I must admit, when I read yesterday that Barack Obama had spoken out in defence of the "Ground Zero mosque" on the basis that freedom of religion was a fundamental right which could not be compromised, I was pleasantly surprised. He was finally taking a forthright, courageous and thoroughly admirable stance on an issue which goes right to the heart of America's values. And, regrettably, it was somewhat out of character for him to do so.
So when I read a few minutes ago that he's "clarified" his position, I was not surprised, but very disappointed. It looks rather as though he hadn't realised quite how courageous his remarks were, was shocked to see the amount of protest they provoked, and backtracked in fright. He's now claiming that he meant people should have the freedom to build mosques in principle, but not necessarily in practice. He had the opportunity to take the moral high ground, to take a firm stand on the fundamental issue of religious freedom, and oppose the ugly and unhealthy opposing current which, it seems, is going to culminate in a mass burning of Korans on September 11 - which unhappily this year will probably coincide with the Eid ul-Fitr celebrations at the end of Ramadan.
There is a dangerous maelstrom of religious conflict building in the USA right now, and instead of holding to an inspiring position of strong leadership to guide the country out of it, Obama is now responding in his typically spineless way of following the path of least resistance, trying to do whatever the polls seem to suggest will be least offensive. This behaviour is bad for America, it's bad for the world, and ultimately it will be bad for him too: it shows him to be a weak, ineffectual leader. It will not help him in November this year, and it will destroy him in 2012.
Monday, 16 August 2010
So close, and yet so very far
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
The reporting on President Obama’s “backtracking” seems to be more of the usual lazy media reporting that has become unfortunately all too typical in the race for 24 hour news sensationalising. He did not backtrack from (or “clarify”) his comment that “the commitment to religious freedom must be unshakeable”. He certainly did not backtrack from the statement that “all faiths are welcome in this country and they will not be treated differently by their government”. In his comments at the beach, he clearly, unmistakably reiterates that “[the US] must treat everybody equally and in accordance with the law, regardless of race, regardless of origin”.
His comments at the beach the morning after were as a response to a question about the erroneous reporting (and totally inaccurate description) by the media (right wing media, as well as places like Huffington Post, which sadly tends to be just as sensational as other media outlets) that he was “endorsing” the building of an Islamic cultural centre. Indeed, it is certainly not appropriate nor is it the place of President Obama or any US President to “endorse” the building of any religious cultural centre or place of worship, be it Christian, Jewish, Muslim or Buddhist. He may have “endorsed” the legal right for the organisation to build the centre, and “endorsed” the idea that the US should be welcoming of different faiths, but it is not the role of any US President to declare his (and hopefully one day soon her) public approval or the wisdom of any religious project / institution. There is separation of church and state for good reason and even if that is not always appropriately, strictly observed and may be abused by politicians of all political persuasions from time to time, the President of the US needs to be above the usual religion-pushing.
Should President Obama have perhaps chosen the words to his response on the beach more wisely? Yes. Should he have ignored the ridiculous (and predicable) false sensationalised reporting of his comments at the Ramadan dinner? Certainly. But he was asked a direct question without notice on his holiday, at the beach, about the media framing his Ramadan speech as a strong “endorsement” of the project.
President Obama is facing a country where +20% of the people think he was born in Kenya and is part of a Muslim plot to destroy America. In such an atmosphere, his words at both the dinner and the beach are certainly not those of a “typical spineless way, following the path of least resistance”. He was courageous at the dinner and nothing he said since diminishes the strength of those words.
Okay, maybe the words "spineless" and "least resistance" were a bit harsh; perhaps "timid", "overly cautious", and "far too afraid of rocking the boat" would have been more accurate? The path of least resistance would probably have been to say nothing at all.
However, he was saying nothing before the Ramadan dinner, and the White House now seems to be trying to back out and stay out of the debate completely, i.e. going back to saying nothing at all. So the Ramadan dinner episode still seems to have been out of character.
Basically, I'd love it if Obama proved me wrong, but I don't think he has yet.
Post a Comment