They aren't trying to do it, just say that it should be done. Typical Foxite behavior- make an unreasonable claim of what the president 'should' do that pushes emotional buttons but is also so extreem they can hold his feet to the fire for doing it as easilly as for not doing it.
While there are certainly racists amongst the protesters (witness their harrassing a christian construction worker of possible middle eastern descent) the primary fomr of xenophobia is religiously rather than racially intollerant.

This is a fascinating article.  Apparently, even the U.S. under Obama is effectively finding that Islam has a privileged status over other religions in the U.S.:

http://www.danielpipes.org/8881/rushdie-rules-florida

This is a chilling and hypocritical line:

"Sharia [ISLAMIC LAW] denigrates the sanctities of other religions, a tradition manifested in recent years by the destruction of the Buddhist Bamiyan statues and the desecration of the Jewish Tomb of Joseph and the Christian Church of the Nativity. A 2003 decree ruled the Bible suitable for use by Muslims when cleaning after defecation. Iranian authorities reportedly burned hundreds of Bibles in May. This imbalance, whereby Islam enjoys immunity and other religions are disparaged, has long prevailed in Muslim-majority countries."

And this is a very interesting corollary article to that one:

http://www.danielpipes.org/blo...-torah-new-testament
This message was last edited by the GM at 22:53, Tue 21 Sept 2010.

...

Obama ASKED Pastor Jones not to hold the book burning.

Operative word being asked.

The words not present are 'enacted legislation against' 'Sent in police to arrest' or 'sent in troops to stop'.

ASKED.

Apparently, the blogger you quoted seems to think that ASKED means something that it doesn't. I suspect idiocy on his part is the reason.

The "blogger" you claim is an idiot is:

"Mr. Pipes is director of the Middle East Forum and Taube distinguished visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University."

The point is not whether Obama used his power; the point is that he tried to use his influence as president to discourage someone from exercising his free speech rights, rather than try to protect the person's free speech rights and discouraging the Muslims from taking violent action against him for exercising those rights.

I am not aware of Obama trying to use his influence to discourage others from exercising their free speech rights.  Therefore, he indirectly condoned the Islam belief that their religion deserves special treatment over other religions.

And I'm sure that fact that the inflamatory actio could have endangered US troops in teh middle east was completely irrelevant in *asking* someone to refrain from burning the Koran...

"Mr. Pipes is director of the Middle East Forum and Taube distinguished visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University."

He thinks asked is the same as ordered. That's reason enough for me to doubt his intellect.

The point is not whether Obama used his power; the point is that he tried to use his influence as president to discourage someone from exercising his free speech rights,

Please tell me where in the US Constitution it states that asking someone not to do something violates their first ammendment rights.

Seriously: Tell me where it says that, tell me how you can possibly come to that conclusion from the constitution?

I am not aware of Obama trying to use his influence to discourage others from exercising their free speech rights.  Therefore, he indirectly condoned the Islam belief that their religion deserves special treatment over other religions.

He didn't use his influence. He asked him not to. Along with every other sane person in the US government.

So asking someone to not burn the Koran because it could endanger our troops and *not* asking people *in another country* to stop burning the bible which has no impact on US government interests is indirect support of Islam over other religions?

Then what must be the degree of signifigance to swearing in on a bible, a much more overt and direct support of a single religion over all others with no tactical justification in the maner of operations of the US government?

That the president is more likely to persuade someone not to do something by asking them than a random stranger hasn't a thing to do with whether or not someone is being forced to do something or not.

You can't take away someone's rights with an argument, nor are their rights taken away if you persuade them not to do something they otherwise would have.

Someone's freedom of speech isn't taken away just because I might manage to change their mind, whether because I have a particularly effective argument or my gives me more weight in the person's eyes.
This message was last edited by the GM at 06:41, Wed 22 Sept 2010.

Just from what I've read here, I'd have to side with Obama.

Yes, might a request from the PotUS come across as a bit more than asking nicely? Might it be construed as an order? Sure. That seems reasonable. However, the president has no power to do more than talk in this case. I can understand the pastor being intimidated, but there's no law against someone of higher political rank asking someone of lower political rank to do something - nor against that person accepting or refusing. Frankly, if the pastor was concerned about intimidation, he probably shouldn't have undertaken a highly controversial course of action in the first place.

Obama has now given the pastor a way to back down from his promise while saving face. That's good for everyone. The pastor can say "I disagree with Obama, but I respect him and I will voluntarily put this down, out of respect for his representation of the people, and the best information regarding the health of the troops."

Obama has also encouraged us, American citizens, to be the good guys. Even if we aren't all Christian by creed, I'd like it if we could all be Christian by behavior, and that means turning the other cheek. Other people behaving like animals does not justify our doing so. We should behave like noble, intelligent people, whether we're getting mud thrown at us or not. I can understand the pastor's position, and his motivations. But I don't think an eye for an eye would work, help our position, or show our best side. So I thank Obama for trying to keep us noble.

And yes, he did it by making a personal plea, and I appreciate that. He didn't enact special 9/11 powers or pass legislation. He didn't infringe on anyone's rights or liberties. The pastor can still say no. The with-holding of power is an excellent move.

And in the end, if the pastor burns the Koran anyway, we as a nation will still look a little better. Obama has said 'we do not all support this - but we all support the freedom of all of our citizens. Even the will of the president bows to the will of the citizens.' That's a strong statement.

I'm not sure what silveroak and falkus are reading into what I posted, but I never suggested there was any violation of first amendment rights at all.

What I suggested (or what the article actually suggested) is that when Obama discourages one religious person from doing something that would inflame another religious organization, yet does not discourage the other religion from doing the same types (or worse) things, then he is elevating one religion to a status of superiority over the other.

What the article intimates is that Obama would be better to send troops or ask the state to send police officers to protect the strange Christian guy's intent to burn a Koran, rather than tell the guy he shouldn't do it.  The former would show that we protect his first amendment rights; the latter demonstrates that, although he has the rights, the government would rather he not exercise them.

---

Now, I'm curious as to the argument that this lone wolf's actions would somehow endanger the troops.  What's ironic is that the troops are out there fighting for the freedom to do this kind of thing...the kind of thing Obama is telling him not to do.

And what's hypocritical is that Obama has allowed many things to go forward, even supporting them, that have put our troops in harm's way, yet this one pastor out there is worthy of Obama getting personally involved.  I think not.

---

My personal opinion is that this guy is a nut job and extremely disrespectful for burning the holy book of another religion.  He has the right to do it, and we have the right to condemn him for disrepectful actions.  But whether the government should get involved, by persuasion or force, is highly questionable.

A lone wolf that the Media decided to squeeze blood out of for views.  If it had been like the 9/11 Christian Center, then nobody would even be talking about it because the media isn't paying attention to it.

As for Obama; sometimes Obama's representing the government, and sometimes he's just calling Kanye West an asshole.  This is obviously the latter, only he's commenting on something we're taking a bit more seriously.

The state was posting police officers around the area of the Koran Burning, anyways, or so I heard on the BBC Radio (which I'm only able to listen to when I happen to be in Lacey, the reception cuts off near where I live and is replaced by a Country station).

EDIT: Although, so I heard, he chickened out of it at the last minute.
This message was last edited by the GM at 17:43, Wed 22 Sept 2010.

I agree with this.  I'm just wondering if it REALLY puts our troops in more harm's way, and if it does, why does Obama harp on this issue to give it legitimacy rather than ignore it like he does other controversies.  For example, he really waffled over the whole mosque in New York issue.


I disagree 100%.  He is wearing his cloak of office.  He is speaking as the president and, therefore, as our representative.


And this is what Obama should have been supporting to protect his rights, regardless of how stupid and disrespectful his actions are.

---

This is not a big issue to me personally.  I am just noting the discrepancy with how we treat Islam (and particularly, its critics) in a different way we treat other religions.  True, no one's going to get death threats for burning a Book of Mormon...but the philosophical and intellectual issue is this:  must religions threaten violence in order to get respect and force others to be respectful...even to the point of getting the government involved?  It certainly should not be that way.  The government should be standing up for the individual, not the religion that threatens violence.

Funny, I thought Falkus and Silveroak would have agreed with me on this issue.

Except that the article is comparing an American citizen vs. non-American citizens. If you think Obama should send out a general call to non-American citizens to not engage in foolish or nasty behavior, I'm all for that, but I'm not going to look down on Obama for not doing it.



1) There's a difference between defending a right, and a stupid exercise of a right. I think the pastor's actions were a stupid exercise of the right. Obama (and most people) clearly prefer he not exercise the right in that way - but no one is complaining that he's saying muslims are doing evil things or whatnot. Obama is not telling him not to exercise is 1A rights - just not to exercise them precisely like that.

2) Obama asked him as an individual, without using any government power. To protect him with police officers would be using government power. Not saying that behavior is wrong, but you can't simply compare them as though they're two sides of the same coin. One reaction is on a completely different scale from the other.

3) I don't find the positions mutually exclusive. One can say 'please don't do this. It's very foolish', but still say 'okay, you're going to do this. I guess I better do what I can to keep you alive'. I would expect that the Florida government (since they have jurisdiction - the feds don't) would take all reasonable measures to keep the pastor safe if he decided to pursue that action.



Again, there's a difference between having freedom and using it to engage in foolish behavior.



I guess the question here is, how much of what Obama does is 'the government' and how much is 'an American citizen'? Under what circumstances should he not be able to use his sway of being a government celebrity? Should he not give a speech on behalf of animal shelters, because it's unfair government support?

When Obama speaks in the public eye, he is acting under the cloak of his authority if he is suggesting something.

For example, if Obama was not president, what he says would not matter much, but since he can command the attention of the media when he talks, he is under the cloak of his authority.

This is one reason he was so criticized for saying that the cop acted "stupidly" in that Harvard professor incident last year.  It's because he is speaking as "the President" when he opines in public and using the mantle of his authority to persuade people--what the article refers to as "pressure."

Regarding your point that it is talking about Americans vs. Non-Americans, I disagree with your reading of the article:

"The Obama administration has now joined this ignominious list. Its pressure on Mr. Jones further eroded freedom of speech about Islam and implicitly established Islam's privileged status in the United States, whereby Muslims may insult others but not be insulted."

Has Obama ever pressured any Islam groups to not insult other religions?  When Bush was president, he declared that these radical Muslims are "Islam's true enemies."  Obama, however, during press conferences, refuses to separate Islamic radicalists or call them "terrorists" or "Radical Islam."

See, for example:  http://sweetness-light.com/arc...-islam-from-strategy
and
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/287577
This message was last edited by the GM at 21:18, Wed 22 Sept 2010.

When Obama speaks in the public eye, he is acting under the cloak of his authority if he is suggesting something.

So in other words, what you're saying is that anybody in authority cannot express an opinion without violating someone's first amendment rights?

It's because he is speaking as "the President" when he opines in public and using the mantle of his authority to persuade people--what the article refers to as "pressure."

Actions speak louder than words. You can't claim, under any definition, that he is applying pressure unless he actually does something to try to shut said person up. He didn't do anything except express an opinion.

Honestly, it seems like you and the blogger are the ones who want to violate someone's first amendment rights.
This message was last edited by the player at 22:32, Wed 22 Sept 2010.

Again, that's not what I said.  I don't know where you're coming up with this violation of first amendment rights thing.  I never said anything like that.

All I said was that when he speaks publicly about an issue of public concern and tries to convince someone to do something publicly, he is very obviously doing it under the mantle of his authority...i.e., using his position of authority in government to sway the actions of private citizens.

Your second statement is completely false.  Any time you use your authority to try to convince someone to do something, then you are putting "pressure" on that person under the mantle of your authority to follow what you say.  It doesn't matter if you actually "do" something; putting pressure is, in fact, "doing" something.

And again, there's no first amendment issue here.  I don't know why you keep saying that.

You also seem to fail to understand the limitations of free speech.  An individual speaking in a public authority capacity does not have the same levels of freedom of speech as an individual speaking as a private individual.  (But I don't think those are really at issue here anyway, as I mentioned.)

Let's set religion aside for a second and look at the conflict metaphorically.
We have the right to burn the flag. Any flag, US, Brittish, Korean...
If US citizens wee to decidev that because the majority of the 9/11 hijackers were from Saudia Arabia they are going to start burning the Saudi flsg that is, technically their right.
In light of the fact that it might cause a country which is fairly strong in an alliance with us into a more hostile position, the president would be justified in asking people not to burn the Saudi flag in retaliation to the acts of a few Saudis.
Because when you get down to it this is the same situation- people aren't threatening to Burn the Koran in response to a refusal to recognize the divinity of Jesus, nor is the president asking for restraint in order to promote Islam. It's about politics involving religious groups.
Which is why the founding fathers wanted a wall of seperation between religion and politics in the first place.

...except that it is religion.

And the White House did not just urge him not to do it.  The White House was trying to find a way to stop him.  Unfortunately, his darned First Amendment rights got in the way and all he could do is urge him not to and raise an alarmist claim.

Now, I don't think Obama was necessarily wrong to try to urge him to stop.  What I think is wrong is when the same standard is not applied to other religions.  The problem is that it can't because other religions don't have the sense of jihad that these radicals have.  Therefore, it is an elevation of Islam above other religions by giving it a special status. Maybe that's not even the direct intent, but that's the point of the article regarding the Rushdie Rules, which have never been a part of American government until now.  So if you think the Rushdie Rules are fine, so be it.

Putting it another way:

Can anybody anywhere recall for me the last time Obama stood up for the right of any other religion than Islam?  Catholicism?  Judaism?  (He practically ruined our relationship with Israel.)  When has he stood up for Mormons?  Just look at how they tore into Mitt Romney and his Mormon beliefs during the election...as one example.

All I said was that when he speaks publicly about an issue of public concern and tries to convince someone to do something publicly, he is very obviously doing it under the mantle of his authority...i.e., using his position of authority in government to sway the actions of private citizens.

That doesn't change the fact that he's not actually using the authority of his position to do anything about it.

You also seem to fail to understand the limitations of free speech.  An individual speaking in a public authority capacity does not have the same levels of freedom of speech as an individual speaking as a private individual.  (But I don't think those are really at issue here anyway, as I mentioned.)

No. They actually do have the same level of freedom of speech. Rights apply equally to all people.

And the White House did not just urge him not to do it.  The White House was trying to find a way to stop him.

Care to provide a single shred of evidence supporting that rather bold statement?

What I think is wrong is when the same standard is not applied to other religions.

What standard? He's speaking out against a racist move that could have potentially volatile consequences elsewhere.

THAT IS IT.

There is nothing more to it than that. It is not about other religions. It's not about favoring Islam over everything else. It's about a racist asshole in Florida and a stupid thing he's doing that makes the United States look poor and spark volatile incidents elsewhere that could put American lives at risk.

That is all it's about. You and this guy have made this whole 'Islam superiority' thing up out of whole cloth.
This message was last edited by the player at 23:29, Wed 22 Sept 2010.

And to use my previous metaphor if people in Saudia Arabia are burning the US flag and the president asks US citizens not to burn the Saudi flag that is not elevating Saudia Arabia above the US. It's having a clue about what the reality of the situation is.
Same thing here. *Some* Muslims are burning the bible, and while we don't really appreciate the actions they also tend to be the same Muslims flying planes into buildings, which tends to be a much bigger problem. And they are telling other Muslims that america is a Christian nation that hates Islam.
And Fox News is telling America that we should be a Christian Nation that hates Islam. And this guy in Florida is threatening to burn the Koran...
but it isn't a buy in Florida threatening to burn the Koran versus a guy in Florida threatening to burn the bible. It's an American Christian threatening to burn the Koran and Iranian Muslim's burning the bible.
Iran acknowledges that it's state and it's religion are the same. The US does not. It's not Apples and Oranges, It's American Apple Pie Versus Iranian Fruitcakes. The comparisons are not equivelent nor that simplistic.

Heath, I feel like your argument is based on his stopping some behaviors, but not stopping others. But frankly, I can't think of a lot of situations in the US in the past four years where an American citizen said "I am going to do X hateful thing against X religion!", so I don't feel like saying Obama is showing favoritism is fair.

Well, there were no doubt quite a few of them, but not very many that could have severe, second order consequences on an international scale.

Just a quick reminder, hypocritically made or not:

Remember to critique the argument, not the arguer please.

EDIT: Not aimed at anyone in particular, just thought I'd add that; I'm just sensing a mood might be arising.
This message was last edited by the GM at 05:02, Thu 23 Sept 2010.

I've skimmed over the last few pages of posts, but didn't have time to read the links.  Am I correct in thinking that Heath is suggesting that:
A) Obama was wrong to ask the crazy florida pastor not to burn korans, because that could be taken as showing favoritism islam (since Obama didn't ask anybody not to burn bibles or books of Mormon at the same time), and
B) that Obama was wrong to have NOT sent in federal troops to protect the crazy florida pastor while he exercised his first amendment right to burn korans?

If so, doesn't it seem possible, given how easily "hey, please don't burn korans" was misinterpretted, that "okay, we'll send an army unit down there to keep you safe" might be interpreted as an endorsement of burning the koran?  I just don't see how we could, on the one hand, not expect people to tell the difference between "please don't burn korans" and "the US favors Islam over all other religions," but on the other hand expect them to understand few armed escorts and protection for this guy (that, remember, aren't being given to everyone else) isn't an endorsement of his views.

Really, it comes off as an "Obama did it, so it must be wrong" type argument.  Are we really so polarized that we feel the need to insult the president for asking a crazy person not to be a jerk?

Contrast this with the islamic center in NYC.  In that case the president has been scolded for NOT asking the religious to consider the views of others.  When he says they have their right to build on their own property, people get angry at him for NOT pushing them to move elsewhere.  But in the case of a florida pastor wanting to burn korans, the president is now being insulted for not sending in the national guard to keep him safe?  I'm not sure how much is anti-obama thinking, and how much is anti-islam thinking, but it seems like consistency has been thrown out the window here.