Lots of strong responses to GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain for his continued anti-Muslim campaign, most recently his belief that communities have the constitutional authority to ban mosques.
Over at the Faith in Public Life blog, Nick Sementelli points to Cain's outrageous use of the separation of church and state to justify his contention that Muslims should not receive the same freedoms as members of other faiths. It's especially remarkable, Nick observes, since Cain has been one to deny church-state separation in the past.
…It's an interesting choice given that conservatives have spent years aggressively triying to debunk that particular phrase — accusing those who use it of taking it out of context in an effort to construct a revisionist history of America's Judeo-Christian founding.
…
It's no shock that Cain would reverse himself to find an Islamic exception to his principles, but I'm surprised that he would radically alter his belief about a fundamental Constitutional issue. The question for Mr. Cain is whether he believes the separation of church and state exists, whether it is guaranteed by the Constitution, and if so what led him to change his mind between 2006 and today.
At the Plum Line, Adam Serwer points out that Islam is hardly the only religion with its own traditional laws.
In a Christian Post column, Ed Stetzer argues freedom of religion must be "for everyone."
The Southern Baptist Convention's Richard Land also took issue with Cain's remarks.
