Beliefnet News

Beliefnet News


Southern Baptist chides Herman Cain: Muslims have rights, too

posted by

 

Speaking on C-SPAN, Southern Baptist leader Dr. Richard Land chided presidential candidate Herman Cain for disregarding the constitutional rights of U.S. Muslims.

Dr. Land reminded Cain that as a Christian and an African-American, Cain should have a special interest in the enforcement of the constitution in all communities, not just approving ones.

 

 

 

 

Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, addressed the businessman turned presidential candidate in a Monday broadcast saying, “Don’t throw out the baby with the bath, Mr. Cain.”

Cain is also an associate pastor at a Baptist. Last week, he told reporters that the plan to build the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro in Rutherford County, Tennessee, is “an infringement and an abuse of our freedom of religion.” He sided with community members who have protested the center saying the center is “another way to gradually sneak Sharia law into our laws.”

CLICK HERE to read more

 



  • http://AddaURLtothiscomment Mordred08

    Dr. Land is smarter than Cain. He realizes a town that can ban mosques can also ban churches.

  • http://AddaURLtothiscomment Larry L. Clifton

    Cain got it right…Land got it wrong.
    The U.S. Constitution was ratified with the assurance that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” In context, the Constitution says what the federal government cannot do; it does not provide a nationwide right of religious freedom.
    The states are not prohibited by the Constitution from either establishing religion or prohibiting free exercise. In fact, during the period when the individual states ratified the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, most had their own official state religions. Many states endorsed the Christian religion well into the mid-20th century.
    In 1808, President Thomas Jefferson broke from his two predecessors and decided against issuing a national proclamation for religious exercise. Jefferson did so because of our federalist system of government created by the Constitution.
    Explaining his position by letter to Samuel Miller, Jefferson wrote that his decision:
    …results not only from the provision that no law shall be made respecting the establishment, or free exercise, or religion, but from that also which reserves to the states the powers not delegated to the US. Certainly no power to prescribe any religious exercise, or to assume authority in religious discipline, has been delegated to the general [federal] government.
    Jefferson concludes his letter to Miller by noting the practice of his predecessors. But had they examined the issue of federal jurisdiction, they “would have discovered that what might be a right in a state government, was a violation of that right when assumed by another.”
    The individual states have retained the power under the Constitution to regulate religion, including the right to ban mosques based on safety concerns — or, for that matter, for any reason. Just as some Muslim countries ban or regulate the building of churches, the individual states have retained sovereignty over such matters.
    Under the actual Constitution, one state may vote to ban all mosques while another may promote and fund mosques. In areas of retained sovereignty, the states are subject only to their own constitutions. The federal government is powerless to ban or to establish or to interfere with the powers of the states. That’s how the country was founded. It’s called constitutional federalism. It’s a system which allows for diversity among the states.
    Of course, the problem is that the First Amendment itself was amended — not by the legal process of a constitutional amendment, but by unilateral decree of the U.S. Supreme Court. The Religion Clause of the First Amendment, ratified by the states to control the power of the federal government, is now used against the very states it was meant to protect. And the federal government made itself the referee regarding what the states may and may not do.
    Legal commentary and court precedent was unanimous for approximately the first 150 years of our country’s constitutional history on the fact that the Bill of Rights limits the power of the federal government, not the states.
    Then, in the early 20th century (1925), judicial activists on the Supreme Court got clever. Since the 14th Amendment (1868) controls the power of the states — in context of ending slavery and granting rights to the former slaves — why not use it against the states in ways never imagined?
    Never mind that the 14th Amendment does not mention the Bill of Rights and has nothing to do with applying those “Rights” against the states. But since the 14th speaks of “liberty” interests, why not “incorporate” some of the restrictions on the federal government from the Bill of Rights into the 14th and apply them against the states?
    It was dishonest to the core — but oh, so brilliant.
    Because the Court acted mildly at first and incrementally, it got away with its crime against the Constitution.
    In short, that’s how “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” morphed into “local school districts everywhere shall cease in their time-honored religious traditions and exercises.”
    What is taking place via the illegal doctrine of “incorporation” is pure federal tyranny.
    So, did Herman Cain get it right?
    Probably not if you believe the U.S. Supreme Court has power to amend the Constitution without the amendment process. And if you believe that central control over the states via turning the Bill of Rights on its head is valid, then Herman Cain is outrageously out of touch.
    But if you believe that we must set aside decades of illegal precedent and get back to the actual Constitution and the system that made America great, then, absolutely, the Hermanator nailed it.
    Note: Above, Mr. Cain bases his position on the view that Islam is not always practiced as a valid religion, not on the view that the current state of the law is an affront to the Constitution.
    Monte Kuligowski is the author of “Does the Declaration of Independence Pass the Lemon Test?”
    Political language… is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind. ~George Orwell

Previous Posts

Hispanics turning evangelical, Jews secular
Worship service attendance is up in New York City, but down among young adult Jews, according to recent studies. On the other hand, fewer Spanish-speaking teens are attending Catholic mass, but more are showing up at Evangelical churches. [caption id="attachment_12343" align="alignleft" width="48

posted 3:10:30pm Nov. 05, 2013 | read full post »

Billy Graham: I know where I'm going
“Daddy thinks the Lord will allow him to live to 95,” said Franklin Graham recently. It was not a prophecy but a hope, Franklin explained, that he would live to see the beginning of a Christian re

posted 10:02:01am Oct. 24, 2013 | read full post »

Are All These Christians' Complaints of Persecution Just So Much Empty Whining?
The headlines are alarming: “Catholic-Owned Company Wins Religious Freedom Court Decision,” “Death Toll Rises to 65 in Boko Haram Attack on Students,” “Little Sisters Catholic Charity Victimized By Obamacare,” “Christians Sought Out, Murdered in the Kenyan Mall Massacre,” “Judicial

posted 2:41:26am Oct. 07, 2013 | read full post »

How can Christians defend themselves against today's random violence?
So, a crazed gunman opens fire and you’re caught in the middle. How can you survive? Heroes come in all sorts of packages. And they wield all sorts of defensive weapons. Such as guns and Jesus. Sometimes both at the same time. [caption id="attachment_12246" align="alignleft" width="480"] Ant

posted 2:53:48pm Sep. 27, 2013 | read full post »

Does Sunday Morning Church Really Need All This Glitter, Showmanship and Gimmickry?
What’s wrong with church today? Are we in danger of turning worship into a flashy concert? Of watering down the message so nobody is offended? Of forgetting the simplicity of the Gospel? I grew up with a preacher’s kid. He was a fake following in the footsteps of his flimflamming father who d

posted 11:26:20am Sep. 20, 2013 | read full post »




Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.