Cain Goes Crazy: Herman Cain’s Attack on the Constitution

In a recent Fox News interview Herman Cain told Chris Wallace that communities in America “have the right” to ban the construction of mosques. On Stossel Herman said he would be wary of nominating a Muslim to his cabinet because he didn’t want to nominate “a potential terrorist.” While the second comment is just dumb (I’m sure Herman has enough interview experience to prevent Islamic terrorists from infiltrating his cabinet), the first is disturbing.

Specifically Cain is referring to the construction of a mosque in Murfreesboro, TN. A group of activists in this town have been protesting the construction of a mosque for some time now. Cain sides with the protestors saying they have the right to ban this construction from their community.

Cain’s argument for this view is a bit disjointed. First, he says the Constitution’s First Amendment protection of freedom of religion gives the protestors the right to ban the mosque because Islam is a combination of a religion and a set of laws. Since Muslims want to combine the Church (Mosque) and State into one entity, they are against the Constitution and therefore communities should be able to bar mosque constructions (I wonder if this applies to those Christians who want to institute prayer in schools?)

I know, it’s hard for me to understand too. When Chris Wallace asks if this means Muslims should be barred from worshipping in the United States, Herman Cain responds with an emphatic, “No!” He talks about how there are peaceful Muslims in the United States who are not threats and who have the right to worship freely. The contradiction is obvious. How can communities ban mosques because Islam is fundamentally a violation of the separation of church and state and yet acceptable Muslims also exist?

When Wallace says “This isn’t Ground Zero; this isn’t hallowed ground.” Cain responds with, “It’s hallowed ground to the people in Murfreesboro.”

What? I really have no idea what he’s talking about here.

It’s true. Fundamentalist Islam is very incompatible with America’s political culture. So are fundamentalist Judaism, fundamentalist Mormonism, and Christianity of the sort practiced in Middle Ages Catholicism. Sharia law says a thief’s hand must be cut off while Old Testament law says the punishment for homosexuality is stoning. Hopefully, neither of these would be accepted in America today.

The problems with Cain’s view are obvious. First, the Constitution is very clear that the government cannot prohibit the free exercise of religion. The Supreme Court later ruled this doesn’t allow religious people to commit crimes while practicing their religion. So a cult could hold child sacrifice as a central tenet and it would be free to exist in the United States, as long as it never actually commits that crime. It’s distasteful but so are many things.

The other problem is the precedent this ban would create. If governments are granted the ability to ban religions based on their contradiction to a community’s culture, I wonder how many years it would be before San Francisco bans fundamentalist Christian churches for preaching against homosexuality. The power to ban religious buildings essentially destroys the rule of law. As the founders warned, when mob rule exists the majority will always persecute the minority.

So while I was initially very excited about Herman Cain’s speaking ability and strong conservative positions, he has unfortunately been sucked into the trap of populism. Regardless of whether a dislike of Islam is justified, those people who want to deny Muslims their rights are contradicting one of the main points of the Constitution: Tolerance (not acceptance) of those whose views you find disagreeable.

I’m really not sure who to vote for in this primary. The candidates seem to be either lame (Romney, Huntsman, Gingrich) or populist (Cain, Palin, etc.). Maybe I’ll just vote Ron Paul!