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.