Did The President Attack The First Amendment Today, Or Was It An Attack on Blasphemy?
Every conservative website seems to be carrying the following sentence from the President's speech today and my own Facebook page shows folks are apoplectic over it:
The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.
By those words, some make the case that the sentence is proof of anything from Obama's disrespect for the First Amendment to his support for terrorists who kill for cartoons.
Obviously I would not support the President on any of those things.
Yet when I read the transcript and saw the larger context, I couldn't help but wonder (just wondering here - not asserting) if the President was actually making the case that blasphemy is bad no matter whose religion is under attack. I can support that (not laws against blasphemy, but I'm a fan of politeness).
Now, analysis of these things usually goes something like this: If one generally dislikes the speaker, bad intentions are presumed and future bad acts based upon those intentions are feared.
If one generally likes the speaker, good intentions are presumed and no future bad acts are feared.
I'm not saying that is a bad way to go. Character matters, as does what we know about a person. If I'm an odds maker, I'm laying pretty good odds that I can infer bad intentions from a speech by Charles Manson and good intentions from a speech by Pope Benedict.
When dealing with the extremes it's easy. It's a little tougher when not.
So please take a read of the full context below and let me know what it all portends for his future acts, based upon what we know about the man who said it:
The future must not belong to those who target Coptic Christians in Egypt – it must be claimed by those in Tahrir Square who chanted “Muslims, Christians, we are one.” The future must not belong to those who bully women – it must be shaped by girls who go to school, and those who stand for a world where our daughters can live their dreams just like our sons. The future must not belong to those corrupt few who steal a country’s resources – it must be won by the students and entrepreneurs; workers and business owners who seek a broader prosperity for all people. Those are the men and women that America stands with; theirs is the vision we will support.
The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam. Yet to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see when the image of Jesus Christ is desecrated, churches are destroyed, or the Holocaust is denied. Let us condemn incitement against Sufi Muslims, and Shiite pilgrims. It is time to heed the words of Gandhi: “Intolerance is itself a form of violence and an obstacle to the growth of a true democratic spirit.” Together, we must work towards a world where we are strengthened by our differences, and not defined by them. That is what America embodies, and that is the vision we will support.
- Comment (53)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (11)
Comments:
Apr '12
Re: Did The President Attack The First Amendment Today, Or Was It An Attack on Blasphemy?
Remember a few years back when radical Muslims wanted to build a "Victory" Mosque on Ground Zero?
Remember how the Left were then all First Amendment Purists? Anyone who dared suggest that the Mosque might better be built, well, anyplace but where 3000 Americans died?
Remember the pious lectures about Free Speech back then?
Now the Feds have rounded up an artist because Obama doesn't like what he wrote? How far up the food chain will Obama have to go before the Left realizes they've gotten in bed with Satan? Richochet shut down? Rush Limbaugh? National Review? The Wall Street Journal? FOX News? Will they notice when the New York Times sees half their reporters replaced with Government snitches?
Sep '11
Re: Did The President Attack The First Amendment Today, Or Was It An Attack on Blasphemy?
The easy pull quote is the one you highlight--"the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam."
I think the far more telling quote lies further down:
This idea--intolerance itself is a form of violence--infuses the left, and particularly the "progressives" who advocate for homosexuality, gay marriage, polygamy, and so forth. A frenzied mob storming an embassy? Violence. Church-goin' folks lining up at Chick-Fil-A? Violence. The only difference between the rioters looting the American embassy and housewives buying waffle fries is a subtle degree of actual, well, you know--violence. (Sorry--I meant "kinetic action.")
This is a masterpiece of Obama dog whistle: to the American left, in the midst of a tough re-election campaign, he quotes Gandhi, and reassures the LGBT "community"; and his pull quote will be trumpeted (he hopes) across the Muslim world.
To those of us who understand and believe in the U.S. Constitution, it's a betrayal.
May '11
Re: Did The President Attack The First Amendment Today, Or Was It An Attack on Blasphemy?
I agree generally with what you said about assuming bad or good intentions. I am always mentioning the "principle of charity" in posts and comments, although I do expand it, perhaps, beyond its actual intended use.
I would hesitate to read too much into this comment beyond annoying pandering to a particular group of people. That said, if this adversely affects Obama in the polls, I will be happy about that!
Mar '11
Re: Did The President Attack The First Amendment Today, Or Was It An Attack on Blasphemy?
The problem is the left conflates tolerate with accept. I agree that we should be a tolerant society. That means allowing those with whom I disagree to live peacably beside me. To tolerate presumes disagreement. If we all agree then there's nothing to be tolerated. The left however insists that I agree that gay marriage is ok. That I must support abortion with my tax dollars, not just tolerate it. Fred Phelps is intolerant. Dan Cathy is not. The left wants to them in the same category. In so doing they prove their own intolerance.
Jun '10
Re: Did The President Attack The First Amendment Today, Or Was It An Attack on Blasphemy?
"
The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam. Yet to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see when the image of Jesus Christ is desecrated, churches are destroyed, or the Holocaust is denied.
There is nothing objectionable in this statement. The problem to me is that the Islamists only hear the first sentance of the paragraph. That is why there are no Jews living in the Arab world. That is why anywhere in Africa where Christians and Muslims share a country, the Christians are fighting for survival. I never knew of irreverence towards Islam as I grew up. Where has all the paranoia come from in the Muslim world? Perhaps a different course might work better. How about starting with this...Quit taking yourselves so darn seriously. Everyone gets slandered from time to time, get over it.
Aug '11
Re: Did The President Attack The First Amendment Today, Or Was It An Attack on Blasphemy?
Politeness is good and we can afford to be polite and affable in a nation where religious differences are in fact being tolerated. However, the president is confusing “respect” and “politeness” with religious toleration. It is nonsense to preach toleration to any religion or ideology which religiously and civilly advocates persecuting others. The Moslem fundamentalists are making a religious argument.
Religious freedom under the First Amendment is not about respecting other religions; it is about respecting the right of other individuals to practice their own religion if they foreswear violence against non-believers and their own congregants. In countries where blasphemy is a civil crime that carries punishment of death or imprisonment, blasphemy is not about religious dignity, but about religious persecution. Blasphemy is always defined by those in the majority or those in political power. As Americans we should speak out against those religions.
And I think John Murdoch is also correct. This is also about restricting the rights of all Americans to have or express opinions against the prevailing political/ideological orthodoxies.
Jul '10
Re: Did The President Attack The First Amendment Today, Or Was It An Attack on Blasphemy?
Absolutely an attack on the First Amendment. Those have been nonstop from this regime. Car dealers that give to the wrong politicians? Gone. Attack Watch. Still there. The Sarah Palin lynch mob from the Giffords shooting. The suppress the vote nonsense, trying to paint Romney as a disaster with wildly skewed polls and "news" reports. The racism slanders and libels, the "enemy" slanders and libels, doing any number of things so evil (e.g., fast and furious, signing the 2009 budget) that he has to pretend Bush did them. The Big Union and OfA goons targeting high dollar donors for vandalism and intimidation. The black vendor of conservative materials who was beaten nearly to death by SEIU goons. ACORN and the rampant voter fraud, undermining our most important exercise of our franchise and free speech rights.
Jan '11
Re: Did The President Attack The First Amendment Today, Or Was It An Attack on Blasphemy?
My problem is not with the speech itself. The words are fine. My problem is that no action will follow the words.
Islamic fanatics killed our ambassador two weeks ago, and Obama's response is to reject intolerance, and question where the roots of Islamic rage come from?
Peace through therapy.
Oct '10
Re: Did The President Attack The First Amendment Today, Or Was It An Attack on Blasphemy?
What does it portend? More portentous rhetoric with zero effect on action, or lack thereof.
There are two things that concern me:
Mar '11
Re: Did The President Attack The First Amendment Today, Or Was It An Attack on Blasphemy?
Blasphemy is at the heart of free speech.
People must have the ability to offend others. Otherwise, their "choices" have reduced value both to them, society, and ultimately, to G-d.
The alternative is a world in which whomever is in power (or scary) gets to define blasphemy laws, and oppress or kill those who choose other paths.
Obama is begging to make Americans second-class citizens (dhimmis) in a world which is terrified of the Wrath of Islam.
Dec '10
Re: Did The President Attack The First Amendment Today, Or Was It An Attack on Blasphemy?
Which one of these things is not like the others, Sesame Street fans? (1) those who target Coptic Christians in Egypt; (2) those who bully women; (3) those corrupt few who steal a country's resources; or (4) those who slander the prophet of Islam?
Aug '10
Re: Did The President Attack The First Amendment Today, Or Was It An Attack on Blasphemy?
Tommy De Seno:
The problem here is the hypocrisy of it all.
When has Barack Obama ever condemned Andres Serrano?
When has Barack Obama ever condemned Trey Parker and Matt Stone?
When has Barack Obama ever condemned Richard Dawkins?
As far as I'm aware, the President of the United States has never condemned any of those people ... nor should he.
Aug '10
Re: Did The President Attack The First Amendment Today, Or Was It An Attack on Blasphemy?
Another point:
Which definition does his audience hear when he uses that word?
Apr '12
Re: Did The President Attack The First Amendment Today, Or Was It An Attack on Blasphemy?
What we're seeing here is our Demagogue in Chief in damage control mode, worrying about losing a percent or two who think apologizing to terrorists instead of defending our Constitution is objectionable.
This is a smoke screen posing as doctrine and all the dupes will line up to inhale as much as they can.
Edited on September 25, 2012 at 9:56pmApr '11
Re: Did The President Attack The First Amendment Today, Or Was It An Attack on Blasphemy?
Any attempt to criminalize "blastphemy" would be a violation of the 1st Ammendment.
This is what I fear. That the times and attitudes of the people decide to make it criminal to speak against Islam in any way or form. This it the attitude of those in the Muslim Brotherhood.
Did not Morisi request the arrest of the film maker? Is it not the purpose of the MB to get everyone in the world to criminalize Islamaphobia or negative discussions of Islam? Is not this a tenent of Sharia law?
I think people should be sensative as part of good manners. But a law supporting this is one I would break on purpose. And if I don't, I will be part of the problem and supporting the ending free speech in this nation.
Nov '10
Re: Did The President Attack The First Amendment Today, Or Was It An Attack on Blasphemy?
At first I thought you were right, Tommy. Then I reread the passage, and this is what jumped out at me:
There is an equation here between those who criticize Mohammed and those who destroy churches or deny the Holocaust, as though Muslims had an equal amount to fear from their enemies as we have to fear from some Muslims. That is just wrong. Those same people who destroy churches also kill Christians and Jews, and to act as though the two groups are morally equivalent is just wrong.
Feb '11
Re: Did The President Attack The First Amendment Today, Or Was It An Attack on Blasphemy?
Why should *religion* be more protected from offensive speech than any other belief system...and what, precisely, qualifies as a religion? If we mock the extreme-environmentalist believers in a conscious Gaia, are we committing blasphemy? How about believers in astrology, or magical crystals? How about Nazi believers in the ancient Teutonic gods?
And why should beliefs with a supernatural belief content receive more protection than comprehensive but non-supernatural belief systems? A dedicated Marxist has as much emotional investment in his beliefs as does a fundamentalist Baptist or an extreme Muslim.
Sep '10
Re: Did The President Attack The First Amendment Today, Or Was It An Attack on Blasphemy?
KC Mulville: ... Islamic fanatics killed our ambassador two weeks ago, and Obama's response is to reject intolerance, and question where the roots of Islamic rage come from?
Peace through therapy. · 22 minutes ago
Apparently Obama has never heard of the will to power—in the case of jihadists, absolute power. For someone who thinks of himself as being extremely well-read, the president is sorely lacking in an understanding of basic human psychology.
Aug '10
Re: Did The President Attack The First Amendment Today, Or Was It An Attack on Blasphemy?
"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam."
True, taking this sentence out of context makes it sound creepy, and seemingly ammunition for those who believe the president is a closet Muslim. In context, it reads differently.
And I applaud the president for the sentence that follows the one above: "Yet to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see when the image of Jesus Christ is desecrated, churches are destroyed, or the Holocaust is denied."
However, this is the more important point: Earlier, the president stated, "The future must not belong to those who target Coptic Christians in Egypt..."
Do you see what he did here? He created a false equivalence. The future must not belong to (1) those who discriminate against, attack, and brutalize Coptic Christians, treating them like second-class citizens and worse; and the future also must not belong to (2) those who make rude comments, videos, cartoons, etc. about Muhammed or Islam.
The actions described in (1) and (2) are not remotely similar.
Edited on September 25, 2012 at 10:09pmRe: Did The President Attack The First Amendment Today, Or Was It An Attack on Blasphemy?
The thought being put into the analysis in this thread is amazing. More ways to look at this than I could have imagined.
I'm in awe of the Ricochet membership!