'm not anti-Muslim, just calling it as I see it.) Did he make the strong claim that there's a necessary link? I don't interpret him that way. Is there link? Absolutely, but did Cain make the claim that necessarily, if one accepts Sharia law then one is going to be against the Constitution...? No, he did not. At most, I interpret Cain's claims as simply stating a sufficient condition, not necessary condition.
So, because Cain won’t put someone in his cabinet who supports radical Sharia law, this is somehow being radical, or at least controversial. I fail to see how exactly. As president he is sworn to defend and protect the Constitution of the United States, and thus it makes absolutely no sense to put someone in his cabinet who could be extremely hostile towards the Constitution. Granted, I said “could,” but it’s the wise move. The last thing a president needs is someone in his cabinet who could possibly constantly argue against him in meetings, etc. Such a person could hinder the president. Therefore, it’s the wise decision.
Another sticking point. Herman Cain thinks that communities should be allowed to ban Mosques if the community has a legitimate concern that the Mosque will preach and try to establish Sharia law.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/07/17/cain-says-communities-have-right-to-ban-mosques/
Again this is considered controversial and perhaps radical, and I can understand why some would see this. Some could argue that such an action is a violation of freedom of religion, i.e., first amendment:
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. (http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html)
First off, if a community says that a Sharia supporting Mosque can’t be built isn’t a violation the first amendment because Congress isn’t passing a law that says that Mosque can’t be built. Now of course I’m examining the first amendment literally, which is extremely controversial to some on the left. Be that as it may, I’m looking at the first amendment literally.
Secondly, I do find it interesting that some of the left would be troubled by Cain’s position because there are instances where a community disallows a religious practice and the left remains silent. For instance, here recently Pastor Warren Jeffs of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints was sentenced on the basis that he was promoting polygamy.http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/08/09/polygamist-leader-faces-possible-life-prison-term/
To my knowledge, the left has been extremely silent about this. Essentially a community (using this term in a very broad sense) has said that polygamy cannot be practiced, but the left has remained silent. However, if a community (again using broadly) says that a Mosque cannot be built in their community because its petitioners support Sharia law, that’s controversial and perhaps radical. This strikes me as odd because on the one hand some on the left cry “foul” if Muslims are denied to do certain things, but are silent if Mormons are denied to do certain things. Are not dealing with religion?
Now, one could object by saying, “The Mormons are being denied a certain practice, whereas Muslims could be denied the building a Mosque. They’re not the same thing.”
Granted, they’re not exactly the same thing. However, by not allowing a Mosque to be built, Muslims are being denied the practice of their religion, because Mosques (like Christian churches) are the principle place where Muslims practice their religion. So, in essence, by disallowing a Mosque, one is disallowing the practice of Islam. But again, we’re still faced with a dichotomy on the left. Opposing Muslims is controversial; opposing Mormons is not.
Objection: “Polygamy is unethical, Islam is not. That’s why polygamy is outlawed.”
I agree with this objection. I do find polygamy unethical. However, this objection misses a point. I’m not saying that Islam itself is unethical, but I do have ethical problems with Sharia law, and not all Muslims accept Sharia law. Therefore, I object to the practice of polygamy and Sharia law. If one wishes to call me radical and controversial, I gladly accept these “labels.”
No comments:
Post a Comment