Washingtom Post OpEd -- Stand up to Herman Cain’s bigotry

 I got this in my morning email from a list to which I subscribe. It was sent without comment, so I wrote a comment and sent it on. I decided to post it here, as well, because it has some resonance for me. In general, I like Herman Cain. This gave me pause, though and I decided to look at it and give it some thought.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/stand-up-to-herman-cains-bigotry/2011/07/18/gIQA5QChMI_story.html

Stand up to Herman Cain’s bigotry
By Eugene Robinson, Published: July 18

Washington Post Opinion Online

It is time to stop giving Herman Cain’s unapologetic bigotry a free pass.
The man and his poison need to be seen clearly and taken seriously.

Imagine the reaction if a major-party presidential candidate — one who,
like Cain, shows actual support in the polls — said he “wouldn’t be
comfortable” appointing a Jew to a Cabinet position. Imagine the outrage
if this same candidate loudly supported a community’s efforts to block
Mormons from building a house of worship.

But Cain’s prejudice isn’t against Mormons or Jews, it’s against Muslims.
Open religious prejudice is usually enough to disqualify a candidate for
national office — but not, apparently, when the religion in question is
Islam.

----------------SNIP -----------

(Lest you think that Robinson quoted Cain out of context, go to Fox News and listen to Cain in his own words at  http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/fox-news-sunday/index.html#/v/1062128412001/herman-cain-on-fox-news-sunday/?playlist_id=86913 His comments about the mosque come at about 5:50 of the nearly 15 minute segment)

So, this is my response:

There must be some common ground where sensible people could agree on just how much of a threat Islam is to our nation and the Western way of life. Historically, Muslims have imposed their religious law wherever they had the upper hand. To be fair, so did Christians, historically. The author of this screed, which is almost as off-the-wall as he claims Cain to be, makes a number of comparisons, some of which might be valid if there were some better historical precedent. But when he goes all Swiftian on us with his "It makes as much sense to worry that the Amish will force us all to commute by horse and buggy" he reduces it all to sound bites and stupid -- yes, I said stupid -- analogies. The Amish are separatists, wanting only to be left alone to live life according to their beliefs. They don't proselytize or try to force their beliefs on the "English" as many of them call the rest of us. And they are pacifists, for whom force is not a term in their lexicon, except perhaps as a negative concept to be avoided.

Islam, alone among the Abrahamist religions of the Middle East -- Judaism, Christianity and Islam in chronological order -- seems to still speak in terms of jihad or holy war. Yes, Christians went on Crusades, which are mighty close to the same thing to retake the Holy Land and erase Islam. But that was a very long time ago. The radical imams who preach jihad and issue fatwas against the infidel -- that's us, folks -- may think they're still operating in the 14th century, but they are using TV and the Internet to do so and they are doing it right now. Europe is seeing a major push to elevate shariah law to the same level as secular law in France. So far, France has taken a fairly hard line against it, but as the ratio of Muslims to non-Muslims shifts, can they resit for long when the Muslims are the majority? Or even a strong and vocal minority?

In some US cities, the number of Muslims is steadily growing. They are one of the fastest growing segments of the population in some areas, in part because they do not believe in the concept of zero population growth, the idea that to maintain a balance, we need to reproduce ourselves and just a bit more, to offset those who do not chose or are unable to have children. (This replacement fertility will depend on mortality rates and the sex ratio at birth, and varies from around 2.1 in developed countries to over 3.0 in some developing countries.) It is the belief, started in the US and Europe in the '60s, that overpopulation will, eventually, deplete all the resources on the planet if it is not checked. 

Most of the people who practiced it were among the better educated and better-off people, primarily White. Blacks in the '60s saw ZPG as a racist attempt to eliminate Blacks by lowering the birth rate. Given that in theory all people were supposed to be doing it, I could never figure out how they got that, unless they figured that once the Blacks got on board, White people would all breed like Australian rabbits, with about the same effect: Blacks would be nearly extinct and we would be even more numerous. What did happen is that the birth rate among educated White people declined and the birth rate among others did not.

I think that Cain's view that preventing Muslims from building mosques will eliminate radical Islam and deny terrorist cells a place to germinate and grow is simplistic, but many mosques, even ones that are relatively moderate, allow groups to meet there and do not always monitor what the meetings are about. Even many moderates among the faithful and their leaders are sympathetic to the aims and goals of the more radical among their brethren and will turn a blind eye to what is going on. So, if we allow mosques, we then must keep a close eye on what is going on there.

Helter Skelter, which would bring about a major race war where Blacks would be victorious. He and his extended family would be safe from all that and would emerge as virtually the only white people left and being superior, would rule the Blacks. There are some who would see that as part of the plan to get us to the End Times as quickly as possible.)

Religious freedom is sacrosanct among many Americans and they see it as absolute. But freedom is not license and while I feel we need to allow people to worship as they please, I don't think we should let them foment revolution or train for jihad or hasten Armageddon. As the saying went, back in the days of the Cold War and the beginnings of nuclear and missile disarmament. "Trust, but verify."