Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
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:
Published in GeneralThe 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.
So, a Christian who tries to convert Muslims deserve to die? ·3 hours ago
Hold on now – blasphemy is not the same as rejection.
Blasphemy is intentionally insulting.
Every day that a Jews does not accept Jesus as his Lord and Savior he is rejecting Christianity. That does not mean he is guilty of Blasphemy against Christianity.
Tommy; the biggest problem with the whole statement is it is his standard issue equivocating across an incredibly wide spectrum; slander of religion, education of girls, wealth and prosperity for all but from those who ‘can’ to those who ‘need’. This is all pablum for the pseudo-intellectual, say grand things and stand for nothing actually. Agree or disagree with the person but the statements and beliefs of Gandhi or Martin Luther King were backed by actions that they were willing to take risks to achieve… and this ‘President’, it appears he mostly likes to hear himself speak.
When actual world events are in play where is he? Leading from behind? Look at his political record, if you can find it… he stands for what? As Shakespeare stated: ‘It is a tale Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing.’
The President’s comment “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” sounds like it was taken directly from the documentary “2016 Obama’s America” with regards to the anti-colonial dreams the President adopted from his biological father.
The movie makes clear that Obama, Sr. hated the British colonial rule of Kenya and a young BHO adopted his father’s attitude and it is still driving him and his policies.
So, a Christian who tries to convert Muslims deserve to die? ·3 hours ago
Hold on now – blasphemy is not the same as rejection.
Blasphemy is intentionally insulting.
Every day that a Jews does not accept Jesus as his Lord and Savior he is rejecting Christianity. That does not mean he is guilty of Blasphemy against Christianity. ·1 hour ago
I don’t mean to be overly fussy, Sweet and Low, but when you deleted every word of my comment from your reply, to avoid confusion you should have removed my name from it as well. There’s nothing in the above thread that contains or reflects my words.
So, a Christian who tries to convert Muslims deserve to die? ·3 hours ago
Hold on now – blasphemy is not the same as rejection.
Blasphemy is intentionally insulting.
Crucially, Islam considers conversion from Islam to any other religion to be blasphemy, as well as any form of witnessing to or “proselytizing” Muslims (at least in many/most of the majority Muslim countries). So just because you don’t think this constitutes blasphemy, that doesn’t mean that the people at whom this speech was largely directed agree with you.
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?
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
What does it portend? More portentous rhetoric with zero effect on action, or lack thereof.
There are two things that concern me:
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.
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?
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.
Another point:
Which definition does his audience hear when he uses that word?
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.
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.
Many have lost sight of the trees for the forest.
The question should not be about what one boorish lout said about another; it should be about what reaction to the lout is tolerated by society.
When extremists desecrate American icons, it is not tolerable to Americans for a response such as burning an embassy or murdering an ambassador. Such response should be equally intolerable anywhere in the civilized world. Recent events have shown that barbaric behavior is acceptable in some quarters.
It is not up to civilized peoples to cower in fear of extremists. Civilized people do not appease barbarians in hopes the appeasement will beget civility. That has never worked. Civilized people have strength, and realize that the fight against barbarism and tyranny is never-ending.
The suggestion by Libya that American religious freedom should be impinged because of Libya’s inability to maintain order is frightening. Libya has had significant influence on the civilized world for centuries, but its current influence does not encourage civility. The bullies must be stopped. Libyan culture must act civilly, and require the same behavior from all their people.
Obama’s suggestion that Americans even consider appeasing terrorists is frightening.
Obama’s particular choice of words, “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam”, go beyond what any non-Muslim should ever say, even if followed by some boilerplate about tolerance for everyone. They are precisely the words a triumphalist Muslim zealot would choose, and will be repeated by triumphalist Muslim zealots everywhere. Triumphally.
It’s not Obama’s job, or any non-Muslim’s job, to defend Islam against attack, when the big issue is the violent excesses of Muslims defending their own religion. The big problem in the world isn’t intolerance of Muslims, which is almost always limited to speech, it’s intolerance by Muslims, which is frequently expressed through murderous rage. The only religious conflict of world-wide significance today is the conflict between Muslims and everybody else (including the wrong kinds of Muslims). And they picked that fight, not us.
Oh, for a president who doesn’t feel the need to maintain at all costs the fiction of symmetry and equality between radical Islam and its enemies.
The big problem in the world isn’t intolerance of Muslims, which is almost always limited to speech, it’s intolerance by Muslims, which is frequently expressed through murderous rage.
You’ve stated the issue perfectly.