Tuesday, July 19, 2011

Herman Cain Sunk His Own Campaign

Herman Cain in pain after shooting himself in the foot.
Whatever hopes of bagging the presidential nomination Herman Cain may have had are fucking gone now.  I mean, I don’t know if he ever had much hope in the face of fundraising giants like Romney and Bachmann (shiver), or long-time veteran candidates like Ron Paul, but Cain might as well have just shoved an M80 up his ass with this one.

Cain says that US communities have the right to ban mosques.

I’m sorry to break it to you, Mr. Cain, but no they don’t.  I don’t understand what planet he lives on in which he can all at once proclaim that he’s all about freedom and the free practice of religion, and also say that we should be allowed to infringe upon others’ ability to worship freely.  Am I missing something here?

Now, a private property owner has a right to decide what is built on his property, and he or she also has a right to sell his property to whomever he desires for whatever reasons.  But a community, by law, cannot deny the construction of a structure based on its connection to a religion.  Period.

It’s just like the debate over the Muslim cultural center/mosque near ground zero: there is no real legal debate.  No law can prohibit a religious establishment from being built on private owned property.

You’ve got to be some kind of hypocrite to say that you believe in the value and efficacy of personal liberty, but then support shit that is meant to curtail personal liberties.  You’ve also got to be a complete retard to think that you’re going to win a presidential nomination by fostering bigotry and divisiveness.  With this one issue, he has single-handedly ended any real chance he ever had.  Why?  Because now every Democrat gets to say he’s a bigoted, right wing nut job.

As if being a hypocrite isn’t bad enough, he also demonstrated that the has the cognitive capacity of a walnut with his defense of this asinine notion.  He said:

"Islam is both a religion and a set of laws -- Sharia laws. That's the difference between any one of our traditional religions where it's just about religious purposes . . ."

Wow.  Really?  So that whole fucking thing in Judaism called the Torah . . . that’s not religious law?  I mean, I’m fairly sure he’s a “good” Christian, but has he ever even read the Bible?  What the hell is the Torah if it’s not instruction on how one is to live one’s life in covenant with God?  Aren’t the 10 Commandments religious law?

Look, stop being afraid of Sharia law.  It’s never, ever going to become some sort of staple of law that replaces the system of law here in America.  Yes, I know some bonehead judge in NY ruled against a raped woman because of Sharia, but I’m sure that guy got censured in some way as that is a huge break in precedent (legal precedent being the hallmark of a common law system such as ours).  But religious law cannot replace state or federal law, especially if it violates state and federal law.

And of course, Cain tried to play it off by saying that he knows most Muslims are peaceful, but we have to be careful in these tumultuous times of terrorism.  That was half-hearted at best.  Actually, it sounds more like quarter-hearted.  If he truly believed that most Muslims are peaceful then he wouldn’t have a problem with mosques being built. 

Plus, wouldn’t denying them a place to worship in a community only fuel terrorism?  Aren’t the terrorists claiming that we’re throwing down some sort of religious crusade against them and trying to destroy Islam?  Call me crazy, but saying that communities are allowed to ban mosques sort of supports that whole line of logic, even if it is untrue.

I guess some Republicans believe in freedom of religion the way the Puritans did: you’re free to be a Christian and practice religion my way, but if you don’t want to then get the fuck out.


Silverfiddle said...

I blogged about this same issue today. Great minds think alike!

You only kinda lost me at the last two paragraphs. I don't think denying them mosques is what causes terrorism, and that is actually a condescending and stereotypical view of American Muslims. Do you really believe American Muslims would blow stuff up over this? What does that say about your view of them?

As for the true America-hating jihadis overseas, they don't need an excuse.

Finally, the "some republicans" comment was a little gratuitous. Some liberals believe in free speech, so long as you say what they want to hear.

This is not Cain's first misstep. He shows us the downside of a non-politician running for high office. It saddens me, because I really like his sensibilities and I think he has the right background to be president.

Unfortunately, things like this stack up on the scale against him. This is US Constitution 101, and he blew it.

Jack Camwell said...

For clarification purposes, I was not speaking about American Muslims, as all the American Muslims I've ever known/met are peace loving people.

The Jihadists who are actively pursuing terrorist goals today claim that the West is waging war on Islam. This sort of crap only serves to validate their radical messages to the people they target to join their ranks.

I was not trying to insinuate, in any way, that all Muslims would look at this as a reason to take up arms and start blowing shit up. I've been saying for some time now that most Muslims are peaceful.

Damien said...

For my two-penny's worth, I concur with your views here.

He has killed his presidential chances that is for sure as he has shown that he is after the fringe-shock market - which tells me he wants more ratings for his television show and the campaign is for that.

As for topic, it is both unconstitutional (as pointed out) and simply bigoted. His wide-sweeping generalisations that have no context is clear enough.

There are certainly mosques/communities that are anti-integration and finance terrorism, the US suffers infiltration on that side and like over here, the moderates keep their mouths shut but worse the organisations that supposively represent them (CAIR for one) are the most infiltrated.

Though I find what he said repugnant, as a law-maker I would raise my concern that any community building a Mosque in the West guarentee that they support/represent my country and how they will ensure radicals do not get hold of it.

Jersey McJones said...

Damien, we have Christian churches here in the States that promote violent radicalism too. It's a non-sequitur.

Jack is simply right on this. Period.


Jack Camwell said...

Damien and Jersey, I think both of you are right.

Silverfiddle said...

I love how every time this topic comes up some pliant liberal like Jersey pops up and mentions that there are violent Christian churches as well.

OK Jersey. Name one.

Also, lets do a back of the cocktail napkin scorekeeping. I bet the muslims beat the Christians in indiscriminate headcutting, blowing stuff up and killing people, although the communists still win the award for most killed in the 20th century.

Jack Camwell said...

The Protestants and Catholics in Ireland haven't been violent towards each other in the 20th Century?

As odd as it is for me to defend Jersey, he was merely saying that some Christian churches support radicalism. You think that no church has ever supported white supremecism?

Silverfiddle said...

he was merely saying that some Christian churches support radicalism.

Of course! It would be absurd to state otherwise. His statement is so obvious and so trite as to be banal.

And the violence emanating from the Emerald Isle pales in comparison to that emanating from the charnel house known as the Muslim world.

Peter McCullough said...

Let's see, gay and lesbian clergy in the protestant churches, gay clergy in the catholic churches, now that's prejudicial and hateful; Jewish temples not using the Torah and their orthodoxy to honor kill their daughters for dating Goyem, not advocating the death of all muslims,not using temples as a forum for preaching the death and overthrow of America and Islam, not using temples as ammo dumps,now that's hateful. My tiny penis shaped brain tells me that comparing christianity and judaism with islam is like comparing mouse droppings with cow flatulence; the former is annoying while the later contributes to global warming. And how the hell does the 100 year old political battle in Northern Ireland compare with anyone's taking exception to a religion whose acolytes dressed in dirty nightshirts and Nikes are bent on killing us all?

Karen Howes said...

I disagree with you on this one, Jack-- primarily because Mohammedanism is not just a religion, but a political system. And a mosque is not just a place to worship-- it's a seat of government.

Mosques are often breeding grounds for terrorism. And frankly, it's time we stop the delusional idea that if we placate them, that their bloodlust and hatred for us will go away. Case in point: Britain. No one has bent over and grabbed their ankles for these savages more than the UK has, and look what's happening there. Are THEY safe? No.

I applaud Herman Cain for standing against political correctness and the epic fail that is multi-culti-ism.

Damien said...

The focus on violence, killings etc, by Muslims is recent and thus either used, abused or ignorantly assumed to be some generalized trend. To do so is a mistake, or worse as now commented here, to try and make the silly mistake of calling Islam not a religion. Before I comment on Karen's rather generalizing and mistaken sweep I should ask first Silver how far back do you want go to write down the scores?

If one has to open the pages of history then you have to open the entire book or fall flat with irrelevance and contextual errors.

For example, the constant (and this is your second time I have noticed) reference to head-chopping falls flat considering that France instutitionalised it all the way to the only a few decades ago, latin America, the Phillipines and many other parts of the world that is non-Muslim cut off heads more regularly.

If you want to actually do a head count of death and destruction, unfortunately we the Christian world take the cake even to this last century (20th). The foolish notion that Christianity was spread by word of mouth and good behaviour never stuck even though we were all told that in schools, the reality is almost all faith came on the back of the spread of civilizations that almost always came at conflict and conquest.

Karen, if your going to generalize with "they and them" then I can understand your complete failure in assuming Islam is not a religion. Any Christian (you may not be) would know that only until the last century, Churches were the political as well as the social centre of any community and it is still the objective behind it. Mosques are simply the same and perhaps to their credit, still consider their houses of worship to be such.

Jack Camwell said...

Well put. I've made much the same argument many times before, and I was going to do it again, but I feel like a broken record at this point.

Silverfiddle said...

I suppose we musn't mention suicide bombers either since the Chinese invented gunpowder and Alfred Nobel is responsible for dynamite. I don't know who invented the vest...



Here's what I found on the Muslim inflicted death toll. It doesn't look ironclad authoritative, but the numbers are plausible.


I'll paraphrase a quote I saw over at HuffPo. Maybe the Christians have killed more people. Who knows? It appears still being second has motivated Muslims to try harder.

Historical body count is irrelevant to what is going on today, anyway. The fact that you had to invoke guillotines says much. You had to reach back 200 years for an example of a European decapitating someone.

Contemporary stories of such actions by Muslims are so familiar as to now be unremarkable. It's even happened in the United States.

Damien said...

Suicide attacks, apart from military attacks, were few and far between until the Tamil Tigers started and they are accredited with the vest as well as using "pawns" (indoctrinating children, young girls and teenage boys) to do the job on behalf of "brave" leaders.

There is no doubt that suicide bombing has been adopted by radical and militant Islamists, what is ignored though is that it still represents the fringe and the unsanctioned. All five schools of jurispudence condemn it and state that such attacks will not result in their immediate entry into paradise which is what the radicals use.

No those links are not ironclad at all, the bulk of research still puts us Christians at a higher figure.

Decapitation is global, that is the point, as it is both a guarenteed and symbolic method of killing someone. The Guillotine was still the method in France until 1981 and used up to a decade before, not more than a century. I should also point out that in criminal cases in regards to murder, decapitation as a crime is more popular than people imagine with again the symbolism being a powerful motive. Just yesterday in yahoo.news they showed another family in Mexico being decapitated.

My point here is that yes things are happening now, they should be discussed, condemned and so on, but context should not be forgotten. Thus with the knowledge that Islam is not the historic mass killer or the exclusive head-chopper changes the argument from it being a religion of killing to just another example of man abusing religion but yes now and dangerously so.

Silverfiddle said...

...and according to Heimatlandsicherheit kommisar Janet Napoleonitano, the Olso blast was probably carried out by a white middle-class person. Probably an old, rich tea partier.

I know, has nothing to do with the subject at hand, but I couldn't resist.

Also, I just want to remind Jack and Damien that we are in essential agreement on the central thesis of Jack's post.