United Liberty
Herman Cain and the First Amendment
Wed, 07/20/2011 - 2:17pm | posted by Tom Knighton
Herman Cain doesn’t seem to have a good grasp of the First Amendment. While I recognize that not everyone shares my expansive view of what freedom of religion entails, I tend to believe we all generally accept a few things as fact. One is that banning religion and religious centers is wrong, even if we disagree with everything that religion teachers. Presidential Candidate Herman Cain? Not so much.
After once saying that he disagreed with the opening of a mosque in Tennessee, describing it as “It is an infringement and an abuse of our freedom of religion,” he now says that communities should be able to ban mosques.
In an exchange on “Fox News Sunday,” the Republican presidential contender said that he sided with some in a town near Nashville who were trying to prevent Muslims from worshiping in their community.
“Our Constitution guarantees the separation of church and state,” he said. “Islam combines church and state. They’re using the church part of our First Amendment to infuse their morals in that community, and the people of that community do not like it. They disagree with it.”
Asked by host Chris Wallace if any community could ban a mosque if it wanted to, Cain said: “They have a right to do that.”
First, the existence of Islam in this nation doesn’t violate the separation of church and state. Sharia law, if enforced by the courts, would but that’s not happening. Instead, a group of people in Tennessee (and of course Herman Cain) are using the force of the state to ban a religion. That is a violation of the separation of church and state.
I’m not a fan of a lot of what Islam teaches. I don’t like anything I know about Sharia law. However, perhaps Herman Cain would be better served understanding that what he’s doing is actually eroding the separation of church and state and might actually bring about the Islamaggedon he seems to fear. How do I figure that?
Well, to start with, one thing that blocks Sharia Law from ever being enacted here is the separation of church and state. The same separation that prevents Christians from requiring Bible studies in public schools also prevents laws that ban the eating of pork for religious reasons. It serves as a bulwark against any form of theocracy.
However, Cain’s efforts to use the force of state in religious matters chips away at just that separation. You see, Cain’s not arguing that the location is bad. At least the debate over the so-called Ground Zero mosque hinged on its specific location, not the existence of the mosque in general. Cain, on the other hand, is saying that Murfreesboro, TN is able to decide what religions are acceptable to practice within a given geographical area.
May will argue that there’s nothing wrong with that. They’ll say that a community has the rights to set its own standards. But let’s flip this around. What if this was a majority Muslim community that was refusing to permit a Baptist church from opening? Would it be acceptable then?
Somehow, I doubt it…and I would agree. I don’t want government deciding what places of worship I have to choose from. Instead, I’d rather the market place of ideas take care of that for me. I want to be a Hari Krishna, but there are no Hari Krishna places of worship? So be it, but only if it’s because I’m the only Hari Krishna in town and not because someone decided I needed to either be a Christian, a Jew, or nothing.
Tom,
I too was troubled by Herman Cain’s comments on Fox News Sunday regarding local opposition to construction of a mosque in Tennessee.
But I am equally troubled by your lack of understanding of
our First Amendment Freedom OF Religion.
I agree with your point that the First Amendment guarantees Muslims the right to build a mosque anywhere they choose in the United States, and Herman Cain is wrong to use the First Amendment as a reason for objecting to that construction.
But what BOTH you and Herman Cain fail to understand is that the First Amendment of the Constitution has nothing whatsoever to do with “separation of church and state.”
“Separation of church and state” is NOWHERE TO BE FOUND in the Constitution, and is simply a perversion of the First Amendment by a U.S. Supreme Court that misinterpreted and misconstrued Freedom OF Religion to be Freedom FROM Religion.
I have contacted Herman Cain’s campaign with my concerns about his misunderstanding of the First Amendment, and only hope that you too will do a little research on the issue.
The Constitution DOES NOT guarantee separation of church and state, and I dare say Herman Cain had quite a few conservatives scratching their heads over his comments and his argument.
We already have way too many liberal judges at all levels looking to Europe for precedent on issues of our United States’ state and federal law.
If we have any hope of keeping Sharia Law out of our U.S. Courts, I pray we look somewhere other than the bogus concept of “separation of church and state.”
Steve,
I’m well aware that the phrase “separation of church and state” appears nowhere in the Constitution. I never claimed it did. Of course, that doesn’t mean that it’s not implied by the First Amendment by clearly stating that there can be no law “respecting an establishment of religion”. It was clear that the Founding Fathers wanted government staying away from religion.
While the concept isn’t explicitly stated, it seems clear to me that it is indeed there. I respect that you disagree, but whether you agree with the term or not, it seems that you agree with me when it comes to the application of the concept in this instance and therefore it’s not a point worth getting into as far as I’m concerned. :)
With all due respect Tom, NEITHER the phrase “separation of church and state” NOR the concept are contained specifically or implied indirectly in the First Amendment.
And your misunderstanding of the speficic wording and intent of the First Amendment is what allows our judiciary to shred our founding document.
This is not the first time our Constitution and laws has conflicted with religion. “Disputes between the Mormon inhabitants and the US Government intensified due to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints’ practice of plural marriage, or polygamy, among its members. The Mormons were pushing for the establishment of the State of Deseret. The U.S. Government, which had been reluctant to admit a state the size of the proposed Deseret into the union, opposed the polygamous practices of the Mormons.
Members of the LDS Church were viewed as un-American and rebellious when news of their polygamous practices spread.
During the 1870s and 1880s laws were passed to punish polygamists, and in the 1890 Manifesto, the LDS Church banned polygamy. When Utah applied for statehood again it was accepted. One of the conditions for granting Utah statehood was that a ban on polygamy be written into the state constitution. This was a condition required of other western states that were admitted into the Union later. Statehood was officially granted on January 4, 1896.”
So they have never actually been freedom of religion, only freedom of religion until it conflicts with US laws. So technically Herman Cain was right, A person could in fact ban Muslims if they did not alter there religion to abide by US laws! So by this example Muslims practicing Sharia Law and polygamy could and should be banned!
Post new comment