This is a nitpick, but that’s not what a the Souljah thing is. A politician has a Sister Souljah Moment when he cynically attacks an easy target on his own side of the aisle in order to win points with moderates or the opposition.
I don’t think this was an opportunity to reach out to moderate voters. It seems to me that the right wing and Tea Party crowd has been successful enough in lying about this building that a significant number of moderates have been fooled. This is, as you go on to say, more of a leadership thing. A lot of people have acted like nitwits and children on this issue and it’s up to him to set the record straight even if it does not win any votes or plaudits from anyone in return. His first statement was not all that definitive but he did at least make the correct reference to the principle of religious toleration. I don’t know if he got complaints for Democrats or just didn’t realize what he was wading into. Either way he should have done more here.
I’m sure that many of those who outraged by a mosque in Lower Manhattan would like “the government” to do something about it. Whether that government is the City of New York, the State of New York or the United States probably doesn’t matter to them.
If they don’t believe that some government should fix the problem, why are they blaming Obama? Why are they not, instead, trying to raise private money to buy up every square foot of real estate within some distance of Ground Zero, to dedicate as their “hallowed ground”? If they don’t believe that the state should intervene against Islam, it makes no sense to criticise Obama’s statements.
Right. But I think the principle behind the religion clauses is “the government and religion should be separate.” It’s not “people shouldn’t dislike or disagree with anything done by a religious institution.”
Does the Preamble establish that the Constitution is more for the purposes of excising government from the activities of the people, or does it instead frame it as a document for establishing, providing for and securing liberties? I believe it is the latter, so I regard the underlying principle not as making sure government is not involved in matters religious, but that We the People are for allowing people to freely pursue religion.
Thus as a protector and defender of the Constitution, I see the President’s role as protecting and defending the principle that people should be free to pursue religion.
I think your frame has been messed up by too much immersion in a myopic political orientation.
I think the problem is that the media is too used to parsing political statements to discover their hidden meaning.
I think Obama’s statement was, as befits a former professor of constitutional law, simply an accurate summation of the state of the law. The media (and you) read into it a support of the idea, but it’s not there.
I think Obama’s getting the short end of the stick. He said nothing wrong.
You know about that strip club right next to Ground Zero? Maybe they should change their name to the Red Blooded 100% Christian All American Titty Bar. Because, you know, its on hallowed ground.
What part of Shodan’s post are you objecting to? That he was giving a non-answer? We know that what he said was factually correct. I don’t think it’s ever been in dispute that there is a right to build a mosque where they see fit. What is in dispute, as I understand it, is whether or not it’s in good taste.
The problem being, he is not a professor of Constitutional law; he’s the President. And AFAIK he was not asked about the current state of the law.
Maybe “to a man with a hammer everything looks like a nail”, but not everything is a nail.
And without making this personal (I hope) I can see how someone as erudite in the law as you are would sympathize with an error of this sort. Parsing legal niceties is not the best response to every question and every issue.
The President is supposed to be the leader of the country, not merely the head lawyer.
So where’s GeeDubya on all of this, since we are on the subject of “leadership”? Awful quiet down there in Dallas. This imam is his guy, yes? Singled out by GeeDubya as an exemplar of moderate Islam, an ambassador to the Muslim world from America, yes? Kinda risky, wasn’t it? Setting himself up as a target for Islamo-nutbars world wide, but he went out there and took his chances, because you asked him to.
And now he could use some support, and you just sit there with your thumb up your ass eating Cheeto’s? He risked his life for what he thinks is right, what you agree is right, and you got nothing to say? A word from you might go a long way, or it might not have any effect at all, but you got 24/7/365 Secret Service coverage, what are you risking?
Here’s a chance to do the right thing, for once. For once, rise above being a pious, two-faced mealy-mouth sumbitch and do something for us all!
And speaking of mealy-mouthed sumbitches, Christ Jesus, Shodan, you got crust! If Obama were to walk on water, you’d be the first one here to say it was because he couldn’t swim. Leadership, my ass, you had leadership, you followed. We said it was a damn fool idea, but you went and did it anyway. Remember?
As for the rest: Look, we can have diferent opinions on the animating principle of a particular Constitutional provision. There’s nothing wrong with that. If some religious group believes that bathing in mayonnaise is the key to salvation, then I don’t think the government should outlae that, and I’m perfectly free to think they are idiots for doing it.
This is unfair. President Bush has adhered to the general tradition that discourages the immediate past chief executive from inserting himself into the news, especially where it concerns policies and actions taken by the new guy. Would that Dick Cheney felt that tradition was valuable.