In his press conference today, President Obama made his most extensive comments yet on the Quran-burning event controversy. The comments were in reaction to a question from ABC News' Jake Tapper about whether having the secretary of defense call Pastor Terry Jones in an effort to dissuade him from going through with the event was elevating a fringe figure.
Obama replied that the pastor was already getting massive media coverage. "I hardly think we're the ones who elevated this story," he said.
He also repeated several of the arguments made by other critics of the planned burning (which at press time may or may not still be scheduled): It would inflame Muslim passions, potentially endanger U.S. troops, and could lead to copycat incidents.
But Obama also began his comments with a statement that was somewhat startling, at least coming from a supposedly progressive Democrat:
With respect to the individual down in Florida, let me just say "” well, let me repeat what I said a couple of days ago: The idea that we would burn the sacred texts of someone else's religion is contrary to what this country stands for. It's contrary to what this country "” this nation was founded on.
That seems "” to Capital Hill at least "” to be at odds with the whole notion of religious freedom and First Amendment principles that liberals have pushed in recent decades. Burning a Quran in public may indeed be a bad idea for all of the reasons the president cited (not to mention rude and disrespectful to moderate Muslims), but is it really "contrary to what this country stands for," as he says? Isn't freedom of expression a core principle of this country? Even if others are offended by that expression?
Obama was speaking off-the-cuff, so it's possible he didn't intend to make such a broad, sweeping statement. Still, didn't we go through a long series of cultural and political debates on this matter in the 80s and 90s and generally agree that freedom of expression was where we stood? Even if that expression might a offend a few? Didn't liberals used to be fond of quoting the saying, "I may disagree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it"?
That was, of course, back when the censors were mostly America's social conservatives "” that is, mainly the Christian right. For all the fuss those groups kicked up over obscene or anti-religious art, books, movies, TV shows or other provocations, they were pretty toothless when it came to actually stopping them. When the courts rejected the objections of the social conservatives, they had no other options, because they abided by the law. Meanwhile, for many on the left, condemnation by the social right became a badge of honor and even a career boost.
The objections by Muslim radicals on the other hand are backed by the very real threat of violence, if not here, then against Americans abroad, especially those in the military, as Obama himself has affirmed. That is why the Koran-burning event has so many worried. As atheist Christopher Hitchens noted a few years back:
When I check into a hotel room and send my free and unsolicited copy of the Gideon Bible or the Book of Mormon spinning out of the window, I infringe no law, except perhaps the one concerning litter. Why do we not make this distinction in the case of the Quran? We do so simply out of fear, and because the fanatical believers in that particular holy book have proved time and again that they mean business when it comes to intimidation. Surely that should be to their discredit rather than their credit.
That fear is not to be sniffed at and remains the main argument against Pastor Jones' stunt. But for a country that likes to call itself "the land of the free and the home of the brave," we should at least be a little more upfront about why we are so worried. And we should not label the exercise of free expression "” no matter how obnoxious "” as "contrary to what this country stands for."
Subscribe to IBD's Capital Hill news feed
Read Full Article »
