Friday, July 15, 2011
Politics Herman Cain: Murfreesboro Mosque 'Isn't an Innocent Mosque'
Posted by Jack Silverman on Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 11:21 AM
Above, Herman Cain explaining why there's no way in, uh, hell that he'll allow Muslims in his administration. (His administration! Yeah, right!)
According to Huffington Post, reactionary nutjob Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain told reporters at a Murfreesboro rally yesterday that he opposes the construction of a Murfreesboro mosque that has been at the center of controversy for almost a year now. From Cain's remarks to reporters:
It is an infringement and an abuse of our freedom of religion. ... And I don't agree with what's happening, because this isn't an innocent mosque. ... It is another example of why I believe in American laws and American courts. This is just another way to try to gradually sneak Shariah law into our laws, and I absolutely object to that.It is an infringement and an abuse of our freedom of religion? Does he really not see the irony of that remark? Or has he just adopted the revered Tea Party tradition of attempting to use the fallacy of your argument as a strength? Is it just an attempt to push past Michele Bachmann as the candidate with the "choot-spa" to protect Christian America from the imminent threat of Sharia law? Or just a vain ploy to get airtime on The Daily Show ?
Comments (69)
Showing 1-50 of 69
Caine wouldn't recognize irony, if it came up and hit him with a mirror.
like
dislike
Well, it's "abuse of our freedom of religion" because, in Cain's mind, this isn't really what we meant by freedom of religion. It's as if you published a newspaper packed with nothing but libel and misinformation and tried to hide behind freedom of the press (feel free to make any comments you wish about real-life examples). That would not really be in the spirit of the Bill of Rights. To Cain, Islam is a malign excuse for a religion, just as the hypothetical paper is a poor excuse for an information source. If you go along with that, then his statement is not ironic at all. It is, however, very insulting to a large percentage of the American population, and to hundreds of millions of people throughout the world who don't go around killing people or blowing things up.
Also, I am SO DAMN SICK of this "Sharia law" crap. They try to make you think that American women are about three days away from being stuffed into burkhas. Christianity is a million times more powerful than Islam in this country and, thank God, the law has managed to move quite a bit away from its influence in the past century, despite the efforts of fundamentalists. Probably Christianists fear "Sharia law" because they understand so well the wish to impose one's religious beliefs on everyone else.
Pete, the people who go around blabbing about Sharia Law have no idea what it means either, only that they heard some radio talk show host or Fox News talking head discussing it's imminent danger. It's really nothing more than another marketing ploy to cash in on the fear, ignorance and perceived victimization of many middle aged white conservatives. The Tea Party movement is another one.
AND ANOTHER THING! What is to be gained by stopping the construction of a mosque? Do you think that will make Muslims give up and convert to Southern Baptists? Say you've got a bunch of people you don't really trust. Do you want them 1. feeling satisfied and linked with their community and 2. meeting regularly in a place clearly identified, or do you want them 1. resentful and alienated and 2. finding a private place to meet? Are you so wedded to your characterization of your opponents that you want to make it a self-fulfilling prophecy?
Just realized the answer to my last question: A person who becomes a Muslim immediately becomes a terrorist, an anti-American, a cancer in the community, who cannot be redeemed without rejecting Islam. Thus there is no point in trying to stay on good terms with them and treating them like human beings, hoping to engage them in community betterment. You must vilify them and make them pariahs, so that no innocent person will make the same mistake and go over to the Dark Side. Bullying and belittling them is the proper response; anything else is un-American, pinko, and nigger-loving.
"Probably Christianists fear "Sharia law" because they understand so well the wish to impose one's religious beliefs on everyone else."
Brilliant statement, Pete. Cuts right to the chase.
But...but...but... Islam is a political movement and system, not a religion, Fox News told me so.
Damn, who let the dogs out.
So after the Christians again. I'll tell you what I would rather be caught by a bunch of fundamentalist Christians any day than some radical Islamists ready to practice Sharia law on me. I don't think I would go around putting Sharia law in quotes either.
"I" don't think "I" would "go around" putting Sharia Law in "quotes" either.
There ya go, John. Now you can go back to your fear bunker and hunker down.
Per the Constitution of the United States of America:
The Second Amendment states: ““Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”.
"You know what would be even worse? A troop of grizzly bears!"
That bear up at Yellowstone that attacked that man was probably a sleeper agent. And you're right, I wouldn't want to be attacked by a troop of grizzly bears either. I'd prefer the Muslim extremists. I mean if it's just a choice between the two. I also prefer to capitalize SHARIA LAW rather than puts quotes around it. It makes it that much more ominous.
"So after the Christians again."
No offense John, but who's after the Christians again? I think this whole post was mocking Herman Cain, a politician, for getting involved in this non-issue.
Ahh, CA. You know what I mean. Do not deny it. This PITH board is like an attack dog, ie who let the dogs out? The poor church going and conservative middle class is rightfully distrustful of Islam after events going back 10 or more years. Some rather serious.
I do get, at least a whiff of bigotry, from many on this board as soon as there is an opportunity to attack alleged bad behavior by ordinary Christians who present no threat to you, unlike radical Islam, who will blow you up in a minute.
These church going people are hard working folks who would not hurt a fly. They are not going to attack Muslims building a mosque in Murf, now, are they? They might waste money on lawyers, but the Muslims have no one to blame but themselves.
As for Sharia law, you know and I know it is a brutal medieval practice. This does not need any debate.
The poor muslim angels, what is it about libs that make them so in love with them and hate Christians? And don't quote the constitution, you(libs) spit on it every chance you get, so you have no credibility on that issue. You are right about Sharia law being a non-issue in this country, but not because a lib pol will protect you but because of citizens with lots of guns.
Obama's policy of reaching out to muslims has gotten us nowhere and it never will, just ask Israel about it.
How many of you have been to a country who practices Sharia Law? That's what I thought. Most of you defenders of this have no idea what you're talking/writing about. Herman is absolutely right and you are wrong. I've lived there and you...especially liberal leaning people.....would be aghast at the reality of it. Ignorance.
If Cain wants to become President, perhaps he should read the Constitution of the United States of America:
Article Six: The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
The Second Amendment states: ““Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”.
"How many of you have been to a country who practices Sharia Law?"
Countries don't practice law. Attorneys practice law. Ba-dump-bump.
Thank you, thank you. I'll be here all week.
16oz: I was saying that it's extremely far-fetched to say that "Sharia law" is somehow going to become the law by which we live in the United States. I would be extremely worried if I actually thought it was. I dislike a lot of things about Islam, terrorism links aside, and would never be a Muslim. (I don't happen to be a Christian or a Jew either.) I really don't expect that anyone is going to try to turn me into a Muslim against my will. I also think that Islam can be practiced without violating U.S. laws--many, many people have done it for many, many years--and that American Muslims will be more likely to continue doing so if they are not vilified and asked to abandon their religion. Any action that really is based on "Sharia law" and violates U.S. law should, of course, be punished by U.S. law. I would say that about any religion.
If Herman Cain is afraid of the creeping oppression of Sharia Law then he must REALLY hate Fox News. Right?
Ooops, forgot you can't embed links here:
News Corp’s number-two shareholder funded ‘terror mosque’ planner
http://beta.news.yahoo.com/blogs/upshot/ne…
A Canadian Islamic professor has more hanging-parts than these American LeftLibProggs I'm reading on this board...
Let's change the tune on official multiculturalism
About one dozen families who recently immigrated to Canada are demanding that the Louis Riel School Division in Winnipeg excuse their children from music and coed physical education programs for religious reasons.
The families believe that music is un-Islamic - just like the Taliban believe and then imposed on the entire population of Afghanistan - and that physical education classes should be segregated by gender even in the elementary years....
In any event, the school district is trying to find a way to adapt the curriculum to fit the wishes of these families, rather than these families adapting to fit into the school and Canadian culture.
Mahfooz Kanwar, a member of the Muslim Canadian Congress, says he has some better ideas.
"I'd tell them, this is Canada, and in Canada, we teach music and physical education in our schools. If you don't like it, leave. If you want to live under sharia law, go back to the hellhole country you came from or go to another hellhole country that lives under sharia law," said Kanwar, who is a professor emeritus of sociology at Mount Royal University in Calgary.
That might be putting things a little more forcefully than most of us would be comfortable with, but Kanwar says he is tired of hearing about such out-of-tune demands from newcomers to our country. "Immigrants to Canada should adjust to Canada, not the other way around," he argues....
As should immigrants to America. This should be a melting pot, not a haven for disparate clans (you listening, Hispanics?).
And when you, 'Southern Beale', visit Mecca and Medina and come home with photos to prove it, you'll be worth listening to. Otherwise, just shut your LeftLibProgg pie-hole.
Non-Muslims are prohibited from entering/visiting Mecca today. I don't know about Medina. I am sure all recall that intrepid English explorer Sir Richard Burton, disguised as an Arab, entering Mecca. This was prior to the days of multiculturalism, of course, and as far as I know, multiculturalism still is not thought well of in many parts of the Muslim world.
The Ottoman Empire before its collapse was still executing Muslims who left that religion and became Christian. Radical Muslim behavior has a long history, and most normal people are opposed to it.
The Muslims in this country seem to have made little effort to oppose their radical elements; to find these people/beliefs disturbing is not bigotry.
John: "As for Sharia law, you know and I know it is a brutal medieval practice. This does not need any debate."
Was it as equally brutal as the inquisition .... or the Salem witch trials just to name a few? Christianity has done just as much brutality through the ages to innocent people as has Islam. Evil deeds done in the name of ones religious beliefs does not make them right. Can't we all just get along, let one another worship at any church/mosque/synagogue/temple as they choose, as gauranteed in the constitution, openly in the public. Let's build a better sense of inclusion so all the entire population can feel a sense of belonging. Pete has had some great posts on this and has hit the issue smack dab in the middle.
Last note to John: "to find these people/beliefs disturbing is not bigotry"
What I find disturbing is your lack of tollerance towards Islam and your ability to assume that just because of a handful of terrorist attacks, that all Muslims hold the same extreme views as the terrorists, it's just not the case however by making a big deal out things like restrcting building mosques and impeding a segment of societies ability to practice their religion and as a result they begin to feel more ostricized, you only stand to increase the number of Muslims with extreme views.
Herman Cain should stick to making good pizza (which godfathers pizza is) instead of fighting to be the voice for the tea party presidential race, which even if he managed to win the nomination for, his extreme views/tea party views are easy targets for the left and won't have any chance to win, I don't care how bad the economy is or gets.
lego, we are not talking about Christianity. Radical Islam is here and now, and most find fault with it including many if not most Muslims. To bring up the Crusades, Salem and the Inquisition is simply nonsense. If the Christians acted this way 400 years ago why can't the Muslims do it now - you are saying that?
"....a handful of terrorist attacks..."That must be a mistake.
I certainly am intolerant of the fundamentalist Muslim. Most civilised people are.
No surprise to see the libs sticking up for Sharia. They love suppression. Islam by its nature suppresses freedom. The word Islam means "submission" which Muslims are glad to force on anyone who doesn't submit willingly. Liberals absolutely love this concept, as long as it is conservatives or Christians doing the submitting. When Sharia does show up, the first ones they come for are gays, feminists and other Liberal favorites (actually Liberals only tolerate these groups to curry their votes so I doubt this is too upsetting for them - that's why you never see them complain when gays are being stoned to death in Muslim countries). If this is not the case, please point to a majority Muslim country where gays and feminists are tolerated. Good luck with that.
This "lib" didn't say anything good about Sharia law. This "lib" said that he doesn't see it taking a foothold in the United States. This "lib" in fact said that he would be very concerned if that did seem likely to happen--partly, as David suggests, because it would victimize gays, feminists and "other Liberal favorites." This "lib" thinks that allowing a mosque to be built in Murfreesboro is not going to make that happen. In fact, it might very well make that LESS likely to happen (assuming there can be a chance that is less than infinitesimal). You need to slow down that turbo-charged (0 to 60 in a millisecond) reacto-engine that instantly leaps to the worst conceivable result of any idea or action, whether that result is likely, unlikely, or even counterintuitive. A mosque in Murfreesboro is not going to mean Sharia law rules the U.S. (or even Rutherford County). Linking this tiny happening with this dreadful result is nothing but a scare tactic. I admit that toleration requires a bit of intestinal fortitude--it's easier to say "Make it go away! Make it go away!" But that's very likely to backfire. Get some guts.
To Davidlongfellow, John, and serr8d,
Why do you guys continue to move the goalposts and change the subject in these debates? Do you just reflexively have to argue with "the libs" even if you aren't even making sense? Who has defended Sharia Law on this board? Name one person and copy and paste the quote. What I've read here is doubt that Sharia Law is imminent. Have you guys even met one Muslim in Nashville? I've met quite a few. They are actually quite moderate. And so what if a non-Muslim can't enter Mecca. How is that relevant to anything that is being discussed?
And I'll bet you my house that Herman Cain doesn't believe any of this either. He's just shamelessly playing to the xenophobe crowd to help with his flailing campaign, much like T-Paw saying that the U.S. defaulting is no big deal.
John: way to take my words out of context when I said:
"....a handful of terrorist attacks..." I was only trying to illustrate the point you and those voicing like views are lumping the actions and beliefs of afew as the actions or beliefs of any one that is Muslim. Let's not paint the entire Islamic community with the same brush because that's not fair.
When I was explaining about the past wrongs Christians have made in the name of religion:
It was only to illustrate a point that it too is not without a violent history (current or past). Sometimes we as Americans think we are the only things important on the planet. Christianity is Christianity sir, no matter where you are in the world. Wheather it's at a corner church of Christ in Madison or a baptist church in Ethiopia or a catholic church in the Balkans. There is plenty of violence done by "Christian nations" in recent history trying to take over or eliminate (called genocide) their Muslim neighbors sir. Just because it's not happening in your corner in Madison does not mean that it isn't happening somewhere in the world. My point is if you are listening is that all religions have tolerance issues, but that should not justify one to embrace intolerance as is it appears you and your "ultra con" friends posting here seem to have.
The WSJ appeared this morning with a front page article describing an Iranian fatwa against dog ownership. I wonder if some pooch might get in trouble if found on the Murf mosque's property?
"As should immigrants to America. This should be a melting pot, not a haven for disparate clans (you listening, Hispanics?)."
Maybe one day, when idiots stop waving Confederate flags, putting up bizzaro statues of slave-trading, black-prisoner-murdering Confederate leaders, and stop celebrating Confederate treason, we will have a shot at not being "disparate clans." Til then, I'll keep holding on to my Italian heritage, as well as my heritage as an American. Til then, you'll mind your own business and have no right to order other people to become white rednecks in your image.
Does the tribulations of Salman Rushdie bother anybody? Or do any of you even remember him or what got him into trouble or who he is in trouble with? Of course you don't.
The Christian vs. Muslim argument doesn't wash. If a foreigner comes here, and implements an independent system of law, that is sedition. As far as imposing a belief system upon others, the weak-minded liberals seem to go along with any manipulative guilt trip. Aw, poor Muslims.
"Does the tribulations of Salman Rushdie bother anybody? Or do any of you even remember him or what got him into trouble or who he is in trouble with? Of course you don't."
I don't know why I keep responding to all of this since it isn't relevant, but yes I remember Salman Rushdie. I've read a couple of his books, most recently Shalimar the Clown. His situation is not relevant to this discussion, namely, is the U.S. about to fall into Sharia Law? And there continues to be no evidence that there is, on this blog or any other.
And John, there is a difference between Shiite Islam and Sunni Islam, which I'm sure you're aware of. Unless this proposed Mosque is Shia, I don't think they give a damn what Iran says. Just sayin'.
Well, I just thought the fatwa might bother, say, Betsy Phillips, she might not know about it; they might get her pit bull if Sharia takes hold here. As for Rushdie, that situation does tell us something about Islam. Of course it's relevant to this discussion. The Muslims would like him dead and have said so many times.
"The Muslims would like him dead and have said so many times."
No John, the Muslims (as an all encompassing term) do NOT want Rushdie dead. Some fanatics in the Iranian government wanted Rushdie dead. Do you support going and picketing funerals because America has lost it's way? Because some crazy Christians out in Kansas do. Do you support executing homosexuals? Because there are nutty Christianist preachers out there who do. I think you know how to separate what the crazies say and what is reality. And why don't go and talk to a Muslim here in middle Tennessee and ask him what he thinks about Salmon Rushdie. My bet is he doesn't give a damn (unless he likes his writings), just like everyone else.
This whole argument smacks of "don't tread on me, at least while I'm busy treading on someone else".
I'm continuously gobsmacked by this. Having lived in Murfreesboro for a number of years, I'm very familiar with the pack of folks insisting on preventing the mosque from operating -- they're the same folks that a few years back were pushing for the Ten Commandments to be displayed at the courthouse. I'm not using that term "same" loosely; they are _exactly_ the same people.
The very people decrying their lack of "religious freedom" by being prevented from displaying the Ten Commandments in Murfreesboro public courtrooms are the _very same_ people who claim "there oughta be a law" to prevent others from exercising theirs.
Am I the _only_ one who sees this as hypocritical behavior?
I'm as libertarian as they come -- probably have more in common with my Republican friends than some of my Democratic frields -- but I just can't find any logical thought coming from these idiots.
It seems 'Muslim' accurately describes those wanting Rushdie dead. They want that Danish cartoonist dead, too.
It has been about 20 years since the Ayotollah Khomeini issued a fatwa calling for the death of Rushdie, and it was a Pakistani cleric who more recently issued a similar fatwa and has $1 mil in the Dane's head.
CA, this sort of stuff bothers people, right? I have posted here about Muslims and their country's national policies from Arabia to Iran and on to Pakistan.
"Does the tribulations of Salman Rushdie bother anybody? Or do any of you even remember him or what got him into trouble or who he is in trouble with? Of course you don't."
Yes, we remember. However, it's irrelevant to the discussion of whether American citizens who happen to be Muslim have the right to freely practice their faith. It's a typical straw man argument, and typical of those who cannot win the debate to change the subject. Here's my red herring: does the murder of Dr. George Tiller in a Lutheran church bother anybody? Does anyone remember? Of course you don't.
John: I want to hear what you have to say about what don't ask said about the ten commandment display controversy. How does one justify demanding their display in a gov't facility (remember seperation of church and state) and on the same hand deny other religions their right to build a place of worship?
I have never said they cannot build their mosque there. I would not want it my neighborhood, I don't want a half way house either, but one must make some compromises as an urban dweller and particularly if living in modest circumstances. By that I mean we won't see a mosque go up in Belle Meade.
As for the 10 commandments, I do not want them in public places, but, In God we trust, I have no problem, after all this is a Christian nation and some recognition of that is appropriate as well as noing many religions subscribe to a god generally as well as our heritage demands some connection with Christianity. The Constitution say nothing about much of this. It is the Establishment clause, not a ban on noting religion.
"It's a typical straw man argument, and typical of those who cannot win the debate to change the subject."
Well said, a straw man argument is the perfect synopsis of what I'm reading from the people against a Mosque in Murfreesboro. Lots of talk about Fatwas and Salmon Rushdie and gays being stoned to death, but no actual evidence of impending Sharia Law coming to Murfreesboro, or anywhere else in the U.S. But hey, if we can deny them their Mosque, I'm sure they will have no way to unleash Sharia law in middle Tennessee, right? Right?
CA, youg lad, the posting did get off track but, then, who wants to discuss the mosque? The real issue here which was picked upon pretty quickly is Islam. This is a subject worth discussing. The good German? The good Muslim?
The mention of stonings, fatwas, Mecca; this is more to the point and certainly more interesting than this mosque.
Actaully, and I am not going back to read the posts but I'm not sure anyone said they should not build the mosque.
John: "I have no problem, after all this is a Christian nation".
WRONG ANSWER! See what the democratically elected leader of our nation said.......
Is America a Christian nation, as many conservatives claim it is? One American doesn't think so. In his press conference on April 6 in Turkey, President Obama explained: "One of the great strengths of the United States is … we have a very large Christian population -- we do not consider ourselves a Christian nation or a Jewish nation or a Muslim nation. We consider ourselves a nation of citizens who are bound by ideals and a set of values."
Predictably, Obama's remarks have enraged conservative talking heads. But Obama's observations have ample precedent in American diplomacy and constitutional thought. The most striking is the Treaty of Tripoli, ratified by the U.S. Senate in 1797. Article 11 states: "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility [sic], of Mussulmen [Muslims]; and, as the said States never have entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."
And then there is this from John Tyler (1843) -- Well, then, how about the tenth president, John Tyler, in an 1843 letter: "The United States have adventured upon a great and noble experiment, which is believed to have been hazarded in the absence of all previous precedent -- that of total separation of Church and State. No religious establishment by law exists among us. The conscience is left free from all restraint and each is permitted to worship his Maker after his own judgment. The offices of the Government are open alike to all. No tithes are levied to support an established Hierarchy, nor is the fallible judgment of man set up as the sure and infallible creed of faith. The Mohammedan, if he will to come among us would have the privilege guaranteed to him by the constitution to worship according to the Koran; and the East Indian might erect a shrine to Brahma, if it so pleased him. Such is the spirit of toleration inculcated by our political Institutions."
Seems pretty clear to me what this nation is and was intended to be religiously --- free and seperate from gov't sanction and or control.
Previous quotes and more details I didn't quote were found at salon dot com by Michael Lind.
@packrat:
Maybe you should consider the situation for a moment. Shiite ayatollahs are freely practicing their faith by putting out a murder warrant. You think that can't happen here?
Here's a connection between this thread and George Tiller: When he was shot I was having a cup of coffee and reading the morning paper about one hundred yards from where it happened on 13th Avenue North in Wichita. Tiller was in regular attendance at the church and I suppose for the church it was a case of love the sinner.
Here's another odd thing: Before I left Nashville for Wichita (and, of course, I've since returned) I was workplace friends with a shiite from Iran who was stranded here when the Shah was deposed. He said he kept a picture of Jesus over his bed on the theory that "You never know."
