|
Edited on Sun Aug-15-10 12:20 AM by Smarmie Doofus
>>>>>I agree that most people took fourth grade civics and probably understand the general concept of separation of church and state. They may not always like it but they are well used to it.
If you are right about that, then it helps to confirm my position that it is unnecessary for the President to get involved. His speechifying is not really needed to achieve the correct outcome. People can rant and rave about "Islam taking over", but since about the 4th grade they've known that this kind of anger is futile. Local authorities aren't trying to prevent the construction of the mosque - Mayor Bloomberg supports it and the paperwork has been completed without any hurdles or hitches thrown in the way. I am not hearing anything, nor expect to hear, about courts getting in the way - what law would be the basis for a suit? Congress is in Democratic hands which means we're safe from patently unconstitutional bills being rushed through to scapegoat minority groups -right? >>>>>>>>>
.....to build on the site.
>>>>Where's the crisis? Who's standing in the schoolhouse doorway? What necessitates the President exerting his leadership in this case? The thing is going to be built no matter if Obama speaks about it, or if instead he takes the next two and half years off for a golfing vacation in Borneo. 70% of Americans may be pissed off about it, but it's going to be built.>>>
There is no "crisis" in the sense you are using he word.
>>>>>Most people do understand the general concept of separation of church and state, at least in the sense that they understand it is not going away. Which is why so many people can be so disapproving and angry about the mosque being built near the Ground Zero site without there being any visible, emergency-basis, legislative, judicial, or bureaucratic barricades being thrown up in its path. We have rules to follow, and one of the big ones is that the rules apply to everyone equally - without distinction made among groups like religion. Even the people who think their religion ought to be followed by everyone are used to the way 1st amendment religious freedom constrains "freedom" of religious bigotry to strike out. Perhaps because they know they are constrained from acting through the state, they just like to get hopping mad about it and utter dire predictions about "what this all portends" on Fox news and AM radio. And that's what will happen with the mosque. It will be built, stupid people will foam at the mouth, nothing will happen to justify their ranting, and eventually all the furious people will get used to it. In five or six years, most of them won't even remember it or how angry they were.>>>>
It's hard to know where this will lead. You speculate in one direction. You may be right . One can just as easily speculate the opposite. Republicans like Gingrich are betting they can exploit prejudice and misunderstanding of various facets of the issue to inflame passions and to score political points. Gingrich is not stupid. If he thinks he can exploit an issue successfully there is a good possibility he is correct.
>>>> Meanwhile, in the shorter term, Pres. Obama may attract a lot of that anger and suspicion people feel about the mosque onto himself - and unnecessarily so, since it will be built whether he associates himself with it or not. There is no practical object to gain, since the object is already assured. But there is a risk of damage to him since, well, his name is Barack Hussein Obama.>>>>>
There is such a thing as appealing to the better nature of people. You agree that folksDO understand that separation of church and state is, in general, a *good* thing... or at least a *constitutional* thing. The "practical" gain would be in actually CONNECTING THE DOTS for folks who know their 4th grade civics yet who are eating up spurious disinfo about the nature of the project. And may see or a feel a disconnect between the consitutional separation of church and state as an abstract principal and it's applicaion to a religion that they object to on a purely visceral level. We don't always listen to our brains; we listen often to our heart and sometimes with our *spleen*.
>>>>And at the same time, there are other causes for liberty and equality that Obama is ignoring where his voice and leadership is definitely required. Gay and lesbian citizens are being denied their equal rights. The President can and ought to speak on their behalf. There is a political risk for him in doing that, but unlike the mosque issue, there is a practical object to gain by taking that risk. The rules aren't being applied evenly for gay people, and unless action is taken they won't be. High caliber leadership is needed for the object to be won; the President cannot take the rest of his term off for golf trips and be sure that the objective will be achieved in his absence. Gay people are not on track to just automatically receive their rights, "if they will just be patient," without political intervention. The rules protect the equal freedom mosque builders, but exceptions to the rules have been written to deny equal freedom to gay people and those exceptions must be erased. And unlike the mosque issue, Obama's standing to speak is under no cloud of hidden bias or favoritism, Sekrit or overt. (Granted though, no matter who you are in American politics there is at least one nutcase out there who insists you are a closeted homosexual. Nevertheless it is safe to say that no visible % of the population exists that claims Obama is secretly gay, while there is a measurable & very vocal fringe who assert that he is in some secret way a Muslim and/or a Kenyan impostor. That fringe will react to his mosque advocacy by saying "Of course he would say that, he's one of them, as we've warned all along!" Advocating the rights of gay and lesbian citizens, however, presents no such danger for Obama.) And the President is already involved as the custodian of policies that discriminate against gays and lesbians. He can't say this has nothing to do with my office, powers or policies. So where's his voice and leadership? He seems to be dreaming about a long golf trip.>>>>.
only>>>>
It's not either/or. He can advocate on both issues; or on one only ; or on the other. Last I heard he was actually *opposed* to marriage equality. So frankly, assuming this is still his sentiment, I'm glad he's not taking the bully pulpit on the issue. As his position on the "mosque" is both more progressive and more just, I welcome his involvement . Perhaps his silence on marriage equality and other GLBT issues is a hint that his private sentiments are at odds with his public pronouncements. I hope so.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
