"The President is not backing off in any way"

[sandnsea]

Keep in mind, the government cannot take a position on a specific religion, for or against. If you don't understand that, then you're as bad as the teabaggers.

Statement from Bill Burton, earlier today.

"Just to be clear, the President is not backing off in any way from the comments he made last night.
It is not his role as President to pass judgment on every local project.

"But it is his responsibility to stand up for the Constitutional principle of religious freedom and equal treatment for all Americans.
What he said last night, and reaffirmed today, is that If a church, a synagogue or a Hindu temple can be built on a site, you simply cannot deny that right to those who want to build a Mosque.

"The World Trade Center site is hallowed ground, where 3000 Americans-Catholics, Protestants, Jews and Muslims were the victims of a cold-blooded massacre. We are still at war with the small band of terrorists who planned and executed that attack.
But that does not give government the right to deny law-abiding Americans of one faith the same rights you would accord anyone else."

[Jackpine Radical]

1. K&R.

Credit where it's due.

Obama did the right thing here.

[rufus dog]

6. good job

when one gives credit then criticism is validated as not being pure reaction.

[firedupdem]

2. K&R

Thank You.

[bahrbearian]

3. He is just being a pragmatic moon walker.

[Clio the Leo]

4. He's too nuanced for the average person.

And he gives the average voter ... or reporter in this case .... too much benefit of the doubt.

[Skittles]

5. yeah, that's what it is

:rofl:

[CBR]

14. People who see everything in black and white only understand that language. nt

[stevenleser]

18. Agreed. It's really simple for people who can understand written and spoken English

Statement #1 - I uncatagorically support Group A's right to do X.

Statement #2 - I have no opinion on whether Group A SHOULD do X.

Statement #1 has to do with constitutionality and rights. Something in which a President should be involved.

Statement #2 has to do with all sorts of things like:

A. Are there enough worshippers to support the Mosque at that location

B. Would it make better sense to have the Mosque someplace else.

and thus what Obama is being asked to comment on vis-a-vis statement #2 is no business of the President.

Criticism of Obama here is a knee-jerk reaction by those who both desperately want to criticize him and whose reading comprehension skills are either deficient or intentionally turned off.

[sandnsea]

22. It's a little more than that

A President should never interfere with a religious place of worship, for or against. In fact, Paterson shouldn't have done it. Government issues building permits and that's it.

[Clio the Leo]

25. If EVERYONE was as even-handed as he has been there wouldn't be a problem.

It's my fellow (so called) Christians acting like we're the only ones entitled to protection under the 1st Amendment who are creating the problem.

The President (has have those who came before him) hosts religious observances at the WH all the time and they're non-events. It's only a small group of wingnuts are blatantly disregarding the very Constitution they wave around like a battle flag who are causing the problem.

[ZombieHorde]

7. Recommended. nt

[keep_it_real]

8. "The World Trade Center site is hallowed ground . . .

. . . where 3000 Americans-Catholics, Protestants, Jews and Muslims were the victims of a cold-blooded massacre."

1 : holy, consecrated <the church stands on hallowed ground>
2 : sacred, revered <the university's hallowed halls> <hallowed customs>
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hallowed

The World Trade Center site is hallowed ground why do they want to build another business site on top of it? Why not build a nice park containing a monument to the 3000 victims that made the site hallowed ground where people can go and reflect? And not trample over the "hallow-ness" of the ground with another business skyscraper?

I guess selling office space trumps the respect for the "hallow-ness" of the ground there?

Maybe I'm just superstitious but it doesn't seem right.

[Phx_Dem]

9. Good poiint. n/t

[sandnsea]

10. They are

That's why it's taking so long to get anything on the location. They can't get all the parties to agree to a plan.

I'm disgusted it hasn't been rebuilt by now. Just shows how paralyzed we have become in this country. We can't sit around doing nothing until every single person has a happy face on.

[rucky]

17. The site for the Community Center is 2 blocks away from ground zero.

I know everybody keeps saying Ground Zero, but that's because this is another manufactured controversy - and they controlled the language, and nobody challenged it. Some articles even say "ground zero" in the headline, but describe it correctly in the body:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/abraham-h-foxman/the-mosque-at-ground-zero_b_668020.html

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/05/07/new.york.ground.zero.mosque/index.html

http://volokh.com/2010/08/09/ground-zero-mosque-actually-two-blocks-from-ground-zero-mosque/

[Clio the Leo]

26. Because we're Americans. When we get knocked down, we get back up...

... and come back stronger than before.

Obviously, there's no unity of thought on the matter, but I say this as someone who lost a friend at the WTC, one who's remains were never found.

[hootinholler]

29. Well it's hollow ground right now. n/t

[Douglas Carpenter]

11. kick and recommend!!

[S_E_Fudd]

12. The second statement was politically tone deaf...

He finally was garnering praise on the left for taking an unambiguous stand on an issue, then he undercuts it with his second statement. When you have to have your spokesman point out the nuanced difference between statements it loses all its impact...

The fact is the neanderthal bigots opposing this center have conceded the "right" to build it, they are simply trying to intimidate the muslim group out of building it. Obama's first statement seemed designed to give support to those opposing this intimidation. His second statement undercut that...

He should have let his initial statement stand on its own and not said anything else on the subject...

[boston bean]

13. He sounds just like all the RWers.

They also believe that they have a right to build the mosque. The constitution allows for it, as it should.

The RW has a problem with the wisdom of it being built there.

So, just how principled is his stand against the RW?

[CBR]

15. ...

[fogonthelake]

16. Obama did not say they should or should not-his updated

his statement yesterday. So, I guess in that instance Obama is not taking a stand against the RW (or those who do not want it build).

[sandnsea]

20. The government can't advocate for a specific religion

What part of that do you just not understand?

[Kahuna]

19. K&R! nt

[Scurrilous]

21. K & R

:thumbsup:

[John Agar]

23. He should have stuck to the original statement.

No need for any kind of "clarification."

Most of us admire leaders who stick to their convictions.

[bvar22]

24. I agree.

There was no need for clarification.
I waste a perfectly good Pro Obama Post yesterday commending him for Taking a Clear Stand on a politically unpopular issue.
Today's "clarification" pulls back into the mushy, ambiguous Middle.

[Clio the Leo]

27. I wish we could hear the question...

.... without knowing what he was responding to, his answer is almost meaningless.

[SocialLib]

28. Absolutely NO ONE denies they have the legal right to build there

The question is, are they being sensitive to the significance of what took place there ? What do you think ?