Obama Says Mosque Remarks Were Not Endorsement

[mike r]

Source: New York Times

President Obama said Saturday that in defending the right of Muslims to build a community center and mosque near ground zero in Lower Manhattan, he was “not commenting on the wisdom” of that project, but rather trying to uphold the broader principle that government should treat “everyone equal, regardless” of religion.

Mr. Obama, who was visiting the Gulf Coast with his wife and youngest daughter for an overnight stay, made his comments at the Coast Guard district station here.

On Friday night, he used the White House iftar, a sunset dinner celebrating the Muslim holiday of Ramadan, to weigh in on the mosque controversy.

In clarifying his remarks, Mr. Obama was apparently seeking to address criticism that he was using his presidential platform to promote a project that has aroused the ire of many New Yorkers. White House officials said earlier Saturday that Mr. Obama was not trying to promote that particular project, but rather sought to make a broader statement about freedom of religion and American values.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/15/us/politics/15mosque.html

[alcibiades_mystery]

1. NY Times running with Politico's nonsense

Obama is absolutely correct: it is not the President's job to endorse any given project of this kind, and the question itself was stupid. It is his job to uphold the Constitution. The so-called 'wisdom' of exercising a right is completely beside the point from a Constitutional perspective. The question is whether the right is legitimate, not whether its execise in a given case is "wise."

[Uncle Joe]

Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, mike.

[ProSense]

2. The media is trying to keep the controversy alive and aid intolerance. More

here and here.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

3. As I said before the Republicans are milking 9/11 for all it's worth

[sandnsea]

4. "President is not backing off in any way"

Statement from Bill Burton:

"Just to be clear, the President is not backing off in any way from the comments he made last night.
It is not his role as President to pass judgment on every local project.

"But it is his responsibility to stand up for the Constitutional principle of religious freedom and equal treatment for all Americans.
What he said last night, and reaffirmed today, is that If a church, a synagogue or a Hindu temple can be built on a site, you simply cannot deny that right to those who want to build a Mosque.

"The World Trade Center site is hallowed ground, where 3000 Americans-Catholics, Protestants, Jews and Muslims were the victims of a cold-blooded massacre. We are still at war with the small band of terrorists who planned and executed that attack.
But that does not give government the right to deny law-abiding Americans of one faith the same rights you would accord anyone else."

[Better Believe It]

5. So does President Obama think it's "unwise" to build the mosque at that location.

It's time to clarify in response to right-wing attacks!

Give me a flip, give me a flop please.

[alcibiades_mystery]

6. This is the issue on which you get to decide

whether you want to be a ridiculous knee-jerk Obama-hater, or a serious, good-faith critic of bad policy. As of this moment, you're not doing too well given those choices.

[another saigon]

8. record breaking

fastest flip flop ever!

[alcibiades_mystery]

13. You have an excellent opportunity on this issue

to appear as a reasonable person who understands the Constitution and the constitutional point the president was making, or to appear as a knee-jerk Obama hater and a sucker for right wing propaganda. Whatever your differences with the man or his administration on other matters, this one is really a no brainer.

[Jakes Progress]

17. Calling you on bullshit.

Obama didn't mind endorsing tourism for the gulf coast. The president is allowed to have opinions.

I think some of his fully faithful followers were so aghast that he backed up so quickly that they have trotted out this stupid defense. Tell you what. You say it is a constitutional issue. Quote me the part of the constitution that says the president cannot have an opinion about issues like this. Or if you prefer, you can just redefine up and down and locate a few misplaced commas to twist this to something you can call a defense.

Point is that he made a courageous statement, a position that one would expect from a strong president with true leadership qualities. Then he "qualified" it to blunt the attack from the right wing. Sad.

[alcibiades_mystery]

20. Oh please

His speech was about the right of Muslim Americans to exercise their faith fully. Given the environment and the controversy surrounding this issue, that was a strong stand. It also spoke to the proposition that we are a pluralistic nation. The question of rights was his topic. You're better than this. It's pathetic.

[Jakes Progress]

35. Oh pretty please.

His first speech stood on its own. It was a good one. It did discuss the rights of Muslims and defended the freedom to practice religion in America. There was no need for the second speech other than for political cover from the right wing-nut talk shows. The first speech was from a leader. The equivocation and mushy second "recalibration" was a speech prepared by cringing political operatives. He need to tell that particular department in his administration to recalibrate their own thinking. Without their meddling, he sounded like that leader the country needs. Every word in that speech could be defended by law and morality. There was no need, other than political cover (make that cower) for the "clarification". You know better than the weak kneed excuses you are tossing out. Just tell us, why did he need to issue the "clarification"? What did he "clarify" that didn't take away from the courageous stand in the first speech?

Oh. Still waiting for the quotes from the constitution that you said prevented a president from voicing an opinion on this matter.

What is pathetic is the administration's fear of the right wing radio hosts and their beltway mentality that makes them think that being wishy-washy is better politics. Even more pathetic is the painfully strained excuses being made for this latest flop.

[wtmusic]

10. If he had some courage he would insist it's built *at* Ground Zero.

In your face, terrorists. This is how Americans deal with attempts to intimidate us.

Or not.

[Arkana]

7. I'd hope he wasn't endorsing it, but I'm glad he's standing up for their right

to build it. The First Amendment applies to everyone, whether Palin and her legions of mouthbreathers like it or not.

[SnakeEyes]

9. Why do you hope he wasn't endorse it?

Are you buying the fear and racist rhetoric about it being a conquest mosque and believe the reports of the people behind it being connected to terrorism too? If not, then why shouldn't Obama endorse it? It's a good thing.

[alcibiades_mystery]

12. Because it's not his job to endorse private or religious ventures

He did exactly what he should have done: speak to the rights of a minority group to practice their religion as they see fit within the strictures of local ordinances. He has no business endorsing this venture, not because it's right or wrong, but because it's not his function or role. The people yelling "flip flop" and demanding he endorse it are not only wrong, they are the most pathetic kind of suckers for right wing tripe.

[JoeyT]

34. Agreed

We should be VERY careful about demanding the government has a place endorsing religion. ANY religion.

The president is handling this one right. The government can't and shouldn't stop them because of the first amendment, and the government can't tell them they should build it there, because of the separation of church and state.

Personally I'd rather not see an endless loop a month from now about how the government endorsed a mosque, but won't let our poor kids pray in school.

[Arkana]

30. I'd hope he wouldn't endorse it any more than he'd endorse building

a Baptist church over the site of a firebombed abortion clinic--it's not his place to "endorse" one religion over another.

[defendandprotect]

36. Wow ... first, this mosque is 4 BLOCKS from "ground zero" ....

and, secondly, while Muslims were 9% of the victims at the WTC on 9/11 --

they are only 6% of our US population --

They have every right to have their religion represented and remembered re 9/11 -

as much right as any other religion.

Obama certainly isn't "endorsing" one religion over another -- he's said clearly he

is affirming the right for Muslims to have EQUAL treatment!

[Overseas]

11. He said he supported the right of any religious group to build

a community center that included a place of worship on private property or something close to that, and CNN, right after playing the clip says-- "The President endorsed a mosque at ground zero," !! I was quite stunned. Just a la-dee-dah news clip summary statement from CNN on our progressive radio station.

I guess our conservative news media had to take back the headlines from our president having criticized Republicans for trying to do away with Social Security on its 75th anniversary.

[krabigirl]

14. I cant believe this wasn't obvious to people when he first said it. Lol...are people that stupid?

[sabrina 1]

15. He should not have discussed this issue any further.

He was on solid Constitutional ground when he made his statement yesterday, and that is all that is required of him. Now, he is arguing with bigots and everyone should know what a futile exercise that is.

Once you start explaining you look weak even if that is not the case, and the argument will not end when you are arguing with thousands of Orly Taitzes. The most respected people are those who give thought to something before they speak out, then ignore the bigots who, left to their own devices will self destruct.

I do not know what nervous nanny is giving this president advice, but whoever it/they are they are doing him a great disservice.

People admire strength and most can accept a decision when it is well reasoned and backed by the law of the land. He did that and he should not say anything that sounds like he's trying to justify his statement from yesterday. They have to get over worrying about what the moronic bigots from the rabid right think. He was right yesterday and now he should move on.

[Zavulon]

19. +1.

I could have written your post; you saved me the trouble. Thanks :)

[time_has_come]

16. Stay safe, Mr. Prez, stay safe. Keep that neck tucked in yer turtle shell. n/t

[Historic NY]

18. Plain & simple its up to New Yorkers to decided, its their city.

[Arrowhead2k1]

22. It's not even up to them... sigh.

It's up to the people who own the property at that particular location as long as they are operating in accordance with city and national laws, which was never in question.

[sabrina 1]

23. No, it's not up to them. This is a Constitutional issue

There is absolutely no legal reason why one group should be discriminated against because of their religious beliefs.

If NY was to deny them the right to build their Center, this would go all the way to the SC and NY would lose.

Prejudice is an ugly thing. We have laws against it here. The Constitution protects the rights of people to NOT be harassed because of their beliefs. Several Constitutional Amendments would be violate if the bigots got their way with this.

The sad thing is that those screaming the most could care less about the victims of 9/11. They are simply using those people in the most despicable way as an excuse to express their bigotry.

Thank god we still have a Constitution.

[Democat]

24. And if they want blacks to ride in the back of the bus?

It's their city, right?

[Hansel]

29. If Al Qaeda was building the Islamic Center.

Al Qaeda is a terrorist organization hell bent on destroying America and has declared war on it. It is a criminal enterprise and thus has lost their right to argue that they are exercising religious freedom because they instead would be arrested and put in prison, not for their religion, but for their crimes.

Islam is not a criminal enterprise, it is a religion and has nothing to do with 911 in and of itself and the media and our politicians have failed miserably on this point. Just because a group of extreme criminals commit a crime in the name of religion it does not make that religion and everyone who practices it responsible for it.

Would you argue that it is up to cities where abortion clinics have been blown up and doctors assassinated in the name of Christianity to decide if a Christian churches be built there? Of course not, because it would be a clear violation of religious freedom and because it's clear that the people who commit those crimes are criminals and whack jobs and don't represent all Christians.

One of the arguments I hear is that Muslims have not condemned 911 enough. Well that is complete BS, but lets put Christian churches to the test. How many of them have condemned the bombings of abortion clinics and assassinations of abortion doctors on the national stage that has made it a memorial condemnation? How many leaders of the churches that bombers and murderers worship in have? In this case some have actually praised it. Yet they would still be allowed to build their churches.

If a Christian had done 911 in the name of their extreme religious views there would not even be a discussion about whether or not a Christian community center could be built on this site. In fact, Christian churches would be lining up to build such a center to prove that this horrific crime was not done in their name and Americans would applaud it. Guaranteed.

This is about people being different from most Americans and fear of the unknown or what they think they know. It is irrational fear and in many cases bigotry. The building of this center in that location might actually be the best 1st step in moving past the fear that was instilled in people by not only 911, but by the propaganda from the Bush WH and the right wing media and politicians mostly on the right but from both sides. This might be the 1st best step toward healing.

[defendandprotect]

37. GOP obviously used 9/11 to brand all Muslims as "terrorists" .... !!!

and our government certainly has to do better in explaining WHY this Mosque

should be permitted --

Muslims were 9% of the victims on 9/11 -- and they are only 6% of our population --

PLUS, the Mosque is 4 blocks from "ground zero" --

Obama is correct -- all religions must be treated equally -- but we need a fuller, better

explanation to thwart this rw propaganda!

[Historic NY]

31. They decided on the zoning.

to site it there.

[lynne]

33. Exactly! To me, this is a zoning issue -

- as there are numerous places in every US city that churches can't be built due to zoning laws and that doesn't violate Freedom of Religion. As this property is zoned in such a way that it is appropriate for churches, temples, etc., the city can't deny them the ability to build based only on type of religion.

The lesson here is that if people don't want specific businesses or activities in certain areas, they need to either purchase the property or amend the zoning.

[Historic NY]

38. Near me they create paper villages to enforce zoning issues....

as the Hasidim tend to overwhelm towns.Its completely legal as villages have more authority than cities or towns.

[Brooklyns_Finest]

21. Like The Beer Fest

Obama should have kept quiet on this issue. Why get involved in this mess.....

[6000eliot]

25. He should NOT backpedal on this.

Freedom of religion is very important.

[RedCappedBandit]

26. This is what people don't get

Its not about individual scenarios but the broader implications.i don't see what's so hard to understand about that...

[MikeW]

27. i dont care if they build there or not ... but I want the funding investigated

[robcon]

28. The president has taken a brave and good stand.

Free people should be free to use their property in any way they choose.

edit: add link

Obama Stands On Principle, Defends Muslim Rights
http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/77036/obama-stands-principle-defends-muslim-rights

[still_one]

32. It is sad and ironic that we have as a country taken a step back on civil rights

and Freedom of Religion

It should beyond clear now the the media in this country is not to inform, but inflame and insight

We are regressing to the years of yellow journalism, and fake controversy