Saturday, September 11, 2010
Pastor Terry Jones and President Obama
Charles Lane in the Washington Post argues that President Obama should not have put pressure on Pastor Jones to terminate his plans to burn copies of the Koran. Obama's worry is that a bonfire of this character would trigger Muslim violence. Lane thinks instead that Obama should have condemned the Pastor's actions and envouraged Muslims everywhere not to engage in reactive violence. Lane thinks that Obama should have celebrated the First Amendment right to engage in speech condemned by the majority.
Lane does not maintain that Obama has violated the First Amendment by his speech. My own view is that Obama should spend more time condemning Republicans for turning Muslims into scapegoats in order to curry political advantage. But I cannot resist saying that Obama's continued war in Afghanistan has done more to antagonize Muslims than Pastor Jones could ever do. Obama is not in any position to try to lead Muslims around the world to forgo reactive violence.
cross-posted at religiousleftlaw.com
https://mirrorofjustice.blogs.com/mirrorofjustice/2010/09/past.html
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the
comment feed
for this post.
Lane's position seems fine to me as long as you don't consider the fact that there may indeed have been many negative consequences (including lost lives) if the Qu'ran burning had taken place. I don't think Defense Secretary Gates told Jones that he would be putting the lives of American at risk troops because he merely thought it might persuade Jones. I think he said it because he meant it. Obama and his administration are much more likely to be able to persuade an American citizen not to do something extraordinarily provocative than they are likely to be able to persuade Muslims in places like Afghanistan not to react to the provocation.
Has anybody done a comparison of the freedom to build a mosque near ground zero to the freedom to burn the Qu'ran?