Bryan Fischer
Herman Cain owed no apology to anyone
By Bryan Fischer
Follow me on Twitter: @BryanJFischer, on Facebook at "Focal Point"
It looks like Herman Cain's handlers have gotten to him again. Just when we thought he'd found his voice once more on the threat that Islam poses to the West, he issued a "humble and contrite" apology on Wednesday for any offense he may have caused Muslims. Herman says he stands by his previous statements, but if so, what is he apologizing for? I love Herman Cain, but he's confusing me here.
A recent and extensive survey revealed that 94.7% of all Muslims who attend mosque on a weekly basis in America attend a mosque which distributes literature advocating the use of violence to advance Islam in the United States and around the world.
Cain had said that any community which does not want a jihadist-spouting mosque in its community shouldn't be forced to have one.
And of course, he was right about that, and it's unfortunate that he has retracted the statement. His bobbing and weaving on Islam is leaving his supporters a bit dazed and is hurting his candidacy.
Yesterday's thwarted Muslim attack on Ft. Hood is just another indication that Islam is not a benign, equally valid alternative to classic Christianity. Any community that wants to keep out an ideology which commands its followers to commit acts of violence against American infidels ought to be able to do so.
(By the way, the arrested soldier, PFC Nasser Abdo, told Al-Jazeera that no Muslim should serve in the US military, the very thing I've been saying since Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan shot up 14 infidels at Ft. Hood in November of 2009. Muslims are now making my case for me.)
And remember, Muslims believe that every single word of the Qur'an was dictated by Allah himself. So when the Qur'an says, "Slay the idolaters wherever you find them" (Sura 9:5), that is the voice of God speaking.
The more devout a Muslim gets, the more likely he is either to act on that verse or support others who do. Islam is a lethal, toxic, totalitarian ideology that is hostile to every Western value we cherish — freedom of religion, freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, equal rights for all. None have a place in Islamic thought and practice.
This means, by the way, that no Muslim can take the oath of office to uphold and defend the Constitution with a clear conscience. Since his religion and its sharia law, given by Allah himself, teaches him that none of the rights guaranteed in the Constitution are valid (there is no freedom of religion in sharia, for instance — you leave Islam, you die), he either must lie or betray his religion to take the oath.
Out of simple compassion, we should not put anyone in a place where he has to choose between his God and his country to hold public office. Christians don't have to make that choice, since our nation was founded on the principles of the Judeo-Christian tradition and the Declaration and Constitution took root and grew in Christian soil. The Bible is the ultimate source of moral authority for the Christian citizen, and it is the Bible that gave birth to the Declaration and the Constitution. Remember all that business about the "Creator" and the dating of these documents from the birth of Jesus Christ? That means the more devout a Christian becomes, the more patriotism and love of country he develops, and the more he will want to see the nation return to its biblical, moral and constitutional foundations.
Muslims do not have to make that choice in Islamic countries, but they are forced to make that choice here. Since sharia is the ultimate authority in all the world for Muslims, it should come as no surprise that most Muslims will choose sharia over the Constitution. They're not authentic Muslims unless they do. But this inability to take the oath of office without lying to themselves or to the public is a serious impediment to serving in public office in the United States.
Now there is no constitutional impediment to withholding mosque-building permits. The First Amendment was intended by the Founders as a restraint exclusively on the reach and power of the central government. After all, the first word in the First Amendment is the word "Congress." "Congress shall make no law..."
(We are talking here about the Constitution as established by the Founders, not the one that has been mangled out of recognition by activist judges.)
States are given, under our Constitution, virtually unlimited freedom to manage religious liberty affairs as they see fit. They even maintain the constitutional right to "establish" a church if they choose, that is, to pick one Christian denomination and make it the official church of their individual state. It would be a bad idea, but not unconstitutional. Nine of the 13 original states had established churches at the time of the Founding, a practice the First Amendment was designed to protect. (They wised up and dis-established them all by 1833.)
And states also maintain the right to restrict dangerous religious expression as they see fit, whether we're talking about the KKK and its burning crosses or Islam and its virulent anti-semitism. The federal government is forbidden to interfere but the Constitution places no limits around what state governments may do to deal with religiously-inspired threats to their security, peace, freedoms and individual rights. That's a matter for state constitutions and lawmakers.
I'm afraid it may be too late for Herman to find his voice again on Islam. But it's not too late for the United States of America.
(Unless otherwise noted, the opinions expressed are the author's and do not necessarily reflect the views of the American Family Association or American Family Radio.)
© Bryan Fischer
July 29, 2011
Follow me on Twitter: @BryanJFischer, on Facebook at "Focal Point"
It looks like Herman Cain's handlers have gotten to him again. Just when we thought he'd found his voice once more on the threat that Islam poses to the West, he issued a "humble and contrite" apology on Wednesday for any offense he may have caused Muslims. Herman says he stands by his previous statements, but if so, what is he apologizing for? I love Herman Cain, but he's confusing me here.
A recent and extensive survey revealed that 94.7% of all Muslims who attend mosque on a weekly basis in America attend a mosque which distributes literature advocating the use of violence to advance Islam in the United States and around the world.
Cain had said that any community which does not want a jihadist-spouting mosque in its community shouldn't be forced to have one.
And of course, he was right about that, and it's unfortunate that he has retracted the statement. His bobbing and weaving on Islam is leaving his supporters a bit dazed and is hurting his candidacy.
Yesterday's thwarted Muslim attack on Ft. Hood is just another indication that Islam is not a benign, equally valid alternative to classic Christianity. Any community that wants to keep out an ideology which commands its followers to commit acts of violence against American infidels ought to be able to do so.
(By the way, the arrested soldier, PFC Nasser Abdo, told Al-Jazeera that no Muslim should serve in the US military, the very thing I've been saying since Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan shot up 14 infidels at Ft. Hood in November of 2009. Muslims are now making my case for me.)
And remember, Muslims believe that every single word of the Qur'an was dictated by Allah himself. So when the Qur'an says, "Slay the idolaters wherever you find them" (Sura 9:5), that is the voice of God speaking.
The more devout a Muslim gets, the more likely he is either to act on that verse or support others who do. Islam is a lethal, toxic, totalitarian ideology that is hostile to every Western value we cherish — freedom of religion, freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, equal rights for all. None have a place in Islamic thought and practice.
This means, by the way, that no Muslim can take the oath of office to uphold and defend the Constitution with a clear conscience. Since his religion and its sharia law, given by Allah himself, teaches him that none of the rights guaranteed in the Constitution are valid (there is no freedom of religion in sharia, for instance — you leave Islam, you die), he either must lie or betray his religion to take the oath.
Out of simple compassion, we should not put anyone in a place where he has to choose between his God and his country to hold public office. Christians don't have to make that choice, since our nation was founded on the principles of the Judeo-Christian tradition and the Declaration and Constitution took root and grew in Christian soil. The Bible is the ultimate source of moral authority for the Christian citizen, and it is the Bible that gave birth to the Declaration and the Constitution. Remember all that business about the "Creator" and the dating of these documents from the birth of Jesus Christ? That means the more devout a Christian becomes, the more patriotism and love of country he develops, and the more he will want to see the nation return to its biblical, moral and constitutional foundations.
Muslims do not have to make that choice in Islamic countries, but they are forced to make that choice here. Since sharia is the ultimate authority in all the world for Muslims, it should come as no surprise that most Muslims will choose sharia over the Constitution. They're not authentic Muslims unless they do. But this inability to take the oath of office without lying to themselves or to the public is a serious impediment to serving in public office in the United States.
Now there is no constitutional impediment to withholding mosque-building permits. The First Amendment was intended by the Founders as a restraint exclusively on the reach and power of the central government. After all, the first word in the First Amendment is the word "Congress." "Congress shall make no law..."
(We are talking here about the Constitution as established by the Founders, not the one that has been mangled out of recognition by activist judges.)
States are given, under our Constitution, virtually unlimited freedom to manage religious liberty affairs as they see fit. They even maintain the constitutional right to "establish" a church if they choose, that is, to pick one Christian denomination and make it the official church of their individual state. It would be a bad idea, but not unconstitutional. Nine of the 13 original states had established churches at the time of the Founding, a practice the First Amendment was designed to protect. (They wised up and dis-established them all by 1833.)
And states also maintain the right to restrict dangerous religious expression as they see fit, whether we're talking about the KKK and its burning crosses or Islam and its virulent anti-semitism. The federal government is forbidden to interfere but the Constitution places no limits around what state governments may do to deal with religiously-inspired threats to their security, peace, freedoms and individual rights. That's a matter for state constitutions and lawmakers.
I'm afraid it may be too late for Herman to find his voice again on Islam. But it's not too late for the United States of America.
(Unless otherwise noted, the opinions expressed are the author's and do not necessarily reflect the views of the American Family Association or American Family Radio.)
© Bryan Fischer
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
