A really tough call on Islam by Herman Cain

Readability

A really tough call on Islam by Herman Cain

After Her­man Cain’s appear­ance on Fox News Robert Stacy McCain (Doesn’t he always man­age to be where news is) of The Other McCain posted exclu­sive video of can­di­date Cain expand­ing on his state­ments con­cern­ing Rad­i­cal Islam

Now one’s instinct is nat­u­rally against the ban­ning of any reli­gious build­ing, if one can ban a mosque, than one can ban a church (and I’m sure there are those on the left who would love to have that power) at OTB Doug is not happy:

We have free­dom of reli­gion, Cain is say­ing, but peo­ple should have the right to ban your reli­gious prac­tices if they don’t like you. The Her­man Cain boom­let is dying, because its becom­ing clear that every­thing that comes out of his mouth is utter nonsense.

The prob­lem you have here is that it’s NOT non­sense. Any­one who has been fol­low­ing the Mus­lim Broth­er­hood knows this, any per­son who is has been fight­ing Rad­i­cal Islam knows this. When Cain bluntly states that Islam is both a polit­i­cal sys­tem and a reli­gion he is exactly right. Across Europe peo­ple are dis­cov­er­ing that Rad­i­cal Islam is hav­ing a dis­as­trous effect cre­at­ing “no go zones” for both cit­i­zens and police. Here in Amer­ica we just had the anniver­sary of the Fatwa against Molly Nor­ris who remains in hiding.

The real ques­tion is this: We are cur­rently in a war with Rad­i­cal Islam. Mosques oper­ated by rad­i­cal groups like the Mus­lim Broth­er­hood are recruit­ing cen­ters for Rad­i­cal Islam, that being the case does the Con­sti­tu­tion require us to allow a group we are at war with oper­ate a cen­ter to recruit peo­ple to fight against us under the guise of reli­gion? If one devel­oped a reli­gion that wor­shiped Nazism would FDR allow it to build churches in Amer­ica dur­ing WW II?

That is the bot­tom line ques­tion and the three stick­ing points of that ques­tion are these:

1. “Guise” of reli­gion. The fact is that Islam IS a legit­i­mate reli­gion prac­ticed by hun­dreds of mil­lions around the world for hun­dreds of years. The most rad­i­cal ver­sion has come to power within it only over the last sev­eral decades. In terms of the­ol­ogy there is noth­ing in the rad­i­cal form of Islam that actu­ally con­flicts with the Koran. Rad­i­cal Islam IS Islam and the­o­log­i­cally speak­ing one can’t restrain it with­out restrain­ing Islam and thus putting a check on a religion.

2. The War with rad­i­cal Islam: There are a large amount of peo­ple in this nation and in the world who are in com­plete denial over the war with Rad­i­cal Islam. Some take this posi­tion due to fear, oth­ers in the hopes that they will be the last ones eaten by the alli­ga­tor, still oth­ers believe that the threat is over­stated. A lot of this is sim­ple cul­tural igno­rance. When I hear peo­ple talk like this I remem­ber the movie 1776 and this speech from John Adams:

Oh, good God! Why can’t you acknowl­edge what already exists? It has been more than a year since Con­cord and Lex­ing­ton. Damn it, man, we’re at war right now!

Until peo­ple actu­ally rec­og­nize what already exists we can’t deal with the prob­lem, and the prob­lem is Rad­i­cal Islam prop­a­gated by groups like the Mus­lim Broth­er­hood. This is why Her­man Cain is so dan­ger­ous, he is acknowl­edg­ing what already exists and once the prob­lem is acknowl­edged it has to be dealt with, and they’d rather not.

3. The Anti-​antis There were a lot of liberal-​minded peo­ple who tended to sup­port the Soviet Union dur­ing the cold war, some as we dis­cov­ered after the fall of the wall were bought and paid for, while oth­ers who were not saved their most heated venom for those fight­ing the USSR despite their vocal sup­port for the free­doms that the Soviet’s tram­pled reg­u­larly. Jay Nordlinger has referred to them as the “anti-​antis”:

Dur­ing the Cold War, we used to speak of anti-​anti-​Communists. These were peo­ple (on the left) who were not exactly pro-​Communist. But they so hated the anti-​Communists, they were … well, anti-​anti-​Communists — the best, the fairest name for them.

Today, there are anti-​anti-​Islamofascists. They are not on the Islam­o­fas­cist side in the War on Ter­ror. But they hate those who are fight­ing, or attempt­ing to fight, the Islam­o­fas­cists more than they could ever hate the Islam­o­fas­cists. They are anti-​anti-​Islamofascists.

The sim­i­lar­i­ties between yesterday’s anti-​anti-​Communists and today’s anti-​anti-​Islamofascists would make a very good essay — per­haps by David Pryce-​Jones or Nor­man Podhoretz.

Ronald Rea­gan was hated by the anti-​antis of yes­ter­day as was George W Bush was just a few years ago. Islam­o­fas­cists who were actively killing both US troops and civil­ians try­ing to make an elected democ­racy work were noth­ing com­pared to the evil of Bush/​Hitler in their eyes.

Today we see it as peo­ple attack the Catholic and Mor­mon churches for oppos­ing Gay Mar­riage while giv­ing Islam a pass. We see some who are more afraid of a Sarah Palin or a Michelle Bach­mann, than the Islam­o­fas­cists who would kill them if given the chance. Andrew Sul­li­van would rail loudly against a Pres­i­dent Palin but under Islamic blas­phemy laws he would not live long enough to utter a word of complaint.

There is also one ironic note about these anti-​anti-​islamofascists that Mr. Nordlinger notes as well:

Of course, many of today’s anti-​anti-​Islamofascists were yesterday’s anti-​anti-​Communists — I mean, the same peo­ple, in the flesh.

It amazes me to see the same peo­ple argu­ing the same dis­cred­ited case they did decades ago to the Amer­i­can Peo­ple with­out ever being called on how wrong they were the first time.

As for Cain’s solu­tion, you can decide it is too dra­con­ian, you can say that if adopted it would be used against oth­ers by peo­ple try­ing to abuse power, but you can’t cred­i­bly denounce it while pre­tend­ing that the prob­lem doesn’t exist or offer­ing a bet­ter idea.

For myself I’m not sure I like it, but I also don’t see a bet­ter idea yet. I’m going to have to think on it, but while doing so I think I’ll refrain from denounc­ing him for acknowl­edg­ing the ele­phant in the liv­ing room.

Update: Yid with Lid, no friend of Rad­i­cal Islam gives the case against:

How­ever Sharia law being observed within the con­text of a Mosque is allowed under the Con­sti­tu­tion as long as that law is sub­servient to civil law. Remem­ber the amend­ment is sup­posed to pro­tect the reli­gion from gov­ern­ment, not the other way around. Con­sti­tu­tion­ally the above state­ment would also be true if the words Sharia law were removed and Halachic Law (Jew­ish reli­gious law) was sub­sti­tuted. It does not mater of there are parts of fun­da­men­tal Sharia Law are par­tic­u­larly bru­tal as long as the gov­ern­ment enforces the fact that a par­tic­u­lar code of reli­gious law is sub­servient to civil law no one will be allowed to be bru­tal­ized and everyone’s right will be protected.

This is an excel­lent point, as long as the gov­ern­ment enforces the civil law then it doesn’t mat­ter what Sharia says. The big ques­tion is will civil law be enforced. Yid believes it would be and as a Jew who would be tar­get #1 I have to give a lot of weight to his opinion.

After Herman Cain’s appearance on Fox News Robert Stacy McCain (Doesn’t he always manage to be where news is) of The Other McCain posted exclusive video of candidate Cain expanding on his statements concerning Radical Islam

Now one’s instinct is naturally against the banning of any religious building, if one can ban a mosque, than one can ban a church (and I’m sure there are those on the left who would love to have that power) at OTB Doug is not happy:

We have freedom of religion, Cain is saying, but people should have the right to ban your religious practices if they don’t like you. The Herman Cain boomlet is dying, because its becoming clear that everything that comes out of his mouth is utter nonsense.

The problem you have here is that it’s NOT nonsense. Anyone who has been following the Muslim Brotherhood knows this, any person who is has been fighting Radical Islam knows this. When Cain bluntly states that Islam is both a political system and a religion he is exactly right. Across Europe people are discovering that Radical Islam is having a disastrous effect creating “no go zones” for both citizens and police. Here in America we just had the anniversary of the Fatwa against Molly Norris who remains in hiding.

The real question is this: We are currently in a war with Radical Islam. Mosques operated by radical groups like the Muslim Brotherhood are recruiting centers for Radical Islam, that being the case does the Constitution require us to allow a group we are at war with operate a center to recruit people to fight against us under the guise of religion? If one developed a religion that worshiped Nazism would FDR allow it to build churches in America during WW II?

That is the bottom line question and the three sticking points of that question are these:

1. “Guise” of religion. The fact is that Islam IS a legitimate religion practiced by hundreds of millions around the world for hundreds of years. The most radical version has come to power within it only over the last several decades. In terms of theology there is nothing in the radical form of Islam that actually conflicts with the Koran. Radical Islam IS Islam and theologically speaking one can’t restrain it without restraining Islam and thus putting a check on a religion.

2. The War with radical Islam: There are a large amount of people in this nation and in the world who are in complete denial over the war with Radical Islam. Some take this position due to fear, others in the hopes that they will be the last ones eaten by the alligator, still others believe that the threat is overstated. A lot of this is simple cultural ignorance. When I hear people talk like this I remember the movie 1776 and this speech from John Adams:

Oh, good God! Why can’t you acknowledge what already exists? It has been more than a year since Concord and Lexington. Damn it, man, we’re at war right now!

Until people actually recognize what already exists we can’t deal with the problem, and the problem is Radical Islam propagated by groups like the Muslim Brotherhood. This is why Herman Cain is so dangerous, he is acknowledging what already exists and once the problem is acknowledged it has to be dealt with, and they’d rather not.

3. The Anti-antis There were a lot of liberal-minded people who tended to support the Soviet Union during the cold war, some as we discovered after the fall of the wall were bought and paid for, while others who were not saved their most heated venom for those fighting the USSR despite their vocal support for the freedoms that the Soviet’s trampled regularly. Jay Nordlinger has referred to them as the “anti-antis”:

During the Cold War, we used to speak of anti-anti-Communists. These were people (on the left) who were not exactly pro-Communist. But they so hated the anti-Communists, they were . . . well, anti-anti-Communists — the best, the fairest name for them.

Today, there are anti-anti-Islamofascists. They are not on the Islamofascist side in the War on Terror. But they hate those who are fighting, or attempting to fight, the Islamofascists more than they could ever hate the Islamofascists. They are anti-anti-Islamofascists.

The similarities between yesterday’s anti-anti-Communists and today’s anti-anti-Islamofascists would make a very good essay — perhaps by David Pryce-Jones or Norman Podhoretz.

Ronald Reagan was hated by the anti-antis of yesterday as was George W Bush was just a few years ago. Islamofascists who were actively killing both US troops and civilians trying to make an elected democracy work were nothing compared to the evil of Bush/Hitler in their eyes.

Today we see it as people attack the Catholic and Mormon churches for opposing Gay Marriage while giving Islam a pass. We see some who are more afraid of a Sarah Palin or a Michelle Bachmann, than the Islamofascists who would kill them if given the chance. Andrew Sullivan would rail loudly against a President Palin but under Islamic blasphemy laws he would not live long enough to utter a word of complaint.

There is also one ironic note about these anti-anti-islamofascists that Mr. Nordlinger notes as well:

Of course, many of today’s anti-anti-Islamofascists were yesterday’s anti-anti-Communists — I mean, the same people, in the flesh.

It amazes me to see the same people arguing the same discredited case they did decades ago to the American People without ever being called on how wrong they were the first time.

As for Cain’s solution, you can decide it is too draconian, you can say that if adopted it would be used against others by people trying to abuse power, but you can’t credibly denounce it while pretending that the problem doesn’t exist or offering a better idea.

For myself I’m not sure I like it, but I also don’t see a better idea yet. I’m going to have to think on it, but while doing so I think I’ll refrain from denouncing him for acknowledging the elephant in the living room.

Update: Yid with Lid, no friend of Radical Islam gives the case against:

However Sharia law being observed within the context of a Mosque is allowed under the Constitution as long as that law is subservient to civil law. Remember the amendment is supposed to protect the religion from government, not the other way around. Constitutionally the above statement would also be true if the words Sharia law were removed and Halachic Law (Jewish religious law) was substituted. It does not mater of there are parts of fundamental Sharia Law are particularly brutal as long as the government enforces the fact that a particular code of religious law is subservient to civil law no one will be allowed to be brutalized and everyone’s right will be protected.

This is an excellent point, as long as the government enforces the civil law then it doesn’t matter what Sharia says. The big question is will civil law be enforced. Yid believes it would be and as a Jew who would be target #1 I have to give a lot of weight to his opinion.