Good on you, President Obama. The key paragraph:
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.
I don’t know what else there is to say. If everything is above board with local rules, the political conversation stops. The alternative is untenable and un-American. We as private citizens can stand on the sidelines applauding or complaining but as a political community there is no other choice but to respect the law.
Full text of Obama’s remarks:
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.
102 comments
August 14, 2010 at 10:47 am
JP Stormcrow
And Politico comes through with a lame “process” story like the Drudge-gone-mainstream asshats that they are. The lede is particularly rich, “President Barack Obama’s endorsement of the Ground Zero mosque has transformed an emotion-laden local dispute in New York into a nationwide debate overnight,”. I love it when son-of-a-Bircher Mike “considered by many to be one of the most powerful and influential journalists in Washington” Allen tells me how it’s going to go down. “Fucking right-wing bigoted demagoguery–how does it work?”
August 14, 2010 at 11:02 am
Neddy Merrill
Oh, ffs. It certainly wasn’t a national issue before, it was only a national Republican cash cow.
August 14, 2010 at 12:00 pm
JPool
Also interesting his fronting up of Hinduism, no doubt in response to the growing and increasingly influential Indian-American population, but a nice deviation from the monotheist/Abrahamic hegemony. Buddhists, Pagans and others still don’t get a mention, but I don’t think the speech, or its message, would have been strenghtened by attempts at exhaustive listing.
August 14, 2010 at 12:45 pm
dana
I think the religions Obama mentioned are the ones that Jefferson mentions in one of his letters as protected by American freedom of religion. I might be misremembering, though.
August 14, 2010 at 12:47 pm
Don
As a Marylander, one of the original 13 colonies founded upon the principle of religious freedom, I am in total agreement with President Obama in this case. If we can discriminate against one religion, why not yours or mine next.
August 14, 2010 at 1:26 pm
Charlieford
The whole episode screams “Lee Atwater.” Find someone scary and swarthy (Rauf, Willie Horton) and not a “real American,” and insinuate that he and his legions are coming to get us, and that one party knows we’re in danger and the other doesn’t. Newt Gingrich: “The proposed “Cordoba House” … is a test of the timidity, passivity, and historic ignorance of American elites.” Wedge, wedge, wedge!
August 14, 2010 at 1:32 pm
lark
I agree with Obama.
However, I know some true rightwing Tea Party folks, and this is playing as you would expect.
Why is it an issue what the crazies think?
I think the overall problem is that Obama has not convinced many working Americans that he is on their side. He is on the side of corporations and banks, that is clear from his policies (and in the polls).
So the context of this, is a president who is a member of meritocratic elites, who seems to not identify with the suffering in this economy of the little guy. And standing up for Islam and freedom of religion doesn’t play well in this context.
August 14, 2010 at 1:41 pm
Charlieford
“… who seems to not identify with the suffering in this economy of the little guy …”
Um, you do know we just had a little debate over extending unemployment benefits, and aid to states for education, services …?
Hint: It wasn’t Obama who was saying “No.”
August 14, 2010 at 1:45 pm
JP Stormcrow
Via CNN and others we are now in the “clarifying”/possibly narrowing the remarks part of the cycle.
Also not quite sure how to read Neddy’s 2.
August 14, 2010 at 2:12 pm
dana
Look, just because they’re crazy doesn’t mean that they’re nationally prominent. It’s not like Obama was nutpicking from comments at LGF; this is Newt Gingrich & Sarah Palin. Pretending that this was an internal debate in NYC until Obama seized the moment is surely the next step, but I don’t have to play along with that narrative.
I don’t think there’s a goddamn thing Obama could do not to get painted as elitist by whoever found it politically profitable to do so. He’s a Democrat.
I don’t care if it plays well, either, as the discourse in the country lately suggests that people would shred the Bill of Rights if they thought they’d get a chocolate chip cookie out of it. It needed to be said.
August 14, 2010 at 2:45 pm
Charlieford
“Pretending that this was an internal debate in NYC until Obama seized the moment is surely the next step, but I don’t have to play along with that narrative.”
Absolutely, given that Kristol et al have been all over this for quite awhile: http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/all-possible-locations-city
August 14, 2010 at 3:47 pm
NM
Classic Kristol! Citing the controversy ginned up by his fellow travelers as a reason to do what he wants. This is why that NYT write-up was so frustrating: it just passed over the origins of the yelling.
One thing to savor about this: Bloomberg’s stern defense of the project was partly inspired by his realization that he’d screwed up with the Almontaser case– which, of course, was driven by some of the same people now yelling about this. Chickens roosting.
August 14, 2010 at 3:59 pm
David in San Jose
People on the left might want to consider the possibility that Obama is not the right guy to be President. This self-inflicted incident is just another example of why.
August 14, 2010 at 5:26 pm
SeanH
Did David in San Jose write that comment and then just decide to leave it on whatever post was at the top of the page?
August 14, 2010 at 7:03 pm
Charlieford
You may not agree with his conclusion, SeanH, but you have to admit that’s one deftly constructed argument.
August 14, 2010 at 8:16 pm
NM
Dammit, he’s right. I wish Pawlenty were President.
August 14, 2010 at 8:27 pm
politicalfootball
In case there’s any confusion, David in San Jose, this is why some of us voted for Obama. It wasn’t because we like torture apologists, foolish wars, and the denial of civil liberties.
It’s about time somebody stood up for American values.
I continue to be amazed at how low the America-haters will sink. Here we have Newt Gingrich suggesting Saudi Arabia should be our model for religious freedom.
Yes, Newt hates us for our freedom, but I’d still let him build a church near the Murrah Federal Building.
August 14, 2010 at 8:39 pm
dana
The left clearly is better off with a strategy of electing Presidents who are afraid to uphold the Constitution. That will show backbone.
August 14, 2010 at 8:51 pm
ben
I think the ideal isn’t someone who is afraid to uphold the Constitution, but someone who will boldly trash it.
August 14, 2010 at 10:28 pm
Urk
Dana, I’ve obviously spent too much time on Facebook this week, because I kept looking for a “like” button under your comment.
August 14, 2010 at 10:29 pm
Urk
I meant the one at 2:12 PM. Not that the others are bad or anything…
August 14, 2010 at 11:15 pm
CraigM
Oh come on… if any members of a particular religion engage in monstrous acts against anyone, then houses of worship related to that faith certainly ought not be allowed to exist in close proximity to the site of the crimes and the descendants of the victims. Given the history of Father Junipero Serra and the native people of California, I’m just waiting for the conservatives to call for the bull-dozing of all Catholic churches in California…..
August 15, 2010 at 12:25 am
David in San Jose
I don’t see how Obama is defending the Constitution in this particular case. The local New York government is not blocking the construction of the mosque. It seems
to me that Obama could have made his speech stressing the importance of freedom of religion without mentioning the mosque in New York. By commenting on the New York mosque he appears to have clumsily stumbled into a obvious trap set by the right. At best the White House and congressional Democrats will have spend days diffusing this issue. At worst Democrats will be answering questions about this in October.
The right guy wouldn’t have fallen for this trap, but perhaps Obama didn’t face such clever adversaries like Palin and Gingrich in the Illinois Senate.
If the right guy is one that consistently picks issues that 2/3 of the American oppose the Left should be really happy about 10 weeks from now.
August 15, 2010 at 5:00 am
dana
It’s like a little talking point generator.
August 15, 2010 at 7:54 am
kevin
The right guy wouldn’t have fallen for this trap, but perhaps Obama didn’t face such clever adversaries like Palin and Gingrich in the Illinois Senate.
I’m not sure what’s more disturbing here — your implicit argument that the president should have abandoned the Constitution because it’s not polling well, or the explicit statement that Palin and Gingrich are “clever.”
August 15, 2010 at 11:22 am
Charlieford
There is a certain kind of cleverness to them. Look at Sarah Palin’s recent challenge: “Mr. President, should they or should they not build a mosque steps away from where radical Islamists killed 3000 people? Please tell us your position. We all know that they have the right to do it, but should they?”
In other words, the question has morphed, from being about constitutional issues, to, “in the best of all possible worlds, would there be a mosque “at this particular location”?
It’s an impossible question to answer, because in the best of all possible worlds, everyone would be happy and fulfilled in every way. She’s using a utopian standard to find fault with this-world politics, a politics designed to mediate between interest groups.
It’s also a little clever in that the judgment that is being called for is increasingly abstruse. As Kristol says, “most mosque critics have focused on its wisdom and propriety, not the legal rights of the organizers.” (I’m not sure about that “most,” but I’ll let it slide.)
So what’s being called for is a presidential pronouncement that it’s not “wise” to have a mosque built at this location–though, according to Bill O’Reilly, it apparently would be wise to build it three blocks further away.
Now, you may respond, this isn’t “clever,” it’s just garden variety idiocy. But by increasing the amount of idiocy in the world, they increase the likelihood that it will infect a significant portion of the general population–which would be, I’m guessing, an effective electoral strategy.
August 15, 2010 at 11:44 am
Michael H Schneider
Given that the 14th amendment isn’t polling well right now, shouldn’t we at least hold hearings about whether to return to the original understanding of the constitution? That’d be the constitution as it was written by our founding fathers, the constitution that allowed Connecticut, before it changed its mind in 1843, to prohibit building synagogues?*
Remember that the government that governs least governs best. Surely the least that government can do is to empower people from Alaska to tell people in New York City whether they should build a mosque.
* sorry, I can’t find the reference for that. I’m weak in the Google-force.
August 15, 2010 at 12:34 pm
Charlieford
RE Connecticut:
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/Jews_Connecticut.html
The law against Jewish synagogues might be thought to be connected to the Standing Order (which established the Congregational Church and disallowed most others), but that had been dissolved in 1818. This really was a case of singling out the Jews and being especially nasty to them.
August 15, 2010 at 12:54 pm
Charlieford
I was curious as to the wording of the 1818 CT constitution–that would be the one that disestablished the Congregational Church, and that made it possible for Catholics, eg, to worship freely. Here are the relevant parts:
Sec. 3. The exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination, shall forever be free to all persons in this state; provided, that the right hereby declared and established shall not be so construed as to excuse acts of licentiousness, or to justify practices inconsistent with the peace and safety of the state.
Sec. 4. No preference shall be given by law to any christian sect or mode of worship.
http://ct.gov/sots/cwp/view.asp?a=3188&q=392280
Sneaky! You gotta watch those lawyers!
August 15, 2010 at 10:54 pm
Ed, CA
Here is a thought experiment.
It seems like most of the posts here are related to the abstract ideal of worship to whatever religion you want as enshrined in the constitution and expressed by Obama. I wonder whether the same people strongly supporting Obama’s statements would feel so strongly if this were about some heinous religious group, such as Hitler worshipers or Islamic Jihadists (law abiding, of course).
Since the purported support for Obama is his adherence to Constitutional principles, it would seem the adulation would be as great. But I wonder, would it be? Replace Muslim above with Hitler Worshipers, and Ground Zero with Arlington National Cemetery. Do you really feel the same way?
If the answer is no, then the reaction is about something else, not constitutional principles at all.
August 16, 2010 at 4:40 am
politicalfootball
Ed, I reject your logic here, but I do think you’ve got a point: A lot of folks here are opposed to bigotry entirely separately from favoring the First Amendment. Anyone who would compare Islam with “Hitler worship” is a bigot.
August 16, 2010 at 5:22 am
kevin
Do you really feel the same way?
Yes.
The First Amendment doesn’t have an asterisk on it that indicates it’s only valid for popular religion or uncontroversial speech. In fact, the whole reason for having a First Amendment is to protect unpopular opinions and beliefs from being subjected to the whims of the majority.
And yeah, if your mind jumped from “Islam” to “Hitler worship,” you have some serious issues.
August 16, 2010 at 5:45 am
dana
This is actually why I think Obama’s follow-up is smart. People are whining that he walked back, but I think it was a useful clarification. This is not about whether we think the Cordoba Initiative people are good folks with a Presidentially-approved religion; it’s about whether religious freedom extends to everyone in the U.S.
If you want an analogy that isn’t bigoted and might make your point, yes, I think it’s okay for there to be Lutheran churches near Arlington National Cemetery.
(I also think that it forces those whinging about the center to state exactly what it is that they’re hoping to accomplish by their whinging, now that they’re falling all over themselves to insist that they weren’t talking about anyone DOING anything about the center. Well, what then, besides the obvious base-riling and fundraising?)
August 16, 2010 at 5:55 am
politicalfootball
Replace Muslim above with Hitler Worshipers, and Ground Zero with Arlington National Cemetery.
And nobody is proposing building a mosque at Ground Zero. The site of the Burlington Coat Factory is hallowed ground, to be sure, but not quite on the same level as Arlington National Cemetery.
August 16, 2010 at 6:25 am
silbey
Well, what then, besides the obvious base-riling and fundraising
You thought there was a “besides”?
August 16, 2010 at 6:28 am
dana
Usually there’s some kind of overt goal.
August 16, 2010 at 7:06 am
politicalfootball
Am I oversimplifying Douthat by saying that he sees bigotry as a necessary counterbalance when human decency is in danger of getting the upper hand?
Douthat, I gather, is a Catholic himself. He apparently thinks his religion bent to accommodate U.S. bigotry, rather than U.S. bigotry simply fading, as regards Catholicism.
August 16, 2010 at 8:03 am
Ed, CA
politicalfootball, Kevin, Hitler Worshipers and Islam worshipers do have one thing in common, they are both protected by the constitution. The question was merely asked in the abstract (trying to obtain polar opposites that have something in common) to try to understand your perspective. Thanks for being honest.
Obama’s words were unnecessary to project to Mulsims our constitutional values. Obama made a polarizing statement, that probably many American “bigots” would reject, so I’m trying to understand the political calculus from the words.
Given this, perhaps Obama’s words were designed to get a positive reaction from fair minded anti-bigoted folks to rile them up against the rest of bigoted America. Meanwhile, the calculus continues that the story will blow over, despite its potential interest to many Americans. How one could assure that is beyond me, so on the surface it would seem risky.
August 16, 2010 at 8:09 am
Charlieford
“Douthat, I gather, is a Catholic himself. He apparently thinks his religion bent to accommodate U.S. bigotry, rather than U.S. bigotry simply fading, as regards Catholicism.”
I don’t know if what it accomodated was bigotry or not, But yes, Catholicism (in the US first, and then at Vatican II) changed. See here:
August 16, 2010 at 8:26 am
politicalfootball
I’m trying to understand the political calculus from the words.
Ah – I think you’re misreading the comments here, then. The topic here has largely been whether or not Obama is right, not whether he is being politically shrewd.
Nobody here (besides you) is arguing that the First Amendment has no limits. For instance, nobody here is arguing that anybody of any religion has a right to expropriate public property to build a house of worship. So your comparison of the privately owned Burlington Coat Factory site to Arlington cemetery falls apart.
August 16, 2010 at 10:59 am
Ed of CA
Rereading through the comments, they seem to be all over the map, including JPool’s suggestion that Hinduism was mentioned for political reasons. And what “right” means in the context of this talk is pretty open. Right in the sense of what?
Obama’s remarks from a constitutional perspective aren’t particularly remarkable (they are obviously correct), so I assume the issue is more one of sticking up for rights the US citizenry doesn’t fully appreciate. It seems he could have done that without stepping into the mosque debate, but he did anyway.
I suspect he brought up the mosque to get folks who feel certain rights are being threatened riled up about how important it is to support guys like him. Clamping down the left wing of the party, so to speak, and getting them aroused about the importance of the upcoming election.
Anyway, that’s about the only sense I can make of it. It’s not as if he is going to change anyone’s mind on the topic, and as others have pointed out, the right can get capital out of it.
August 16, 2010 at 12:05 pm
snarkout
I suspect he brought up the mosque to get folks who feel certain rights are being threatened riled up about how important it is to support guys like him. Clamping down the left wing of the party, so to speak, and getting them aroused about the importance of the upcoming election.
Certainly there’s no other reason he would have made mention of the Pam Geller/NY Post/Sarah Palin axis of wingnuttery’s current fest of Islam-bashing while addressing a group of Muslims.
August 17, 2010 at 7:05 am
rmg
You may be right that Islam and “Hitler worship” are both protected by the first amendment, but not for the same reason. “Hitler worship” is not, in fact, a religion. To the extent that veneration of Hitler is protected, it is as a matter of free speech and free association. Islam, on the other hand, is a religion and thus protected by the free exercise and establishment clauses. There are actually substantive differences between a religion and “any random thing I and my 50 closest friends happen to believe.”
August 17, 2010 at 7:08 am
Ed, CA
Certainly there’s no other reason he would have made mention of the Pam Geller/NY Post/Sarah Palin axis of wingnuttery’s current fest of Islam-bashing while addressing a group of Muslims.
Perhaps you are correct. His remarks were directed to the Muslims at the dinner. In this case, I think the clear expression of the constitution and what it says would have been sufficient. After all, the constitution casts a large shadow, across history and across cultures.
Still no need to stoop into the petty positioning going on with the mosque. In this case, one has to ask whether he could not help himself but get engaged, or maybe he needs a new speech writer and needs to proof his speeches better than merely read them well.
The fact that he is running damage control supports your contention. He stepped into it, and is now wishing he hadn’t.
August 17, 2010 at 7:47 am
silbey
In this case, I think the clear expression of the constitution and what it says would have been sufficient. After all, the constitution casts a large shadow, across history and across cultures.
That’s what he did.
August 17, 2010 at 7:57 am
Ed, CA
That’s what he did.
Yes, he did that, and more. The more part is what we are talking about.
August 17, 2010 at 8:36 am
silbey
Yes, he did that, and more
There’s no “more” there, unless we’re reading different speeches. If you’re suggesting that in front of a group of Muslims in the middle of this controversy, he should have given an abstract defense of religious freedom without mentioning either 9/11 or the Cordoba House, then that’s a remarkably silly idea. “I’d like to talk about religious freedom today. Why? No reason, no reason at all” is not a speech.
August 17, 2010 at 8:37 am
Herbert Browne
I think “politically correct” needs an updated definition, with appropriate examples… ie it should describe what works, politically. Lee Atwater’s strategies (eg Willy Horton) and Karl Rove’s gambits were “politically correct”.
Looking down the road a piece, I’d bet that the alQaeda caper of 9/11 fame will be taught (if it isn’t already) at the War College(s), just like Chief Joseph’s retreat across Idaho & Montana, as exercises of military genius & ingenuity.
Obama lanced a boil (that was rumored even to the soviet of Washington!); and that’s a messy process… but, once the purulence & vitriol have run their course the pressure will subside & healing can begin. By taking the lancet in hand, the President made himself vulnerable, just as every practitioner does who must reassure the patient “Now, this will only hurt a little”… ^..^
August 17, 2010 at 9:40 am
Ed, CA
he should have given an abstract defense of religious freedom
I would hardly call describing the law written in the constitution an abstract defense. It is, after all, the supreme law of the land.
I fail to see how that isn’t enough, and that it is necessary to wade into a topic running around in the news. Especially given the negative consequences from the president’s damage control. I wonder how the Muslims who were at the iftar dinner feel now that he has stated:
“I was not commenting and I will not comment on the wisdom of making the decision to put a mosque there.”
In the one, I would feel welcomed, but now it would seem the welcome wasn’t quite so strong. Better not to have mentioned Cordoba house at all.
August 17, 2010 at 10:09 am
califury
Pres. Obama seems to have the courage to face the anti-American Right. They’ll never, ever stop being mad until challenged by the sane and rejected by the majority.
“Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last?” June 9, 1954
December 2, 1954, the full Senate, by a vote of 67-22, passed a resolution condemning McCarthy for abusing his power.
August 17, 2010 at 12:32 pm
politicalfootball
Better not to have mentioned Cordoba house at all.
Ed, I think the problem your having here is that you’re not communicating with a group of people who identify primarily as Obama fans or even Democrats. Given a choice between something that’s good for the Democrats and something that’s good, I think you’ll find that folks here are interested in the latter.
But from a purely pro-Obama point of view, you err here, too. First, Obama didn’t walk anything back. He supports the First Amendment and continues to do so in the case of the planned mosque. Second, had Obama followed your advice, anything pro-Constitution he said would have been interpreted as being pro-Constitution, and the same anti-Constitution groups would have demanded he take it back – plus they would have rightly called him evasive.
You really do speak for a major, important school of thought, though: Americans are stupid, and Democrats just need to come up with a better con. But if a politician can’t get votes by standing up for basic decency in an easy case like this one, then we’re pretty much screwed regardless.
Terry Schiavo didn’t play well because it was evil and crazy. At some point, we have to trust Americans to favor decency and sanity.
August 17, 2010 at 3:31 pm
Ed of CA
I think you’ll find that folks here are interested in the latter [good things].
The same points apply. I fail to see how he has furthered the cause of decency in any way, except perhaps to pronounce the divisions in America. Even Democrats like Harry Reid have split with the message. I view that as damaging to the cause.
First, Obama didn’t walk anything back.
We will have to disagree on this. I would suppose if I were a Muslim at the iftar dinner, I would feel he was approving of the mosque, and now he is undecided. Nothing worse than having the welcome mat pulled out from underneath you. Denotative meaning? Yes, I agree with you, but this isn’t a court of law deciding what the meaning of “is” “is.” This is Diplomacy, and the words are broadcast all over the world for average people to consume and feel good about.
But if a politician can’t get votes by standing up for basic decency in an easy case like this one, then we’re pretty much screwed regardless.
Looks like Dana is one step ahead of you when she writes:
I don’t care if it plays well, either, as the discourse in the country lately suggests that people would shred the Bill of Rights if they thought they’d get a chocolate chip cookie out of it
If American decency is the desired outcome, it should be addressed to the American people as a whole. I haven’t been able to divine a single good outcome by the definition of good as “advances decency.”
I do see evidence it has had the opposite effect.
August 17, 2010 at 5:08 pm
Michael H Schneider
If American decency is the desired outcome, it should be addressed to the American people as a whole.
Let’s see how that might go, adressing the American people as a whole:
Dear American People (as a whole),
There are among you a bunch of ignorant bigots who completely fail to grasp the importance of religious liberty and tolerance, who think that they should be able to decide who practices what religion where. They are wrong, and their views are evil: those views have cause the miserable painful deaths of millions of people over the millenia, and we should repudiate and shun those people, because they are dangerous fools.
/s/
How’s that? I mean, as has been pointed out above, sometimes a decent person has to do what a decent person has to do, and that means (in this instance) standing up for the freedom of Muslims to exercise their religious libery. There are instances (and this is one) where right is right and those people – those millions of Americans – are wrong.
Yeah, it’s terribly dvisive, pointing out that one group is right and another is wrong. But that’s kinda the important aspect of right and wrong; that’s why there’s a line between ’em.
August 17, 2010 at 5:09 pm
Michael H Schneider
sorry, the mad slash thief stole the italics closing slash
August 17, 2010 at 5:54 pm
ari
Have you people never heard of a concern troll?
August 17, 2010 at 6:30 pm
Ed of CA
@Michael
I think a lot of people interpreted Obama’s words exactly what you said in your imagined speech, even though he didn’t directly address the American people. And others will interpret it differently.
Are you of the opinion he should NOT have stepped into it? Or do you think, as do other posters, “The words had to be said.”
August 17, 2010 at 11:08 pm
Herbert Browne
@ari, when it’s no fun we’ll stop– Promise!
@ED of CA, where SHOULD the buck stop? This was (like NM said) a “national Republican cash cow”. Don’t you think they deserve a little indigestion, to go with their righteous indignation? And, if so, from whence? ^..^
August 18, 2010 at 9:34 pm
Ed of CA
I realized I’m disappointing in the postings on this blog. I remember being raised by my liberal parents always wanting me to explore my interests and make my decisions.
There is a strident tone to many of the posters on this blog, from Dana’s “I don’t care what they think,” to “It had to be said.” Why did it have to be said? Do Americans not understand what they are? How many times and in how many ways must they prove they are decent?
It seems to me the answer is that the majority of the posters on this blog do not think that Americans are decent, nor that they are capable of understanding decency. I do find that arrogant. Especially since it is upon the shoulders of the labor of these ordinary Americans that others can even have these thoughts.
I’m not getting that welcoming feeling on this blog, perhaps because I have a different perspective as has been pointed out by several people. But I would expect a blog such as this to welcome different points of view, but instead it seems the most important thing is to protect the moral superiority of the posters.
I’m not sure of the value of posting comments to a blog in which most posters are not truth seekers, but merely attempting to buttress their own world point of view. As Brownoski said in the “Ascent of Man”, the potter merely learns the shape of his own hand. That seems to me to be what’s going on here in my brief exposure to the posters.
Is anyone interested in discussing ideas? Or is it merely about the hue of the color already selected.
August 18, 2010 at 10:16 pm
ari
Like I said, concern troll.
August 19, 2010 at 1:40 am
Herbert Browne
Ed of CA, are you saying that all Americans are feeling ashamed of the President for mentioning the pile of dirty laundry that’s been making the rounds on talk radio? Are you saying that Americans are of one mind on this issue?.. except for the ones here, that don’t actually work for a living, but get by on their pointy-headed intellectuality, somehow?.. at the expense of Real Americans? Are you saying that you have IDEAS besides “WASN’T OBAMA WRONG TO TALK ABOUT THIS IN PUBLIC?” Are you saying that everybody here that’s posted something in this queue is putting on airs of moral respectability that they’re afraid will be besmirched by an opinion different from theirs? Is it raining all the time where you live? Do you have a Facebook page? Let’s go over THERE and talk about some IDEAS. I LIKE ideas… and sometimes have the feeling that I came up with one, myself… which I know is crazy & delusional on my part… but it makes me feel important for a minute or two, you know? C’mon, Ed… let’s go talk about the alleged over-harvesting of Pacific seafood, and whether the DEA should be held responsible for the drug war deaths of Mexican civilians, and the possible outcomes that might result from nationalizing the railroads and using the Armed Forces to build high-speed intercontinental rail lines… or the serene high that might result from a bicycle trip to Tierra del Fuego. I think this might be the beginning of a beautiful friendship, Ed! ^..^
August 19, 2010 at 6:45 am
dana
ari, I thought we were going to replace the power source on this blog from the backs of the American labor force to something more modern, like solar cells.
August 19, 2010 at 7:03 am
JP Stormcrow
Sure Kill the desert merely to buttress your own world point of view.
August 19, 2010 at 5:25 pm
Ed of CA
@ari
It seems everywhere I go these days, so called leftists have a very similar answer to everything. How can so many people from different backgrounds come to the same conclusions? It’s a religious club.
I think the Muslims should continue with their plans to place a mosque near ground zero. I think it is insensitive, but freedom requires sacrifices, in this case the families who lost loved ones in the 9/11 attacks. I suspect most Americans feel the same way that I do. To me, it is a reasonable position that sensitive muslims would move the mosque. It is not bigoted. The intransigence of those building the mosque indicates a lack of sensitivity in them, but I’m sure that is not a reflection of most Muslims either.
I think Obama’s comments were also insensitive to the families of 9/11 victims. And I think most Americans also feel this way. Anyway, I’m out of here. There is simply no point in having discussions with a bunch of people intent on one thing only: to prove to each other that their world view is the right one.
I’ve selected the Notify me of comments via email, and will read any comments to this, but I won’t post here again.
August 19, 2010 at 5:34 pm
Charlieford
I’m concerned that this blog doesn’t put out enough welcoming feeling.
August 19, 2010 at 6:44 pm
Michael H Schneider
I’ve had a bad day interacting with the Greatest Health Care System In The World(tm) and I’m really cranky, so I’m going to repsond to Ed. Sorry, I advise everone to just keep moving, nothing to see, click on the back button. I do this not because I think it profits anyone to argue with him, but because it’s a safer outlet for my anger than the various health care providers and insurance people.
Your problem, Ed, is that you want to change the subject to preserve your own mistaken ideas. You want the story to be “Obama made a boo-boo” when the real, important story is more like “Far too many Americans are intolerant ignorant religious bigots”.
Your second problem is that you can’t believe that too many Americans are bigots, but your reasoning is specious. You say “the majority of the posters on this blog do not think that Americans are decent…. I do find that arrogant. Especially since it is upon the shoulders of the labor of these ordinary Americans that others can even have these thoughts.”
I’m sorry, but logically that’s complete and utter balderdash. You are simply starting with the necessary conclusion – you are assuming that Americans are decent. You give no evidence or reasoning to support this assumption, and it flies in the face of the copious evidence that a lot of Americans are bigoted against Muslims.
Your assumption is that decency is defined as ‘what most Americans do’ – which is a sort of normativity reduced to absurdity. It implies that what the majority believes is always right an true. That sort of majoritarianism is exactly and precisely what our constitution rejected. It’s as if you see the words “congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” and see the words “congress may make any law respecting an establishment of religion that Americans, who are naturally decent, would like”
Your third problem is that you write in terms of groups, rather than in terms of individuals and ideas. You’re all about ‘Muslims this’ and ‘Muslims that’ and what sensitive 90s kinda Muslims would do. I’m sorry, but ‘Muslims brought down the twin towers’ is true only in the sense that one could also say ‘bilaterally symetrical entities brought down the wtc’ or ‘featherless bipeds brought down the wtc’.
Another example is your sentence “…so called leftists have a very similar answer to everything.” No. If you want to talk ideas, talk ideas. If you want to talk about ‘what so-called leftists believe’, you’re talking nonsense.
There are a lot of terms for that sort of thinking – where you ascribe responsibility and characteristics to a group – but most of them aren’t polite and we’ll skip ’em.
I guess it’s when you say “I think the Muslims should continue with their plans to place a mosque near ground zero.” that your blindness is most obvious. The whole point is that it’s not up to you. Or me. Or Newt or Sarah. This is America, and whe have this tradition of respecting freedom of religion and of property – if the people who own that building want to use it for a cultural center, it’s entirely up to them and we get precisely zero right to have an opinion (assuming compliance with laws of generall applicability such as zoning and building codes). The mere fact that you think your opinion about what some group in NYC wants to do with their building is worth a rat’s patoot shows your utter ignorance of American law and tradition.
That’s the point Obama was making. We have a constitution, and he’s sworn to uphold and defend it, and it protects freedom of religion.
Thank you for not listening, I feel so much better now.
August 19, 2010 at 7:24 pm
Charlieford
Nicely done, Michael.
August 19, 2010 at 9:43 pm
poco
Yeah, just echoing Charlieford here, nicely done, Michael. Sorry you are having a rough day with the insurance providers.
August 20, 2010 at 7:58 am
mrearl
Tea Partiers disrespecting private property rights and Christians flouting Romans 14. Hmmm. Are mosques irony catalysts?
August 20, 2010 at 8:27 am
politicalfootball
It seems to me the answer is that the majority of the posters on this blog do not think that Americans are decent, nor that they are capable of understanding decency.
Speaking of irony, I think Ed catches the opposite of the truth here. When you read the comments here, you see the (perhaps naive) belief that Americans might stand up for the right thing, if only they are asked to do so.
Silence in the face of bigotry is naturally going to be understood as assent.
Ed really is a textbook concern troll, but he slips up at the end. He spends most of the thread pretending to be concerned about Obama’s presentation, but of course, he really thinks Muslims need to not be building mosques in Lower Manhattan. The mask slips momentarily here:
To me, it is a reasonable position that sensitive muslims would move the mosque. It is not bigoted. The intransigence of those building the mosque indicates a lack of sensitivity in them
August 20, 2010 at 9:19 am
David in San Jose
My favorite part of Michael’s post was this part:
This is America, and whe have this tradition of respecting freedom of religion and of property – if the people who own that building want to use it for a cultural center, it’s entirely up to them and we get precisely zero right to have an opinion (assuming compliance with laws of generall applicability such as zoning and building codes).
I think that came out wrong but I don’t have copious evidence to prove it.
August 20, 2010 at 9:32 am
Vance
David, I think that “came out wrong” only to the extent that “zero right to have an opinion” is hyperbole. Of course all Americans have the right to have an opinion about this matter, and even to express it, but not to enforce it through the mechanisms of the state.
August 20, 2010 at 10:46 am
politicalfootball
I think “David in San Jose” and “Ed of CA” are the same person. Call it a hunch.
August 20, 2010 at 11:06 am
CaliFury
Strangely enough, one of the more interesting things about the conversation here is that I was forced to look up the phrase “concern troll.” (I’m obviously not spending enough time online.)
The idea of the “concern troll” intrigues me, as it is wasn’t really a tenable long-term position in the “face to face” world that more-or-less existed prior to the Internet. It seems similar to being a member of a claque or clique, but with the addition of anonymity–and the ability to reappear under another name to continue filling the net-waves with your speech.
A clique or a claque (not to be confused with the Car Guys…) is trouble enough in a political conversation. Not being able to identify a recycled speaker as an old opinion rather than new one completely changes our ability to judge the popularity (estimate the number of holders of) an opinion.
August 20, 2010 at 11:08 am
Michael H Schneider
Hyperbole or simply bad writing.
It’s like art. I have a lot of opinions about art. I like to express those opinions. No problem, I have a right to those opinions, and a right to express them.
But for anyone to waste their time and energy listening to those opinions, or to give them any weight or consideration, that’s crazy. My opinions of art are worthless.
I have eight million opinions about this cultural center and/or Mosque. Here’s one:
Mathew Yglesias bought a coat from the store that used to be at that location. Yglesias is the next Messiah, and so anywhere he bought a coat is a place that’s sacred to me and all my co-believers. It’d be a terrible desecration and insult if that store were not preserved. Sensitive people everywhere should be considerate of my beliefs and feelings, and join my call for the preservation of that store.
Value of that opinion: zero.
August 20, 2010 at 12:01 pm
David in San Jose
I think “David in San Jose” and “Ed of CA” are the same person. Call it a hunch.
Maybe Nancy Pelosi can include this in her investigation.
But I can save her the time. We are not the same person.
My point is to consider the possibility that Obama is not right guy. He did something I didn’t was possible. He lost a sensitivity contest to Newt Gingrich.
August 20, 2010 at 12:46 pm
chris
It seems to me the answer is that the majority of the posters on this blog do not think that Americans are decent, nor that they are capable of understanding decency.
Some aren’t, as they have been at great pains to prove in regard to this issue. Do you really think they shouldn’t be called out for it because it might hurt their feelings?
“Americans” is a big group. It contains some bigoted idiots. If you’re not a bigoted idiot you shouldn’t feel threatened or offended by that statement because it isn’t about you.
I do find that arrogant. Especially since it is upon the shoulders of the labor of these ordinary Americans that others can even have these thoughts.
Are you under the impression that the posters and commenters here are not ordinary laboring Americans? (Foreigners aside, I suppose.) We’re all on each others’ shoulders here, anatomically improbable as that may be.
This misperception, combined with the beginning of your 5:25 post, strongly suggests to me that you have the figure of a straw-leftist painted on the inside of your eyeglasses, and *that* is why you see him wherever you go.
And since we’re all equal in rights here, what’s arrogant about criticizing each other? That’s one of the rights we Americans share, and by no means the least important. I’m not happy with the way Gingrich is currently choosing to exercise that right, but I wouldn’t want to see him thrown in jail or threatened with violence for it either.
August 20, 2010 at 2:50 pm
Michael H Schneider
Two polls have been published recently:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/08/islamic_cultural_centre_sorta_near_ground_zero&fsrc=nwl
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,2011680-2,00.html
From the first link:
53% of Republicans think that Muslims do NOT have a constitutional right to build a Mosque near the WTC. 24% of Democrats and Independents share that belief.
14% of repondents think that Mosques should not be permitted anywhere in the US, another 34% think they should be banned in some places where other religious places of worship are allowed. That’s almost a majority who think that there are some places where Christians should be allowed to build churches (I’m inferring) but Muslims should be banned.
Anyone want to renew the claim that Americans are just naturally decent and tolerant?
August 20, 2010 at 3:51 pm
dana
If you believe that Americans are decent and tolerant and needed no reminding, then you should also believe that the President’s remarks were entirely uncontroversial, as they amounted simply to a claim about what rights are protected.
August 20, 2010 at 6:24 pm
Ed of CA
I said I wouldn’t do this, but here it is anyway:
I’m sorry, but logically that’s complete and utter balderdash. You are simply starting with the necessary conclusion – you are assuming that Americans are decent.
Americans are decent. At the end of WWII they didn’t turn Japan and West Germany into forced labor for the US. Instead, the US rebuilt Europe. How many Phds on this blog? I’ll bet a lot, and I’ll bet a lot of them are being funded by taxpayers.
Like I said, you folks see things one way, with the difference being the hue. Even in these posts, I see many of you do not think of Americans as decent, and then there are some who think if someone is in your face they will suddenly realize they aren’t decent. That IS naive. Like trying to explain that after 3000 people died, and many are ailing due to the 9/11 attacks, that the religious symbol should be built right next to the biggest foreign attack on US Soil by members of the same religion.
The recent intransigence of those building the mosque indicates to me they are not tolerant. Some yahoo here said that hitler worship is not the same as Muslims, that it takes more than that to make a religion. It’s easy to make a religion in the US.
So do tell me you would be having this same abstract argument about the decency of Americans if they became upset that the Church of Hitler wanted to build a shrine next to Arlington. The answer is to merely brush aside the suggestion.
And there is a big difference between being wrong about something due to ignorance, as opposed to being knowledgeable about something and being intolerant. If the Muslim faith as practiced truly is as morally good as you all say it is, and Americans accept that, I’m sure they too would welcome the mosque. Problem is, they don’t think that. That doesn’t make them “indecent,” anymore than if you were offended by a Church of Hitler shrine next to Arlington. You folks claim great abstract reasoning, but truly, you folks can’t see beyond your dogmatic reasoning.
Sorry for breaking my word, but I was trolled back in here with a bunch of hooey from Michael. I’ll go back to leaving you folks alone to discover the shape of your hand.
August 20, 2010 at 8:11 pm
Michael H Schneider
It’s my hooey and I’m sticking to it.
Americans are decent. At the end of WWII …
We could go around on this, with you citing examples of Americans being decent, and me citing examples of Americans behaving badly, but where would it get us? At best, we’d conclude that sometimes, of perhaps even often, Americans have behaved decently in the past.
You then want to draw an inference: because Americans have behaved decently in enumerated instances in the past, Amercans are decent people.
That used to be a popular sort of reasoning, a half century or more ago, when people wanted to study what was called ‘National Character’ (see, relatedly, Ruth Benedict’s “The Sword and the Chrysanthemum”). It has fallen out of fashion for a number of reasons, perhaps most importantly because it doesn’t get you anywhere and tends to be more misleading than enlightening.
You then want to go from the statement of a general characteristic of a group (Americans are decent) to the particular (if this is something Americans believe, and Americans are decent, it must be a decent thing to believe).
You can’t do that, not with people. You can’t reason from the general to the particular about beliefs and attitudes and attributes. Not everyone is decent. Not everyone who is deecent acts decently all the time. It may be true that most black people like fried chicken, but that doesn’t mean that Thurston Howell III, the black guy over there, likes fried chicken.
There are times when it’s appropriate to think in terms of groups, and times when you must think in terms of individuals, and it’s really, really important to observe the difference.
… the religious symbol should be built right next to the biggest foreign attack on US Soil by members of the same religion
There you go with the group responsibility thing again. You can’t do that.
There are times when you can impute responsibility. If I hire someone to do something, I’m responsible. If the employees of BP screw up and make a mess, BP is responsible. If the Pope directs the Catholic Church to do something, given their organized heirarchical structure, you can assign blame to the church. If William Calley, or Lyndee England, acting in reasonable reliance on their known and approved understanding of their orders, does something – there’s a good argument that you can blame the US.
But you can’t blame all Muslims, or Islam in general, for the actions of a subset of believers. Christianity isn’t to blame for the Murder of George Tiller or Barnett Slepian, either.
If the Muslim faith as practiced truly is as morally good as you all say it is, and Americans accept that, I’m sure they too would welcome the mosque.
First, saying that the fact that (decent) Americans haven’t welcomed the Mosque somehow proves that Islam isn’t morally good – the lack of logic boggles. I realize that decent Americans are perfect in the moral judgements 99.44% of the time, but just maybe they’re wrong, just this once.
Second, I’m certainly not saying that Islam is morally good, and I haven’t noticed anyone else saying it.
You’re trying to change the subject again. The subject is not “Islam as practiced is good”, because that would again be talking generalities about the characteristics of a group (practitioners of Islam). We don’t do that.
This is a really big idea: thinking in terms of groups, and attributing characteristics of the group to individual members, and imputing responsibility for actions of some members to other members, is a really bad idea.
You wanted to talk about ideas. That’s a good one to talk about.
I really hope I closed all those tags. I hate it when I’ve been out in public for hours and suddenly realize I’ve left my italics tag unzipped.
August 20, 2010 at 9:56 pm
Ed, CA
Michael,
simple question for you. Let us take two cases:
1) Muslims Morally good, Americans perceive them as morally bad.
2) Muslims morally good, Americans percieve them as morally good.
Take the following statement:
If the Muslim faith as practiced truly is as morally good as you all say it is, and Americans accept that, I’m sure they too would welcome the mosque.
In one case Americans accept Muslims as morally good, and in the other as morally bad. But in this case, the actuality is Muslims are morally good (whatever that means). So you see, this statement does not link what Americans perceive Muslims to be to what they actually are in anyway, yet you write:
First, saying that the fact that (decent) Americans haven’t welcomed the Mosque somehow proves that Islam isn’t morally good
So either you didn’t read this very well, your logic sucks, or you want to twist my words. In any event, a recognition that one of these is the case is in order, since you incorrectly represented my statement. Correct?
Secondly, I’m tired of this “Can’t do groups.” The left is all about grouping people together into various lumps, but when someone else does it, Oh, that’s Bad. Why is it bad?
Swedes tend to have blue eyes. Is it wrong to say that?
Women tend to be able to have babies. Is that wrong?
Muslims tend to believe in Allah, is that to much of a generalization for you? This whole idea that it’s wrong to attribute characteristics to a group of people is stupid. Groups of people DO have commonly shared characteristics. It’s a tool of the left to try to stop people from using some of the basic tools of the mind to deal with a very complex world.
Of the 19 terrorists that smashed into the twin towers, should we continue to think of them as “alleged” terrorists, as CNN used to say? Or can we all agree “Yeah, they are probably terrorists. Maybe one or two got suckered in, but it’s not worth thinking about.”
Anyway, as I said, I make easy pickings for trolls, which you are.
Just keep on with the self congratulations. It truly is interesting to find the level of derision against your fellow Americans that’s shown here. The same America you (and I do mean that in the group sense of the posters on this blog) disdain is the same America that protects you.
August 21, 2010 at 6:16 am
Erik Lund
Mr. Ed, I try not to involve myself in my cousins’ politics. (You already labour more politics than you need.) That having been said, it is a quiet Saturday morning, and I am going to stick my nose in it.
Please take some time to carefully read Michael Schneider’s argument.
August 21, 2010 at 7:45 am
dana
Oh, how dull.
(P&Q)–> R
~R
~(P&Q)
~P v ~Q
P = “Muslims are good”
Q = “Americans perceive that Muslims are good”
R = “Americans will welcome the mosque.”
Our options:
Muslims are not good and Americans do not perceive that Muslims are good.
Muslims are good and Americans do not perceive that Muslims are good.
Muslims are not good and Americans perceive that Muslims are good.
Of course, “Problem is, they don’t think that” is taken to be the reason that Americans opposed the mosque, which means, P drops out. But then we’re left with.
Q–>R
Which is just to say that Americans who think Muslims are bad oppose the mosque. But you’ve got a bit of a problem here. That’s not an argument. That’s just a re-statement of the initial position.
Of course, the statement in context includes some heavy pragmatic implications, which is what Michael Schneider is responding to. But absent those implications, there’s no argument at all.
August 21, 2010 at 10:41 am
Charlieford
“The recent intransigence of those building the mosque indicates to me they are not tolerant.”
Dude, that’s a really cool trick!
I’m reminded of Lincoln’s Cooper Union speech: “But you will not abide the election of a Republican president! In that supposed event, you say, you will destroy the Union; and then, you say, the great crime of having destroyed it will be upon us! That is cool. A highwayman holds a pistol to my ear, and mutters through his teeth, “Stand and deliver, or I shall kill you, and then you will be a murderer!””
August 21, 2010 at 11:38 am
Michael H Schneider
Me: “Second, I’m certainly not saying that Islam is morally good, …”
Ed, in a reply addressed to me: “If the Muslim faith as practiced truly is as morally good as you all say it is …”
What we have heah is a failure to communicate
While generally adopting Dana’s explanation in its entirety (much better writer and logician than me, Dana is), I’d like to make one or two more points.
When you talk in terms of ‘the Muslim faith as practiced truly is as morally good’ you’re talking about a general state of being, a characteristic, rather than specific actions.
One principle of US justice is that we don’t convict people because they have a bad character, we convict them because they committed specified bad acts. We don’t send people to jail because we think they are bad people, or are less than moral in their practices, but rather we send them to jail because they done it (where ‘it’ is some specified bad act).
To put it another way, in his 1896 book “Ancient law” Sir Henry Maine suggested that our laws were moving from old fashioned notions based on status to modern notions based on contract. For example, that instead of a servant’s duties being defined by their status and elaborated in the common law of the relations of master and servant, the modern notion was to allow people to define their own duties through freely made employment contracts.
What you are doing is trying to define people in terms of their status (as Muslims) and for their general character (a practitioners of a morally bad faith) rather than any specific acts. That’s unjust, and un-American.
The left is all about grouping people together into various lumps, but when someone else does it, Oh, that’s Bad. Why is it bad?
It is bad because it deprives people of autonomy and individuality.
I am who I am, and I choose what I do and what I say. I express my individuality through my choices. I make my choices myself, I exercise my autonomy. Individuality and autonomy are (by the philosophy of myself and many others) good.
When you say implicitly that it doesn’t matter if you, yourself, actually like fried chicken, since you are Black I’ll just treat you as if you like fried chicken, you’re making me less of a person. I’m not an individual, I’m just an instance of a group.
Note: it’s not the lumping. To quote myself above: “You can’t reason from the general to the particular about beliefs and attitudes and attributes”. Yes, it is true that “Women tend to be able to have babies”. However, to go from that generality to the particular “this woman can have a baby” ignores the very real possibilities that this particular woman had a hysterectomy, is on the pill, is pre or post menopausal, or otherwise infertile.
When you treat this person as an instance of the class “Muslim”, or the class “women”, or the class “black”, you’re depriving the individual of their autonomy and individuality, and that’s bad.
It’s also bad because you’re likely to be wrong, but I’ll leave that argument to someone competent in statistics, which I’m not.
The same America you (and I do mean that in the group sense of the posters on this blog) disdain is the same America that protects you.
The constitution that protects us, the Constitution that guarantees freedom of religion to everyone of all beliefs alike, the Constitution that the President swears to uphold, is the constitution that’s under attack bythe 48% of Americans who think that it’s okay to discriminate against Muslims.
August 21, 2010 at 11:52 am
CaliFury
This whole idea that it’s wrong to attribute characteristics to a group of people is stupid. Groups of people DO have commonly shared characteristics. It’s a tool of the left to try to stop people from using some of the basic tools of the mind to deal with a very complex world.
I observe that generalizations about race and ethnic groups are called “racism” when applied to individuals. Apparently racism is a basic tool of the mind opposed by the Left. As an example, African Americans as a group tend to have lower average incomes than Whites (a fact). Therefore, President Obama has a low income (a racist assumption based on his skin color as an identifier).
Using this basic tool of the mind, I conclude from the example of Ed that the use of lazy generalizations about complicated situations is a characteristic of the racial and political groups to which Ed belongs.
August 21, 2010 at 12:24 pm
Charlieford
I would like to dissent–but ambiguously, partially–from what Michael says above about groups.
I agree with him that we don’t convict someone of something on the basis that they belong to a group. And I would go further and say we shouldn’t, as a society, even impute characteristics to them on the basis of their group membership. This cuts against both prejudice or bigotry, and sentimentality, at the same time.
But that doesn’t mean that we don’t think in terms of groups or formulate policies–say, affirmative action–or laws–the right to hunt fish with a harpoon if you’re native American–on that basis.
But what is critical is that our groupings must be accurate, and because there is always great risk for error when we are generalizing, and because the divvying up of resources or opportunities, or the recognition of rights, is such a delicate, controversial, and potentially divisive process, diverse and democratic societies are rightly very cautious in doing so.
But, as to the case at hand, thinking about Muslims as a group actually cuts against the negative stereotyping Ed is so eager to promote.
Only a small fraction of the world’s 1.4 billion Muslims even count as “hard-core Islamists,” and a only a vanishingly small fraction of those would qualify as terrorists.
The numbers are even more encouraging when we consider the 2 million “American Muslims” as a group.
Or think about it this way: there are some 27 million Muslims in Saudi Arabia, and some 130 million in India. Yet a majority of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis, and many of them have also made the trip to Iraq to wage jihad there. There were no Indian Muslims among the 9/11 terrorists, and I do not know of a single case (though there may be some) of any Indian Muslims waging jihad against us.
Were it the case that the mere group “Muslims” were in fact inherently given to terrorism, those statistics would lead to a very different outcome.
In fact, we know quite well what the difference is: India is a prosperous democracy where Muslims are generally relatively satisfied, while Saudi Arabia is an oppressive, non-democratic autarchy where the rulers are intensely unpopular and are, at the same time, propped up by American arms and training.
Or, we could look at that little exercise in nation-building we’ve been engaged in for nine years now, the construction and support of a nation that calls itself “The Islamic Republic of Afghanistan,” another nation of some 30 million, almost entirely Muslim, where the Taliban number perhaps 40,000 on a good day. If it were the case that all or even most or even a fifth of the Muslims in Afghanistan (or Iraq) were fatwa-breathing anti-American jihadis, are endeavors in both those countries would face far more intractable difficulties than they in fact do.
Or as another example, we could look at the very different attitudes and behaviors of the group “young Muslim males in France,” and the group “young Muslim males in the United States.” In that case, the crucial difference seems to be precisely the very individualistic policies and culture (at least thus far) prevalent in the US, as compared to France, and that it is because “young American Muslim males” do, generally, feel accepted in our society, and therefore develop a loyalty to it.
Insofar as Americans ignore their own traditions of freedom, historical commitments to justice, and simple self-interests (in the war on terror for example, where we are deeply dependent on Muslims who cooperate with us in the area of human intelligence), not only do they jettison their right to be called “decent,” they demonstrate themselves to be just plain stupid.
So there.
August 21, 2010 at 9:40 pm
Ed of CA
@Michael:
Your assumption is that decency is defined as ‘what most Americans do’ – which is a sort of normativity reduced to absurdity.
Not at all. My personal view is that most Americans are good because they don’t kill millions who disagree with the prevailing political philosophy, and the nation has put lives on the line to right what they perceive to be major injustices. But the idea that dissent ought to be tolerated is my own personal moral code.
I’ve seen many here take the constitution as the normative backdrop for how things should be. But regardless of what Americans think, the mosque is protected. So in reality, you don’t care about how Americans act, you care about how Americans think. Worse than that, you judge the American people because they think a certain way. So, while you use the constitution as the backdrop, the reality is you have developed a moral code that goes beyond the constitution. It’s not whether you will support the constitution, it’s whether you like all its implications!
Maybe you should write down your new moral code, so we can have something to really debate. I see a lot of evidence Americans are inherently decent. From that perspective, I mean in their own normative reference. It includes a strong desire to not interfere with others affairs (for instance both WWI and WWII were very difficult to engage the American people in), a sense of fairness (Civil war), not taking over the world after WWII (now that’s a big one: how many countries in THAT position would have passed), etc.
@dana: your logic is flawed. There are only two cases as the assumption is Muslims are good. I didn’t take philosophy in college, but I did a lot of abstract math in college, and I was really good at it. For instance, I got a 790/800 on math and more importantly the verbal reasoning sections of the GREs. Alas, a girl broke my heart and I didn’t pursue graduate school.
August 21, 2010 at 10:29 pm
Charlieford
“But regardless of what Americans think, the mosque is protected.”
Hardly. Public opinion, protests, threats, and most of all, the manipulation of local ordinances, are the means by which religious freedom can be suppressed without “technically” opposing the constitution.
“So in reality, you don’t care about how Americans act, you care about how Americans think.”
Now you’re being silly. Everyone of us should care about both. And if we don’t care about how they think–given how our system works–we’ll find the actions changing very fast.
“Worse than that, you judge the American people because they think a certain way.”
Now, that is a bad thing. If the people want to form themselves into a lynch-mob, why, they ought to be able to do so without anyone saying boo! Galldammit, whatever happened to the pursuit of happiness?!
“So, while you use the constitution as the backdrop, the reality is you have developed a moral code that goes beyond the constitution.”
Darn it, you got us. Not only do some Americans think you need to obey the Constitution, they think there’s something admirable about a lot of it. That there makes them un-American, dammit!
Color me incensed.
I had no idea this was going on!
People are agreeing with the Constitution!!!
What’s next?!
If we don’t put the kibosh on this, they just might start loving one another!
America is being threatened!
“Gather your armies!”
August 22, 2010 at 12:58 am
Ed of CA
Charlieford, I’m sure even you wouldn’t like some of the implications of the constitution.
For instance, Lincoln’s suspension of the writ of Habeas Corpus during the Civil war, was judged unconstitutional after the conclusion of the war. Without that suspension, the prosecution of the war would have been impractical. Perhaps you would have preferred upholding the constitution in that case?
Please try to contain your yourself. If the Mosque doesn’t go up due to some ill defined local ordinance, it will be highly scrutinized.
And finally, the constitution is a “living document,” or so I’m told. That means the judiciary has the right to change its meaning: there is no abstract foundation in the constitution from which all laws flow.
I’m not necessarily opposed to this: what it means is real freedom must be redeemed by every generation. It is not cheap.
August 22, 2010 at 2:22 am
Ed of CA
@michael
Regarding your views of group, people, etc., I suggest it is a luxury to provide the perfection of constitutional rights to all, both foreign and domestic. In fact, it presupposes a world of decent people, something you seem unable to extend to the Americans, the most decent of all people.
It is a luxury because it requires infinite resources and perfect information. The writ of Habeas Corpus was suspended during the Civil war because it was impractical, and a much greater “good” was at hand. Do you disagree? Would you rather have had the South succeed in secession in order to uphold the constitution?
I understand the constitution is a living document, and while I think the judiciary has no business molding it to the current society, it points out the obvious. In a republic of the people and for the people, the people have to remain ever vigilant to protect their freedoms. Not ditzes misunderstanding a logic statement.
I think this country is losing the people, for many reasons, but it is dismaying to me to see posters on this blog disdaining the people who have made this possible. Each generation must renew freedom. What have you, the self appointed, done to enhance that renewal? Disdain of the people who made it possible is the only common thread.
Meanwhile, I’m done writing tonight. I’m going to listen to Mozart.
August 22, 2010 at 5:35 am
JP Stormcrow
I invoke Stormcrow’s Variant of Godwin’s Law (vulgar interpretation): When a participant posts their SAT or GRE scores, the thread is OVAH.
August 22, 2010 at 6:31 am
dana
Don’t blame DeMorgan for your SAT scores…
August 22, 2010 at 9:19 am
Urk
Ed, two things: some Americans are decent. Some are not. “Americans” as a group are not more decent than others. To assume that, to draw that conclusion is to abandon the kind of critical perspective that would allow us to keep improving the institutions that might offer evidence of your conclusion. To believe that Americans are _necessarily_ decent is to abandon American principles. It’s patently Unamerican.
Second: Your whole argument seems to assume that “Muslims” and “Americans” are mutually exclusive groups. They aren’t. Nor are “Muslims” and “Islamic Jihadists” the same thing. Islamic Jihadists are a tiny, tiny, tiny subset of the world’s Muslim population. Allowing these people to represent Islam to us is like picking the Christian Identity movement to represent Christianity. it means taking their ridiculous and hateful claims, claims repudiated by the majority of the religion, at face value.
August 22, 2010 at 10:23 am
Charlieford
So, now we’ve progressed.
Earlier, your charge was some of us are going beyond the Constition, which regulates behavior, and demanding that our fellow citizens, you know, agree with it and stuff.
Now you’ve admitted you don’t want the Constitution adhered to at all in this instance.
And you invoke Lincoln. Good grief.
Well, I can invoke Lincoln too. Like here, where I think he’s speaking right at you:
“Our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid. As a nation, we began by declaring that “all men are created equal.” We now practically read it, “all men are created equal except negroes.” When the Know-nothings get control, it will read, “all men are created equal except negroes and foreigners and Catholics.” When it comes to this, I shall prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretense of loving liberty–to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocrisy.”
ABRAHAM LINCOLN, letter to Joshua F. Speed, Aug. 24, 1855
August 22, 2010 at 10:30 am
CaliFury
Americans, the most decent of all people.
“[E]xceptionalism is a two-edged phenomenon; it does not mean better. This country is an outlier. It is the most religious, optimistic, patriotic, rights-oriented, and individualistic. With respect to crime, it still has the highest rates; with respect to incarceration, it has the most people locked up in jail; with respect to litigiousness, it has the most lawyers per capita of any country in the world, with high tort and malpractice rates. It also has close to the lowest percentage of the eligible electorate voting, but the highest rate of participation in voluntary organizations. The country remains the wealthiest in real income terms, the most productive as reflected in worker output, the highest in proportions of people who graduate from or enroll in higher education (post grade 12) and in postgraduate work (post-grade 16). It is the leader in upward mobility into professional and other high-status and elite occupations, close to the top in terms of commitment to work rather than leisure, but the least egalitarian among developed nations with respect to income distribution, at the bottom as a provider of welfare benefits, the lowest in savings and the least taxed. [T]he positive and negative are frequently opposite sides of the same coin.”
American Exceptionalism: A Double-Edged Sword By Seymour Martin Lipset, 1966.
If we’re decent because we don’t kill millions, then are we indecent because we imprison millions? Or because we have the worst welfare system? Or because we torture and assassinate? Or, etc.?
America is too complicated to be characterized with simple generalization. In addition, the problems we face (such as implacable hate from a tiny subset of the world’s population) cannot be met and overcome with simple thinking.
August 22, 2010 at 10:31 am
CaliFury
I meant 1996 for the Lipset’s book.
August 22, 2010 at 10:49 am
Ed, CA
Stormcrow: Dana was posting some ridiculous logic proposition that completely missed the point and had an error in it. I’m trying to help her to understand she isn’t dealing with the usual ignoramuses (from her POV) she can bludgeon with her purported superior understanding of logic.
August 22, 2010 at 10:55 am
Ed, CA
CaliFury, I disagree. You can look internally to tids and bits, but I’ve pointed out some major things that are world changing.
Here is another. We share in our businesses too. How many millions (maybe billions?) is that bringing up out of poverty?
Insofar as the millions in prison, I agree. It’s a shame law abiding citizens have to pay to keep the crime ridden neighborhoods from which they come safe. Better to release these criminals so they can terrorize innocents from whence they come, instead of taxing the population of a whole that has nothing to do with those locals.
August 22, 2010 at 11:25 am
Michael H Schneider
My personal view is that most Americans are good because …
The question is still ‘what’s the good (or decent) reponse to the Park51 plan?’
I’ve tried to explain why the question ‘are Americans good (or decent)?’ is the wrong question. I’ve gone over the problems of inferring from general characterists to individual (whether from generalizations about all women to the characteristics of a particular woman, or from generalizations about national character to judgments about a particular response). Apparently we’re still disagreeing on what question we’re talking about.
I’ve tried to talk about why we shouldn’t discriminate on the basis of religion. I’ve tried an appeal to authority (the constitution says!). I’ve tried a bit of consequentialism (religious wars hurt people). I’ve tried appealing to generally accepted principles (we don’t convict for bad character). I’ve tried reasoning from first principles (denying autonomy and individualism is bad).
All these are moral arguments. All bear on the question of whether trying to push the Park51 project out of that neighborhood is bad. In response I get:
Maybe you should write down your new moral code, so we can have something to really debate.
Well, I tried.
We have a long history of pushing people out of neighborhoods because of religion and ethnicity. We’ve done it to Blacks, to Jews, to Japanese, to Chinese, to Mormons. Now some Americans are trying to do it to Muslims.
48% of Americans think it’s okay to push Mosques out of areas that are open to other religions, according to one of the polls I linked above.
Whether or not Americans are, in general, good and decent, we’ve got a problem here. That’s a lot of Americans supporting an idea that I think is very, very bad.
Finally:
But the idea that dissent ought to be tolerated is my own personal moral code.
This is particularly pernicious. Nobody here has suggested that you should be put on an Enemies list, and investigated by the IRS (I hope you’re either old enough or educated enough to catch the reference).
Tolerance doesn’t mean accepting that all ideas are equally good. There are still good ideas and bad ideas.
Tolerancce doesn’t mean sitting by in silence when someone advocates a bad idea. While the First Amendment by it’s terms is only an immunity, I think there’s also an implicit duty: the duty to speak up for good, and against bad.
When you say To me, it is a reasonable position that sensitive muslims would move the mosque. I think that’s bad. I know I’m rather an absolutist in that I give precisely zero weight to offending other peoples’ religious sensitivities, but to suggest I should silently tolerate this speech is to attack the fundamental implication of the right of free speech.
Anyway, for personal reasons unrelated to this discussion, I’m going to step away from the intertubes for a few days. No implication should be drawn from my silence.
August 22, 2010 at 12:12 pm
Charlieford
“I’m going to step away from the intertubes for a few days. No implication should be drawn from my silence.”
Waiting for FoxNews: “Michael Schneider has walked back his previous support for the Ground Zero mosque …”
August 22, 2010 at 12:12 pm
dana
Dana was posting some ridiculous logic proposition that completely missed the point and had an error in it.
It’s not ridiculous, or at least, it reads the structure directly from your assertion, which was “If the Muslim faith as practiced truly is as morally good as you all say it is, and Americans accept that, I’m sure they too would welcome the mosque. Problem is, they don’t think that.” If you want to say something else instead, that’s fine, but that’s what you wrote.