2012 US presidential candidate Herman Cain made quite a splash over this past weekend, when he asserted that a community in Tennessee, and by extension, any community in the US, has the right to ban mosques. From "Herman Cain Says U.S. Communities 'Have the Right' to Ban Mosques" at FoxNews.com, 17 July 2011:
"A set of laws, Shariah law." By that, Mr. Cain means that Islam is a political system, and not just a religion. It seems that such an idea, long considered heresy in the mainstream political establishment, is at last percolating up from the grassroots. This is probably in no small part due to the efforts of many indefatigable activists and advocates of freedom like Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller, both of whom have been arguing for many years that Islam is more akin to a political ideology, with a clear and present political agenda, than anything resembling a purely spiritual belief system.
Speaking on "Fox News Sunday," Cain said he came out against the Tennessee mosque after talking to members of that community. He said the site is "hallowed ground" to Murfreesboro residents and that they're concerned about "the intentions of trying to get Shariah law" -- the code governing conduct in Islamic societies.
"It's not just a mosque for religious purposes. This is what the people are objecting to," he said.
Asked whether any community should be able to prohibit a mosque, Cain said they should.
"They have the right to do that. That's not discriminating ... against that particular religion. That is an aspect of them building that mosque that doesn't get talked about," he said.
Cain again argued that residents were objecting to "the fact that Islam is both a religion and a set of laws, Shariah law. That's the difference between any one of our other traditional religions."
Judging by the amount of hot air that was instantly created in the 24 hour news cycle, and the amount of faux outrage generated in the professional blathering classes and by the usual suspects, Cain must have really touched a nerve:
Cain is taking heat for his comments about Muslims. The Council on American-Islamic Relations, which accused him of using "bigoted" language with his Cabinet comments, said Sunday that he should "apologize" for his latest remarks.
If the professional Hamas-linked taqiyya masters at CAIR have gotten their hackles up in such a hurry, then you know that Cain's on to something. But why stop with blocking construction of a single mosque in Murfreesboro, Tennessee? Or with a mosque, I mean 'community center" in lower Manhattan, for that matter?
Should Cain's assertions be taken to heart and acted upon by any community in America, the defenders of Islam in CAIR and their progressive friends are likely to reach for the First Amendment in their defense quicker than you can say 'Jihad'. And to that end, these defenders would have a point. Islam has traditionally been accepted as a religion with First Amendment protections.
Is there a response? If the idea that Islam -- not 'extreme' or 'radical' or 'militant' Islam, but Islam as its founder created and intended it -- is a dangerous, totalitarian political ideology of conquest, then we as a country must be prepared to go beyond individual communities banning a mosque here or there. We must be prepared for a comprehensive national response that deals with Islam and its pernicious and inseparable counterpart, Shariah law. A patchwork system as proposed by Herman Cain, with individual communities acting on their own, while well intended, would surely fail. A national response is not only practical, but vitally necessary.
To that end, a proposed constitutional amendment has already been proposed, an amendment that would acknowledge and identify Islam not as merely a 'religion', but as an enemy ideology, an amendment that strips away Islam's heretofore First Amendment protections. Imagine the following change to the US Constitution:
Be it resolved that the following Amendment to the Constitution be adopted:Like it or not, this would certainly address any Muslim appeal to the First Amendment. But while admittedly imperfect, and probably politically impossible at the present time, Amendment 28 does give us an idea of how far Americans will probably have to go to protect their freedom. Of course the leftists and Muslims will cry foul, and more. But what if we don't act and Islam is allowed to continue its ascendancy in America? What if there's 10,000 mosques, 20 million Muslims and enclaves of shariah law slash 'no go areas' in most major U.S. cities, as is now the case in Europe? Would it then be easier or more difficult to act in our self defense? What are the costs if we fail to act now, or soon?
The social/political/ideological system known around the world as Islam is not recognized in the United States as a religion.
The practice of Islam is therefore not protected under the 1st Amendment as to freedom of religion and speech.
As representatives of Islam around the world have declared war, and committed acts of war, against the United States and its democratic allies around the world, Islam is hereby declared an enemy of the United States and its practice within the United States is now prohibited.
Immediately upon passage of this Amendment all Mosques, schools and Muslim places of worship and religious training are to be closed, converted to other uses, or destroyed. Proceeds from sales of such properties may be distributed to congregations of said places but full disclosure of all proceeds shall be made to an appropriate agency as determined by Congress. No compensation is to be offered by Federal or State agencies for losses on such properties however Federal funding is to be available for the demolishing of said structures if other disposition cannot be made.
The preaching of Islam in Mosques, Schools, and other venues is prohibited. The subject of Islam may be taught in a post high school academic environment provided that instruction include discussion of Islam's history of violence, conquest, and its ongoing war on democratic and other non-Islamic values.
The preaching or advocating of Islamic ideals of world domination, destruction of America and democratic institutions, jihad against Judaism, Christianity and other religions, and advocating the implementation of Sharia law shall in all cases be punishable by fines, imprisonment, deportation, and death as prescribed by Congress. Violent expressions of these and other Muslim goals, or the material support of those both in the United States and around the world who seek to advance these Islamic goals shall be punishable by death.
Muslims will be denied the opportunity to immigrate to the United States.
Nothing in this amendment shall be construed as authorizing the discrimination against, of violence upon, nor repudiation of the individual rights of those Americans professing to be Muslim. The individual right of conscience is sacrosanct and the practice of Islam within the privacy of home and self is strictly protected to the extent that such individuals do not violate the prohibitions described in Article III.
Herman Cain merely said what a whole lot of smart people have been thinking (and saying) for a very long time. Amendment 28 is an idea whose time has come.