Herman Cain: Tennessee mosque builders want Sharia law

Herman Cain said he sides with those opposing the construction of a mosque in Tennessee because he fears the Muslims building the mosque have bad intentions and want to implement Sharia law.

“Our constitution guarantees separation of church and state,” said Cain, a contender for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination. “Islam combines church and state. They are using the church part of our First Amendment to infuse their mosque in the community and people in the community don’t like it. They disagree with it. Sharia law is what they are trying to infuse.”

The former Godfather’s Pizza CEO made the comments while on Fox News Sunday. Residents in Murfreesboro have been protesting the building of the worship center planned by the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro. Cain says he has the residents’ back.

Moderator Chris Wallace asked Cain if his skepticism of Muslims in the country is similar to the prejudice he faced growing up as a black man.

“I tell them that is absolutely not true,” Cain said. “Because it’s absolutely totally different … I am willing to take a harder look at people that might be terrorists. That’s what I’m saying.”

He added: “I know that there is a peaceful group of Muslims in this country.” (Herman Cain signs up for Sunday morning grilling)

Wallace asked him if it’s okay for any community to say we don’t want a mosque in our community.

“They could say that … Let’s go back to the fundamental issue that the people are basically saying that they are objecting to. They are objecting to the fact that Islam is both a religion and a set of laws, Sharia law,” Cain said.

“That is the difference between any one of our other traditional religions where it’s just about religious purposes. The people in the community know best. And I happen to side with the people in the community.”

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_24UD5JDXBO5ZAEDHS6WUGKICHA Whit

     Very well said, Truebearing.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_24UD5JDXBO5ZAEDHS6WUGKICHA Whit

    Edgendloft how can we know their prayers are peacable when their works are not.  Now maybe the majority are peace loving but we are dealing with the violent.  How can we tell which is which.  Sharia is law would come under politics rather than faith,

    I have no problem with a Muslim choosing to be under sharia any more than a Christian keeping the doctrines of Christ  Various denominations have different things they observe and we have no problem with that but when the activist are offended at those doctrines they do raise the roof.  If that is wrong then rejecting Sharia may also be wrong but they are offended at the truth and that is wrong,

  • Pingback: The Danger of Prayerful Candidates |

  • palmer1619

    Herman Cain should probably stick to making pizzas. This guy is weird. But then clearly, anyone can run for president.

  • Iowa48

    I slam is a political movement thinly disguised as a “religion”. Their will to bring about the imposition of S haria law is precisely what makes them a political movement as opposed to a religion. Sharia is in effect in Saudi Arabia and Iran and other M uslim nations as the ruling political system of laws which dictates all the elements o fcivil, criminal, business, and family laws. As such, it is the antithesis of our Constitution which bars government imposition of a religion. S haria is the government in many countries. As I slam advocates the violent overthrow of the USA and Israel, I do not feel that restrictions on it are Constitutionally prohibited any more than the restrictions we place on Russian agents or Cuban agents or North korean agents within our borders. It is a political entity whose open and oft stated goals are the overthrow of the Constitutionally established government of the USA and the subjugation of its people. Mr. Cain has it exactly right. It has nothing to do with the 1st Amendment, as this political entity has nothing to do at all with religion, evidenced by its promotion of its political will via Sharia.

    • egendloff

      Islam is a religion. Muslims pray to the same God as Christians and Jews. Most Muslims do not follow strict Sharia law, just as most Jews do not follow strict Jewish law (which has as many rules as Sharia law); almost all American Muslims are peaceful and good citizens and follow the law, and don’t forsake US law to follow Sharia law, just as most American Jews don’t follow strict Jewish law. Just because you don’t like Islam, doesn’t mean that you can create an exception to the First Amendment that allows the government to prevent Muslims from peacefully praying the way they choose. If you believe in small government, than how could you give government the power to stop people from praying?

  • truebearing

    There are an inordinate number of people who mistakenly think that the 1st Amendment is absolute and nothing can effect the freedoms it affords the citizens. WRONG!

    The constitution contemplates acts of sedition and treason, and clearly gives the nation a right to protect itself from those who would seek its overthrow, as Muslims following the teachings of Islam are REQUIRED to do. Speech that is based in a religion, or ideology, which preaches the overthrow of our constitution and government is not protected and is in fact, seditious. We are not constitutionally bound to protect the speech of hostile entities, and no intelligent or sane person would argue that we should.

    Furthermore, the establishment of a religion which prioritizes world political domination as its ultimate goal, and which is theocratic in nature, is in automatic conflict with our constitution and cannot coexist with our constitution. Our constitution and Islam are mutually exclusive. The establishment of Islam in our country is the establishment of a competing constitution.

    The Quran and the Hadith function as a constitution for ALL Muslims, replete with a complete system of laws, and according to their constitution, the government must also be Islamic. Not only does Islam violate our laws against sedition, but as a theocracy, violates the separation clause in the 1st Amendment as well. In other words, Islam itself is a violation of the 1st Amendment because it establishes a state religion. Those who defend Islam on 1st Amendment grounds are advocating the violation of the very amendment that is the basis of their poorly thought out argument.

    Those who argue that 1st Amendment rights protect the rights of hostile ideologies don’t look at the constitution as a whole, and don’t understand the 1st Amendment, especially in the context of a group seeking the supplantation of the constitution itself. We, as a nation, have every right to defend ourselves from the advent of religions and ideologies hostile to our beliefs, way of life, constitution, and freedoms. The false rights of those who would use our rights to destroy us are not protected by the constitution, or by common sense.

    • http://kylejohnson.bandcamp.com/ krjohnson

      “Those who would use our rights to destroy us are not protected by the constitution, or by common sense.”

      “I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.”
      -Barry Goldwater

    • rednightrain

      I think you put it eloquently.I couldn’t agree with you more. Most of the people here do not understand just how hostile the Muslims are. They are trying to take over the world, just as Osoma ben Laudin stated in one of his speeches. The up coming generation just dosen’t seem to understand what in happening to this world. I have both children and Grand children and it scares me to death! What is it going to take to get people to wake up and realize what is going on? There is only one First Amendment, and that is ours. If you can’t live by our laws in our country, then LEAVE! Oh yes, take your Sharia law with you! You might also think about stopping treating women like they are dogs!