Obama: Muslims Have the Right to Freedom of Religion, Too
At tonight's White House dinner celebrating the end of the Islamic holy month of Ramadan, President Obama gave his first remarks concerning the firestorm of controversy around the plan to build a mosque and community center near ground zero in New York City.
Before we all hear the ugly sound of birthers' heads exploding as they claim this proves he was born in Kenya, it's worth looking at his entire speech. It was an affirmation of one of the most fundamental rights we have in this country: the right to the freedom of religion and to worship (or not) as we please. It was also a courageous speech, given that 70% oppose any Muslim presence near Ground Zero. There was nothing political to be gained from it whatsoever, and everything ethical.
The full text of his speech follows:
Good evening. Welcome to the White House.
To you, to Muslim Americans across our country, and to more than one billion Muslims around the world, I extend my best wishes on this holy month. Ramadan Kareem. I want to welcome members of the diplomatic corps; members of my administration; and Members of Congress, including Rush Holt, John Conyers, and Andre Carson, who is one of two Muslim American Members of Congress, along with Keith Ellison.
Here at the White House, we have a tradition of hosting iftars that goes back several years, just as we host Christmas parties, seders, and Diwali celebrations. These events celebrate the role of faith in the lives of the American people. They remind us of the basic truth that we are all children of God, and we all draw strength and a sense of purpose from our beliefs.
These events are also an affirmation of who we are as Americans. Our Founders understood that the best way to honor the place of faith in the lives of our people was to protect their freedom to practice religion. In the Virginia Act for Establishing Religion Freedom, Thomas Jefferson wrote that “all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion.” The First Amendment of our Constitution established the freedom of religion as the law of the land. And that right has been upheld ever since.
Indeed, over the course of our history, religion has flourished within our borders precisely because Americans have had the right to worship as they choose - including the right to believe in no religion at all. And it is a testament to the wisdom of our Founders that America remains deeply religious - a nation where the ability of peoples of different faiths to coexist peacefully and with mutual respect for one another stands in contrast to the religious conflict that persists around the globe.
That is not to say that religion is without controversy. Recently, attention has been focused on the construction of mosques in certain communities - particularly in New York. Now, we must all recognize and respect the sensitivities surrounding the development of lower Manhattan. The 9/11 attacks were a deeply traumatic event for our country. The pain and suffering experienced by those who lost loved ones is unimaginable. So I understand the emotions that this issue engenders. Ground Zero is, indeed, hallowed ground.
But let me be clear: as a citizen, and as President, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country. That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances. This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakeable. The principle that people of all faiths are welcome in this country, and will not be treated differently by their government, is essential to who we are. The writ of our Founders must endure.
We must never forget those who we lost so tragically on 9/11, and we must always honor those who have led our response to that attack - from the firefighters who charged up smoke-filled staircases, to our troops who are serving in Afghanistan today. And let us always remember who we are fighting against, and what we are fighting for. Our enemies respect no freedom of religion. Al Qaeda’s cause is not Islam - it is a gross distortion of Islam. These are not religious leaders - these are terrorists who murder innocent men, women and children. In fact, al Qaeda has killed more Muslims than people of any other religion - and that list of victims includes innocent Muslims who were killed on 9/11.
That is who we are fighting against. And the reason that we will win this fight is not simply the strength of our arms - it is the strength of our values. The democracy that we uphold. The freedoms that we cherish. The laws that we apply without regard to race or religion; wealth or status. Our capacity to show not merely tolerance, but respect to those who are different from us - a way of life that stands in stark contrast to the nihilism of those who attacked us on that September morning, and who continue to plot against us today.
In my inaugural address, I said that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus — and non-believers. We are shaped by every language and culture, drawn from every end of this Earth. That diversity can bring difficult debates. Indeed, past eras have seen controversies about the construction of synagogues or Catholic churches. But time and again, the American people have demonstrated that we can work through these issues, stay true to our core values, and emerge stronger for it. So it must be - and will be - today.
Tonight, we are reminded that Ramadan is a celebration of a faith known for great diversity. And Ramadan is a reminder that Islam has always been part of America. The first Muslim ambassador to the United States, from Tunisia, was hosted by President Jefferson, who arranged a sunset dinner for his guest because it was Ramadan—making it the first known iftar at the White House, more than 200 years ago.
Like so many other immigrants, generations of Muslims came here to forge their future. They became farmers and merchants, worked in mills and factories, and helped lay the railroads. They helped build America. They founded the first Islamic center in New York City in the 1890s. They built America’s first mosque on the prairie of North Dakota. And perhaps the oldest surviving mosque in America—still in use today—is in Cedar Rapids, Iowa.
Today, our nation is strengthened by millions of Muslim Americans. They excel in every walk of life. Muslim American communities—including mosques in all fifty states—also serve their neighbors. Muslim Americans protect our communities as police, firefighters and first responders. Muslim American clerics have spoken out against terror and extremism, reaffirming that Islam teaches that one must save human life, not take it. And Muslim Americans serve with honor in our military. At next week’s iftar at the Pentagon, tribute will be paid to three soldiers who gave their lives in Iraq and now rest among the heroes of Arlington National Cemetery.
These Muslim Americans died for the security that we depend upon, and the freedoms that we cherish. They are part of an unbroken line of Americans that stretches back to our Founding; Americans of all faiths who have served and sacrificed to extend the promise of America to new generations, and to ensure that what is exceptional about America is protected - our commitment to stay true to our core values, and our ability to perfect our union.
For in the end, we remain “one nation, under God, indivisible.” And we can only achieve “liberty and justice for all” if we live by that one rule at the heart of every religion, including Islam—that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us.
Thank you all for being here, and I wish you a blessed Ramadan. And with that, let’s eat.




We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus — and non-believers.
non-believers listed in the top 5...
i appreciated that immensely!
Nice to be noticed, and with respect.
Also nice to see good Obama back, no matter how fleeting. Let's see more of that courage when it comes to the economy, Guantanamo, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.....
the birthers have nothing to bitch about anymore since being born here would no longer matter
Get ready for Newt's "secular socialist machine" rant. This wasn't political on Obama's part but you better believe the reich wing will politicize it.
Sounds like we should get the tax breaks than.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
glad he mentioned nonbelievers again... right wingers will go insane (I expect them to definitely make this election more of a anti-muslim, anti-secularism issue. I hope most Americans don't fall for it).
...coming from a guy who keeps a bunch of Muslims in a military base in Cuba with no access to attorneys! ....or due process of law.
audit-prosecute-incarcerate
They have more access to the law and the legal system than they did under bush,
But they're not being relocated prisons to in America, because local government protests plans to send them to their area.
Since when were teabaggers against local governance?
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYy
GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG
-------------------------------------
----Thinking BUSH< The man that----
----------Opened Gitmo--------------
--------------------------------------
JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJjj
FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFff
What is it with Obama? Just when I've just about given up on him altogether, he does something endearing like this.
This is going to make the wingnuts go stark raving mad(der).
When dealing with wingnuts, you always have to remind yourself that the Constitution is for white Christian people only.
Yes, as President, one must pick and choose which battles they wish to fight, but President Obama has often chosen the wrong battles. On this issue, I think he found the right battle to choose. Its just too bad that he can't fight this hard for equal rights for gays, Social Security, true medical insurance reform (give us the fucking option to purchase into Medicare, at cost, at any age), civilian trials for alleged terrorists, etc...........................
President Obama has always worked from the premise that he will seek a second term, instead of fighting like he only wants one term.
Election 2012: Be Educated! Be Active! Vote!
www.phoenixjustice.com
check out his saturday address... i just heard a bit of it on the AP radio news (XM left 167)... he stated that he couldn't imagine anyone wanting to privatize SS after the losses in the market recently...
THAT made the "news"!
and the repug response was predictable... the bit i heard...
Speaking truth to the xenophobes, birthers, and wingnuts may not always poll well in the short term, but if you start displaying more political courage, it will benefit you (and the country) in the long term.
"Few men are willing to brave the disapproval of their fellows, the censure of their colleagues, the wrath of their society. Moral courage is a rarer commodity than bravery in battle or great intelligence. Yet it is the one essential, vital quality of those who seek to change a world which yields most painfully to change."
Robert F. Kennedy
"We will find fulfillment not in the goods that we have, but in the good we can do for each other."
Robert F. Kennedy
This was celebrating the end of the first day of fasting. Ramadan is a month long celebration.
The problem this year is when the month long holiday ends on September 10th.
Muslims are concerned that the anti-Muslim wingnuts will portray their religious celebration as a celebration of the 9/11 tragedy.
Be prepared for that load of BS
It’s not demagoguery - It’s enhanced political marketing
I hadn't noticed this year's conjunction of Eid ul-Fitr and 9-11.
omg
Democracy is too important to be entrusted to politicians.
Rise Up!
Protest!
I think this spells out the issue pretty well - http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100813/ap_on_re/...
Election 2012: Be Educated! Be Active! Vote!
www.phoenixjustice.com
Eid al-Fitr, a joyous holiday marking the end of the holy month of Ramadan, this year falls around Sept. 11. Muslim leaders fear that their gatherings for prayer and festivities could be misinterpreted by those unfamiliar with Islam as a celebration of the 2001 terrorist strikes.
The Muslim Public Affairs Council, an advocacy group based in Los Angeles, is contacting law enforcement and the Justice Department civil rights division to alert them to the overlap.
well, that, AND a concerted effort to EDUCATE THE PEOPLE!!!
and it better be SOON!
Next year is 10th anniversary. Good that Eid falls THIS year on the 11th. The Right would go bananas if it happened in 2011.
We need to respond thusly: if it wasn't this, it'd be something else.
I’m surprised there haven’t been any rants that Passover always follows Easter around even though Easter is not on the same Sunday each year.
It’s not demagoguery - It’s enhanced political marketing
I thought about this, and I'm a little worried. I think is projected to fall on the 9th or 10th though.
Iftar is the big meal eaten after dusk, every evening during the month of Ramadan.
Ramadan is the ninth month of the Islamic calendar.
The Islamic calendar is a lunar calendar. Ramadan began Aug 9 or 10 (depending which time zone), the last new moon, and will last for 29 or 30 days, until the next new moon.
Iftar will be celebrated every evening.
Source
Democracy is too important to be entrusted to politicians.
Rise Up!
Protest!
This is to answer Moutainman below:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGm-zkRNj58
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
When will the human race lift itself from the quagmire of "belief"?
Or is that too much to ask?
Democracy is too important to be entrusted to politicians.
Rise Up!
Protest!
"I would rather have a mind opened by wonder than one closed by belief."
Gerry Spence, 'How to Argue and Win Every Time'
"I know that there are people who do not love their fellow
man, and I hate people like that! " ~ Tom Lehrer (1928 - )
Actually that's what I've often felt about religion.
Jesus supposedly said have the faith of a child
And what is the faith of a child?
The faith of a child is wonderment
The arabesque dance of fireflies on a warm Midsummer night
The twinkling of stars that are of course windows in some distant manse
The e'er ebbs and tides of the often roaring seasn and wondering what the gulls are crying over,
They do not appreciate the explanation when it comes.
Trancendence only makes one feel lonelier than imminence.
Even now I like to pretend to myself that certain trees stir the wind by moving their arms about, not that the winds are disturbing the tree leaves
But then I remember I'm in Texas
What wind?
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
that was quite lovely...
.. but somehow that's not enough ..
.. there's a tear in my eye ..
Democracy is too important to be entrusted to politicians.
Rise Up!
Protest!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMF54aF9Vjk
http://readytogoebooks.com/LB-Aristomenes.htm
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
you had me at arabesque
Well I coulda said fireflies gamboling on a warm mid-summer night,
That's when they shoot craps
And everyone underneath has to have fast reflexes...
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
(Delete)
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
Why are you attacking "Family Guy"?
"Anyone that makes less than $150K in this country, has no business voting Republican."
*sigh* This is why atheists get so much shit. Because YOU CAN'T EVEN TAKE A FUCKING COMPLIMENT.
There's always free cheddar in the mousetrap, baby. - Tom Waits
I love it!
More like this - and great work karoli (as always)
:)
"I know that there are people who do not love their fellow
man, and I hate people like that! " ~ Tom Lehrer (1928 - )
Muslim presence near Ground Zero.
I keep seeing these types of poll numbers & wonder from whose a$$ the numbers have been pulled. Polls taken @ teabag rallies, Klan meetings Evangelical revivals? It's all bull-pucky (thanks Rachel)
It's not all or nothing.
They're all the same thing if it's rasmussen...
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
Obama seems to have a habit of mentioning non-believers, though of course never the dreaded A-word, which is probably for the best. Atheists aren't human, don'tchyaknow? Anyway, I definitely appreciate the mention, and it's a good step toward legitimising those of no faith as having value in politics. Would have been really nice to hear of one nation, indivisible, as it was originally intended, but I can't really blame him for maintaining the 'under god' part. If he had excised it, even in passing, I'm pretty sure everything south of the Mason-Dixie would have seceded by now.
As a person of faith, I applaud the President's public statement of support for Cordoba. Faith is faith and will be with us as long as man turns his face heavenwards. It is unfortunate that for too many the response to a pale blue sky is to clench their fists. I have no bone to pick with atheism. On this message board, however, I think we should strive to be as inclusive as possible. Whether we believe in God or view him as a fable, we have a better chance at correcting injustice together.
I agree that working together is our best bet, but why do you say you have no bone to pick with atheism when you also say this: "It is unfortunate that for too many the response to a pale blue sky is to clench their fists"?
I was merely observing that for far right wing of any religion, faith is mixed too often with self righteousness and anger towards those who do not see g-d the exact same way that they do.
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://bl...
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
Authoritarian followers.
Then why would they shake their fist at the sky? Not saying I disbelieve you, but that language sounds a lot more like a shot at Angry Atheists than at people of any religion.
I made the statement so I know the intent of the statement. I reread my post and I stand by it. I have no beef with Atheism. I do have a problem with extremism and injustice.
I know you know the intent of the statement. I'm just saying the intent isn't clear to an external reader and looks like something else.
To clarify, what I tried to convey was that when religions that espouse love produce followers who are hateful, it is not the fault of the religion itself, but of the person who chooses to hate. As soon as one adopts the mantel of self-righteousness, he repudiates the g-d he purports allegiance to. I was chatting online with a a gentleman from Iran the other night about Jihad. We both agreed that the kind of Jihad that g-d desires and finds acceptable is the jihad the believer wages against his own sin. There is no room for violence this far along in our evolution as a species. Unfortunately, it is still much easier to pick up a stone that to do some honest self assessment. And I guess that's the ultimate point. Real "religion" isn't about changing the world to reflect the will of g-d (an impossible feat). It's about changing yourself to be more like g-d. I did not mean to offend and I am sorry if I did.
Imagine the shock of a chicken slaughtered in the abattoir, when he gets to chicken heaven and finds God looks like Col. Sanders.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
I would really like to join in the chorus of hosannahs about Obama's speech. Unfortunately, like Mountainman23, I don't think there will ever be a shortage of those who prize superstition. I am all for letting the religious enjoy their superstitions, but I don't think it needs a lot of encouragement.
But the thing that bothers me is that it is so rare for Obama to step up and take the principled stance that we are surprised when he does it. So he supports freedom of religion for an unpopular religious sect (one which at its extremes murders thousands in the name of holy wars, and at its less extremes subjugates women and persecutes gays). So did Bush, after 911.
Candideinnc
(one which at its extremes murders thousands in the name of holy wars ...
the holy romans?
i know i know...
I feel pretty much the same way about the Catholics, Mormon, Baptists, Holy Rollers, et cetera. I don't hold any special animus against the Muslims, except that they are often a bit more barbaric than the other religions and a bit more effective in creating theistic governments.
But while Obama is taking the right stance in arguing for freedom of religion, he is doing it with full knowledge that given a survey of American, "freedom of religion" plays real well as a political slogan.
Candideinnc
It plays well unless you mention Muslims, Hindus, Atheists, Sikhs, or basically anyone not Jewish or Christian. Especially Muslims though.
Up to about twenty years ago Islam was being lumped together with the Judeo-Christian faith by referring to all three as the Abrahamic faiths.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
Well all three are Abrahamic faiths.
Though the "judeo-Christian" term is a bit false since its not like Judaism and Christianity are mirror reflections of each other.
I realize that when I wrote it. Jews were slaughtered along with the Islamic people in the Crusades in particular. Godfrey of Bouillon was a particular butcher.
Yet he is counted as one of the Nine Worthies.
And the Crusading forces were invited in by Orthodox Christians, only to be slaughtered on the steps of their own church the Hagia Sophia.
Then of course there was a little something called WWII. That's why to this day, some scholars insist on characterizing the Nazi movement as an occultic one, so Christians wouldn't have to accept responsibility for the doctrines they teach. There were occultic movements like the Thule Society, but they were largely outlawed by the Nazis once they rose to power. Sure they carried pennants like the Roman legions, but also like legions of altar boys.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
Our modern day Crusaders bear some responsibility for the ethnic cleansing of Christians from Iraq.
That's part of the problem with not keeping casualty counts, although they may exist in secret.
We understandably get upset when the other side shoots up a church.
But we bombed until neighborhoods that were largely Christian.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
One lesson that America should take from the Crusades. They weren't profitable till they were launched closer to home and against other Christians. Judging from the self-serving war and fear mongering rhetoric coming from America's far right, America is about to learn that lesson the hard way.
I meant to say entire neighborhoods, not until.
My eyes are all flooey today.
The crusades against other Christians closer to home is what created the Inquisition under Ad Abolendam of November 1184. Even in college they made it sound like all the crusaders came home and became justices of the peace.
The funny thing is the Inquisition still exists as the Congregation For the Doctrine of the Faith.
That was joey rats position until he got his ruby red slippers, and the keys to Oz.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
"The Blood" ..
1) All three religions share a common ancestor.
2) The three religions share a bloody past.
Democracy is too important to be entrusted to politicians.
Rise Up!
Protest!
The great wars and genocides of the 20th Century were fought over non-religious ideological and economic systems: communism, Maoism, Nazism, Rwanda genocide, etc.
Religion helped lay the foundation for modern civilization by preserving the philosophy, technology and art/culture of the Greek and Roman empires which led to the Renaissance, Enlightenment, secularlism and the scientific method, as well as built the infrastructure of modern life by establishing and maintaining 85% of (U.S.) hospitals, 75% of our universities (including some of the world's great like Harvard, Columbia, Yale, Georgetown, Toronto, Sorbonne, Oxford, Cambridge, etc.) and 90% of our foodbanks and homeless shelters.
Historians can't begin to calculate how many Europeans were killed by the forces of Charlemagne.
People were convicted at the point of a sword, or held under the baptism water until they converted or drowned.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
but at a chapel in portugal, there is a painting of a man, stretched on a rack of sorts, being skinned alive... and the holy men are gathered 'round him, praying and chanting...
good times...
And the European invaders may have slaughtered millions of Native Americans, but at least these savages had the opportunity to take Christ as their Savior before they died.
In the olde days "we" spread the Gospel of Christianity.
Now "we" spread the Gospel of Democracy.
The technology has changed, but have we?
Democracy is too important to be entrusted to politicians.
Rise Up!
Protest!
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/goldenle...
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
To quote: "One which at its extremes murders thousands in the name of holy wars, and at its less extremes subju=gates women and persecutes gays."
Hmm...that description covers quite a few religions. Especially Christianity. Yeah we don't do the holy wars nowadays but we did. And we still persecute gays, and some of us would have women go back to the old days. And considering the murder of Dr. Tiller, there is still some among my brethren Christian who would create terrorist acts in the name of God.
Religions, like anything human created, grow up and mature over time.
I can't agree with that. They don't mature. Fundamentalism is fundamentalism. Look at the backwardness of the Baptists with regard to creationism. My God, they want to go back to the 13th century! And this latest pope may as well have been living right alongside the Medicis, as well. They lurch forward and backward, but are ultimately tied to "holy" books, and "holy" cities, and primitive vegetative myths. Humbuggery.
Candideinnc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDCSV6SMJiA
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
I'll amend the statement. Sometimes they grow up and mature. But considering Christianity isn't going around killing people for not believing...considering how extremely bloody the history of Christianity is...that it generally isnt now is an improvement I think.
And I'm not fond of this current pope and I say that as a Catholic. But at least the Catholic church, for example, doesn't hold to the creationist nonsense that fundamentalist protestants dont. Just for example.
Do all religions or religious sects mature? No. You're right there. But you'll forgive me if considering what it used to be I think it has matured at least a little.
And yeah...you're right..there are those who would throw Christianity back to the Dark Ages.
As for your last sentence, you're entitled to that opinion. I disagree which is my right. But that it itself is a sign of maturity is it not?
As for what Rusty said, it can be more accurately described as the religious right has created God in their own image.
I occasionally forget that there are people of religion out there who don't feel compelled to impose their beliefs on everyone else. You seem to be one of those people.
Candideinnc
Some of the biggest supporters of equal rights for gays, women, etc., universal healthcare, quality cheap universal education, disarmament, etc. are liberal religious groups: Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Lutherans, Reform and Conservative Jews, Sufi Muslims, Buddhists, etc. They support these causes because they believe their teachings require it.
A Pew Survey shows that mainline Protestants (including clergy) are far more gay friendly than the general population. See: http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1159/homosexualit...
But the media routinely ignore these groups because they aren't all that controversial.
it seems like religions are consistently moving away from the core of their teachings....
corrupted, distorted and misinterpreted...
i really agree with your statement. i think if the christ were to come down to earth today and use his bully pulpit to give another sermon on the mount, he'd be dispatched to guantanamo in short order...as an enemy combatant. but seriously, i think the religous right does not recognize their own g-d.
Here's mine:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RbyzTI0M8eo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4zRe_wvJw8
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
...that he waited until the end of the news cycle on Friday night before coming out in defense of it. Still a classier response than the GOP's has been.
And, really, folks, can we honestly expect any better of a political party that's not only made up of crybabies but is even terrified by them?
JP
http://giveusthisdayourdailtydread.blogspot.com
To be fair to Obama, Friday was the first night of Ramadan, and as such was still a pretty appropriate time to put out his message. It's not his fault it happened to be the end of the week and, by nature, at night. Yes, a huge press conference on a Monday afternoon saying "knock it off, we have freedom of religion so get over it" would have been great, but I think it still sends a significant signal that he would host such an event in the Whitehouse. To me the timing was unfortunate, rather than cowardly.
For the noise machine, there is no "end of the news cycle". This just means they have the weekend to cherry pick and lay the groundwork for distorting the president's message.
For the most part they keep to themselves and don't really bother anybody. It is kind of amusing to watch a bunch of Americans walk around in man dresses and burkas.
It didn't come out until toward the end of his administration, but Clenis was inviting area Muslims in Washington DC, to come to the White House for the Eidr that ends Ramadan
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
Would any, any, Repug be able to pull off that speech?
Obama's speech pretty much layered reason over rhetoric, insight over ignorance, and a history of law over wayward idealism.
When he said: "in accordance with all laws and ordinances", he took the decision out of the hands of the dogmatist and the adolescent, and put it back in the hands of the adults IN NEW YORK, who have been charged with the duty of enforcing those laws and ordinances FOR the citizens of New York City.
Thank You Mr. President, you are one of the handful of adults in this country that have the capability to rise above the lugubrious legions of laggards.
'We, the People'............rimshot................hahahahahaha!
I disagree with part of this statement: "There was nothing political to be gained from it whatsoever, and everything ethical."
I agree that the President's statement was completely ethical. And I agree it was not motivated by politics -- in fact it's a risky thing to say if that was the motivation. Still, I believe there is plenty of political gain to be got from it. From the people like me. People who voted for this man believing he is ethical, that he'd not pan out to be a corporate sell-out, and who have been disillusioned since. It's good for me to see him taking a moral, principled stand on something despite what he's bound to know the media hacks are going to do with that statement. Hey, it gives me hope!
The issue of religious liberty is so transparently obvious to any rational thinking American, I am not sure that you will get too much blow back against Obama's speech. In fact, over at Think Progress they report that the Faux news commentators are actually agreeing with Obama. Bush made comments defending the Muslim population after 911 that also ended up being praised fairly universally by the press.
I continue to contend that anyone in the public sphere who argues on behalf of "Freedom of Religion" has very little to fear in America. That is a bumper sticker with lots of public support. While there are a few bigots out there fanning the anti-Muslim flames, even a modest amount of political leadership should make this a non-issue.
Candideinnc
We'd like to think so, wouldn't we? If Fox news "agrees" with Obama on this issue, it is only because they find it expedient to do so. If national polls remain split at 70/30 in opposition to Cordova, you will Fox slink back into bigot country soon enough.
I got into a long discussion on this the other night. This is a no win issue for the right. We ought to push it.
In the full breadth of discussion on this issue it comes down on the right to a war with Islam and once it is exposed that that is their agenda and not liberty and our freedoms(they hate us for our freedoms ya know)and all that jingoism, they are exposed as the hateful fearmongers that many have said they were for all the country to see.
Latest FaBlog: More Than Zero
is a very treasured freedom...
of his office to stand up against the bigots.
Edit: 24 hours later he is back-peddaling and saying he wasn't referring to the mosque (see sunday's Huffington Post AM headline). Back-peddling enough that the only thing this speech is beginning to look like is a plug and series of justifications for continuing war in Afghanistan.
I take back most of the nice things I was saying and thinking about him.
Even if the First Amendment technically wouldn't apply in this situation -- since this is not a matter which would be decided by Congress, but rather by the city government of New York -- the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment definitely would apply (which, for all we know, may be one of the reasons why some members of the right-wing are suddenly in favor of repealing it):
U.S. CONSTITUTION, FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, SECTION 1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
I'm not a lawyer, Constitutional or otherwise...but since the First Amendment of the Constitution grants all U.S. citizens Freedom of Religion and "the free exercise thereof", I think it could be argued that the City of New York would have no possible legal basis for prohibiting the construction of an Islamic cultural center in lower Manhattan (and certainly not if the submitted plans clearly met New York City building codes). As I see it -- regardless of what Mayor Bloomberg, New York City residents, or anyone else might think about it -- the City's hands are for the most part tied. Even if the City tried to forbid the construction of any religious-based cultural center near Ground Zero in the name of Equal Protection, it could probably be argued that this would represent an attempt on the part of the city to restrain the "free exercise" of religion -- which, again, would violate the Fourteenth Amendment. (For that matter, since there are already are numerous places of worship for different faiths near Ground Zero -- including at least one of historical significance -- it would seem to say the least a bit too late to propose such an ordinance.) Nor do I see that there is any legal basis for the argument that the proposed cultural center violates the 9/11 families' First Amendment right to Freedom of Speech. It might violate their sensibilities, but that is not the same thing. As written, Freedom of Speech only guarantees citizens the right to have their say (which nobody, to the best of my knowledge, is making any effort to prohibit in this case) -- but it does not necessarily guarantee that those who choose to make their opinions known will get their way.
Never trust anyone who insists that patriotism requires you to blindfold yourself with the flag.
The First Amendment applies because of the 14th Amendment.
Also because of paragraph 2 and 3 of Article 6 of the US Constitution:
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
In all fairness, I did say "even if the First Amendment technically wouldn't apply" -- not "even though the First Amendment doesn't apply"! I realize that I'm nitpicking a bit...but strictly speaking, the first phrasing presents a hypothetical scenario and acknowledges that the First Amendment does in fact apply (again, because of the Fourteenth Amendment) whereas the second phrasing implies that that the First Amendment does not apply.
What I don't understand that nobody in the media (at least as far as I know) appears to be making an effort to point out that this is also a Fourteenth Amendment issue as well as a First Amendment issue because the Fourteenth Amendment very explicitly forbids a local government such as the City of New York from denying or restricting a U.S. citizen's freedom to exercise his or her Constitutional rights. With all the attention being paid to the Fourteenth Amendment these days as a result of the "Dred Scott Republicans", I find it a little odd that nobody has seen fit to point this out.
Never trust anyone who insists that patriotism requires you to blindfold yourself with the flag.
The overwhelming opinion in NYC is in support of the mosque. In fact, most people see it as much ado about nothing, and feel Washington and the rest of the country should BUTT OUT!
"Anyone that makes less than $150K in this country, has no business voting Republican."
...floating around ginning up the Muslim hate with the ignorants for corporate profit, like CNN who claim through their "polling" that Republicans, Democrats and Independents overwhelmingly are against this mosque.
This is the Obama I supported.
Obama should consider stopping bombing Muslims into submission.................
Of all the things he's chosen to take a principled stand on, this is it?
He can throw any black person in his administration under the bus. He can let Gibbs trash the folks on the "professional left" who helped get him elected. He can go back on his word and leave the troops overseas, leave the Patriot intact, uphold warantless wiretapping, let the Republicans have their way on healthcare and unemployment....
And yet when even some liberals have issues with this mosque being built near ground zero - THIS is the issue where he speaks up and takes a stand?! WTF?!
I just don't get it. Maybe after a year and some change he's finding his feet, but I find it very odd what he chooses to be vocal about and when he chooses to stay silent.
Comments are closed on this entry