SBC’s Land disagrees with Cain on mosques
- Jul 18, 2011 - 6 -
The free exercise of religion is too vital to allow communities to restrict it, Southern Baptist ethicist Richard Land said July 18 in response to presidential candidate Herman Cain’s support for a local ban on the building of a Muslim mosque.
The president of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission was asked on C-SPAN’s “Washington Journal” television program to respond to the Republican’s endorsement of any local government’s prohibiting construction of a mosque in its community.
“First of all, I would respectfully encourage him to read the First Amendment to the Constitution, where it says that the government shall not interfere with the free exercise of religion,” Land said, adding the First Amendment “is one of those amendments that is too important and protects rights that are too central to our guaranteed rights in this country to be left with a local option. Mr. Cain, of all people, as an African American, should understand that our civil rights have to be guaranteed at a federal level.”
On “Fox News Sunday” July 17, Cain said he opposes the building of a new mosque in Murfreesboro, Tenn., whose residents, he said, “are objecting to the fact that Islam is both religion and [a] set of laws, Shariah law.”
The United States Constitution “guarantees separation of church and state,” Cain said. “Islam combines church and state.”
Land said, “Muslims have a right to have places of worship. … Shariah law is unconstitutional. Shariah law violates the First Amendment, which guarantees separation of church and state and guarantees separation of mosque and state. Secondly, it violates the clauses that protect equal rights, because under Shariah law women do not have equal rights.
“I would say, ‘Don’t throw out the baby with the bath, Mr. Cain.’ Muslims have a right to have places of worship, maybe not places of worship exactly where they want to have them, because that’s why we have zoning laws…. If they’re trying to promote Shariah law or impose Shariah law at any level, that’s unconstitutional.”
Land’s responses to other questions from C-SPAN host Paul Orgel and viewers included:
- On federal debt, Land said of President Obama’s July 12 comment he could not guarantee Social Security checks would be mailed in August if the debt ceiling is not raised: “[I]f the Social Security checks don’t go out, it’s because the president is demagoguing and fear-mongering, because the government takes in right now about $200 billion a month, and Social Security checks are $50 billion. We can pay the interest on what we owe, and we can pay the Social Security checks, and we can pay the $35 million that’s Medicare and Medicaid and not default. So that would be a choice the president makes. And I think it’s despicable that he is trying to scare Social Security recipients into thinking that if we don’t raise the debt ceiling they’re not going to get their checks. If they don’t get their Social Security checks, it will be a choice by the Obama administration and his secretary of the Treasury.”
- On what should be cut from federal spending: “Well, almost everything. When you’re looking at a budget that’s as seriously out of whack as this one is, I would say, first of all, I have seen very few budgets that couldn’t take a five percent cut. So I would have a five per cent across the board cut. And then secondly, we can start with the $200 billion in 38 duplicate and wasteful programs [according to an estimate by Sen. Tom Coburn, R.-Okla., based on a Government Accountability Office report] that don’t do any good. Now that’s a good place to start.”
He also said Planned Parenthood, the country’s leading abortion provider, and National Public Radio should not receive federal money.
- On the problem with the federal government: “In a country as wealthy as ours we should be looking out for the health and welfare of the people, within the ability of the government and the ability of the country to pay…. We can’t do everything, and that’s part of the problem. Washington has been trying to do everything, and they’ve been kicking the can down the road, and they’ve now reached the place where we can no longer kick it down the road …”
- On the suggestions churches should be taxed: “If you want to tax all the other non-profit, charitable entities, then you can tax churches. But until you do that … you shouldn’t tax churches…. So I would say churches shouldn’t be treated any differently than all the other charitable, non-profit organizations in the country.”
- On his favorite 2012 candidate for president: “Oh, I don’t have one, and if I did I wouldn’t tell you, because I don’t endorse candidates. It’s no secret that I am pro-life. I am going to vote for a pro-life candidate. But which one? That’s up to them…. Every time in the primaries, I try to vote for the person that is pro-life that I think would make the best president.”
- On Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s possible entrance in the Republican presidential field: “This race is shaping up as [Mitt] Romney versus somebody, Romney versus the anti-Romney, and Romney’s the establishment candidate…. I think it’s a fight between the other candidates to become the anti-Romney candidate.”
Video of Land’s 47-minute appearance on C-SPAN may be accessed online.
Further Learning
Learn more about: Citizenship, Christian Citizenship, Church and State, , National, Religious Liberty,
The comment thread for this article is now closed. Please use our contact form.
{comment_total} comments
1 On Jul 20th, 2011, at 9:08pm, Michael Wilhite wrote:
I would respectfully ask you to consider the following:
Islam is a not so much a religion as an ideology of world domination masquerading as a religion. How many Baptists run around beheading folks in the name of Jesus?
In the United States, we have freedom of religion, but that religion cannot be an enemy of our nation, seeking to kill all who do not bow to it’s god and live by it’s dictates. It makes as much sense to kowtow to Islam as it does to decide I believe in the almighty Edsel, where part of my religious duty is to collide with and destroy as many Toyota’s as I possibly can. If I die in the process, I will immediately go to AutoHeaven, where I will inherit 72 brand new Rolls-Royces and virgin chauffeurettes to drive them.
2 On Jul 20th, 2011, at 9:24pm, John H wrote:
Land’s performance on CSPAN was outstanding. May I point out that Herman Cain’s support for a local ban of building of a new mosque needs to be viewed in context. The context is the Muslims are trying to promote Shariah law or impose Shariah law. When I was breeding vegetables in the Philippines in the ‘70’s, I encountered Muslims suicide bombers. Muslims had suicide bombers in the Philippines 1906 as well as in the USA and the rest of the world today. Herman Cain tried to briefly explain the context of his support.
3 On Jul 20th, 2011, at 11:11pm, Jackie wrote:
Are you serious? Why exactly do you think they want to build the mosque in that particular location? What religion do you think they will practice in the mosque that they are planning to build, Christianity? Why are they pushing so hard to build in that location considering what happened? And I must admit this story is rearing it’s head pretty close to the anniversary of 9/11. Things that make you go hmmmm…
4 On Jul 20th, 2011, at 11:12pm, Robert Warmath wrote:
I so appreciate Dr. Land and his willingness to stand up for what is both biblical and what is in line with our constitution. Christians must stand up for the religious freedom of other groups even though we fervantly believe that Jesus Christ is the only way to God and heaven. If we allow the religious liberties of any group to be curtailed, all religious liberties will suffer regardless of the faith being represented. Dr. Land is absolutely correct in opposing Shariah Law on the basis of constitutional grounds. It is not at all in agreement with our U.S. Constitution and must not be incorporated in any aspect into any of our national or state or local laws. Those holding to Islamic faith are free to support and practice aspects of Shariah Law while in the U.S. only where it does not infringe on any of the constitution rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.
5 On Jul 22nd, 2011, at 12:26am, mr. bill wrote:
with all due respect, i find dr. land to be dead-wrong on this issue. and, as a texas southern baptist for over 50 years, i must assure you that he does not represent me or my views. this whole “muslim” issue has nothing at all to do with religion; islam is not a religion but, rather, a deeply-held form of “government” which dictates very radical positions/beliefs/actions concerning absolutely every aspect of life. the main stated purpose of the muslim “faith” is to rid the world of “infidels”; that would mean you & me, dr. land…and they would do it in the name of their “god”. that is not what my God teaches, and He has told us to reject such people &/or beliefs. i’m on herman cain’s side and suggest you get there, too! wake up, brother, before it’s too late… God has called you & me, as Christians, to share the Light with this lost world; now is the time!
6 On Jul 23rd, 2011, at 3:33pm, Doug Bess wrote:
If Islam was truly just a religion than I would see no problem however this is not a church/state issue. If we continue to let Muslims build mosques where ever they want then the freedoms we enjoy in our country will certainly be at risk. The citizens of Murfreesboro have a right under the Constitution as well to voice their disapproval and stand up against this mosque.