Monday, July 18, 2011

The Remark Of Cain

Kenneth M. O’Brien

Appearing yesterday (July 17, 2011) on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace, Republican Presidential candidate Herman Cain addressed the issue of the opposition to the construction of an Islamic Mosque by the residents of Murfreesboro, Tennessee.

The Fox News website has reported Mr. Cain’s remarks as follows:

Cain said he came out against the Tennessee mosque after talking to members of that community. He said the site is "hallowed ground" to Murfreesboro residents and that they're concerned about "the intentions of trying to get Shariah law" -- the code governing conduct in Islamic societies.

"It's not just a mosque for religious purposes. This is what the people are objecting to," he said.

Asked whether any community should be able to prohibit a mosque, Cain said they should.

"They have the right to do that. That's not discriminating ... against that particular religion. That is an aspect of them building that mosque that doesn't get talked about," he said.

Cain again argued that residents were objecting to "the fact that Islam is both a religion and a set of laws, Shariah law. That's the difference between any one of our other traditional religions."

Now I’m sure that I’m going to get a lot of blow back from saying what I’m about to say, but I beg to differ.

There is a lengthy history of the existence of a religiously based court system as a recognized subculture in the United States.

Remember that last sentence from Fox News’ own summary of Mr. Cain’s remarks, “That's the difference between any one of our other traditional religions.”

Well, I would refer Mr. Cain and all the other scare-mongerers about Sharia Law to a little thing called Rabbinical Courts

Jewish Rabbinical courts exist in numerous states throughout the United States.

Now, perhaps Mr. Cain does not regard Judaism as “one of our other traditional religions.”

However, these religious courts have actually been recognized as having standing to introduce amicus briefs before the U.S. Supreme Court.

If Mr. Cain wants to prove that he is in fact not bigoted against Muslims after, “saying he would be uncomfortable appointing a Muslim to his Cabinet if elected” as quoted in the same Fox News article, then he should also campaign to eliminate Rabbinical courts in the U. S.

Anyone who wants to bet on this happening, I’m willing to give really good odds.


  1. So you approve of sharia law replacing the law of the land for Muslims in American courts?

  2. I should clarify my remark above. Cain's objection was what I posted above.

    I believe in separation of church and state and under the constitution they can build the mosque. What they cannot do, is impose a different "law" on their members. Honor killings are not okay.

  3. You've all missed Ken's point. The hypocrisy that is evident in Mr. Cain's rhetoric only masks simple bigotry. At no point did Ken even mention his thoughts on Sharia law itself.

    The separation of church and state doctrine doesn't apply when U.S. laws are broken. Even if it's your belief, you cannot break U.S. law. Period.

    Alternative forms of adjudication have been accepted in the U.S., as Ken points out, as long as they are consistent with U.S. law. To say that if Sharia law is practiced that beheadings and honor killings would then be used is a scare tactic and bears no reality, or understanding, to what governs this country.

    In Islam there are different understandings of Sharia law, and yes, some are extreme (and in my opinion barbaric, but I think the death penalty in the U.S. is also barbaric), while some are more moderate and used mainly for civil disagreements.

    In case you haven't read the Christian bible, extreme punishments are also prescribed there. It's my belief that it's the U.S. constitution that keeps those at bay.

    The hypocrisy lies in the hard right pointing out that Islam is both a religion and a set of laws denies the fact that the same thing applies to the hard right's religious beliefs -- that the bible is the ultimate, unquestionable book of laws. Otherwise, they would not fight so hard to deny me of my right to marry, or my sister's their right to choose. They base that denial on their set of biblical "laws".

  4. Cain is correct - Sharia law isn't a religion.

    The hard right is for no government what so ever. Using that term makes your whole argument moot. Besides if you can't except those right of center, or especially the hard right as you call them, then why do you insist that they accept you?


All comments subject to moderation. All commenters must use their own name or a screen name. No comments labelled as "Anonymous" will be published. To use your name or a screen name select "Name/URL" from the drop down menu. Insert you name in the "Name" space and leave the "URL" space blank.