On the subject of religious freedom—while addressing adherents of a religion that quite explicitly condemns unbelievers to death—Obama mostly talked about the alleged failures of religious freedom in the West, including our failure to sufficiently accommodate the religious strictures of devout Muslims.
We must always examine the ways in which we protect [religious freedom]. For instance, in the United States, rules on charitable giving have made it harder for Muslims to fulfill their religious obligation. That is why I am committed to working with American Muslims to ensure that they can fulfill zakat.
Likewise, it is important for Western countries to avoid impeding Muslim citizens from practicing religion as they see fit—for instance, by dictating what clothes a Muslim woman should wear [i.e., restriction on girls wearing Muslim headscarves in public schools]. We cannot disguise hostility towards any religion behind the pretence of liberalism.
Funny he should mention the hijab. When addressing adherents of a religion in which girls are regularly forced to cover their heads and faces, barred from school, traded away in arranged marriages, and murdered by their own parents for the suspicion of violating their family's "honor"—a religion in which prominent imams issue guides for the proper way to beat one's wife—this is what President Obama had to say on the subject of women's rights:
Now let me be clear: issues of women's equality are by no means simply an issue for Islam. In Turkey, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Indonesia, we have seen Muslim-majority countries elect a woman to lead. Meanwhile, the struggle for women's equality continues in many aspects of American life, and in countries around the world.
As a regular reader of the updates sent out by the Middle East Media Research Institute, I have heard far better, more hard-hitting criticisms of Islam and far more extensive and sincere praise of the West from Arab and Muslim intellectuals than we just heard from our own president, who is supposed to be a champion of our values.
But the essence of Obama's speech turned out to be something different. It was not a sin of commission, but a sin of omission. The theme of Obama's speech is: there is nothing special about America.
Here is the best thing President Obama had to say about the nation he leads.
I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear. But that same principle must apply to Muslim perceptions of America. Just as Muslims do not fit a crude stereotype, America is not the crude stereotype of a self-interested empire. The United States has been one of the greatest sources of progress that the world has ever known. We were born out of revolution against an empire. We were founded upon the ideal that all are created equal, and we have shed blood and struggled for centuries to give meaning to those words—within our borders, and around the world. We are shaped by every culture, drawn from every end of the Earth, and dedicated to a simple concept: E pluribus unum: "Out of many, one."
America certainly has been "one of the greatest sources of progress that the world has ever known." But what is the essence of that progress? The only things Obama names are that we stand for equality and unity. What about that actual value that is most distinctive to America—liberty?
Well, here is what President Obama had to say about what America stands for:
I believe that America holds within her the truth that regardless of race, religion, or station in life, all of us share common aspirations—to live in peace and security; to get an education and to work with dignity; to love our families, our communities, and our God. These things we share. This is the hope of all humanity.
If this bland, anodyne collection of bromides is all that America stands for, then American doesn't stand for anything. It has no unique importance among nations and no special role to play in the world. And that is precisely the conclusion Obama draws. Since America is not exceptional in the world, it should not act as if it is exceptional.
[H]uman history has often been a record of nations and tribes subjugating one another to serve their own interests. Yet in this new age, such attitudes are self-defeating. Given our interdependence, any world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will inevitably fail. So whatever we think of the past, we must not be prisoners of it. Our problems must be dealt with through partnership; progress must be shared.
Or, regarding the Iranian nuclear program, he adds:
I understand those who protest that some countries have weapons that others do not. No single nation should pick and choose which nations hold nuclear weapons. That is why I strongly reaffirmed America's commitment to seek a world in which no nations hold nuclear weapons.
This is why Barack Obama responds to North Korean and Iranian nuclear programs with proposals for the disarmament of the US and Israel. To do otherwise, he would have to say that free nations have a right to nuclear weapons and murderous dictatorships do not.
This approach—the idea that America is just one nation among many—contributes to the theme of moral equivalency that runs throughout the speech. And nowhere is this theme clearer than in Obama's analysis of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
America's strong bonds with Israel are well known. This bond is unbreakable. It is based upon cultural and historical ties, and the recognition that the aspiration for a Jewish homeland is rooted in a tragic history that cannot be denied….
On the other hand, it is also undeniable that the Palestinian people—Muslims and Christians—have suffered in pursuit of a homeland. For more than sixty years they have endured the pain of dislocation. Many wait in refugee camps in the West Bank, Gaza, and neighboring lands for a life of peace and security that they have never been able to lead. They endure the daily humiliations—large and small—that come with occupation. So let there be no doubt: the situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable. America will not turn our backs on the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for dignity, opportunity, and a state of their own.
For decades, there has been a stalemate: two peoples with legitimate aspirations, each with a painful history that makes compromise elusive…. Israelis must acknowledge that just as Israel's right to exist cannot be denied, neither can Palestine's.
So Palestinians are the same as Israelis because they, too, have "suffered in pursuit of a homeland." No matter that they pursued it through terror and wish to achieve their homeland by establishing it on the ruins of the destruction of Israel.
But as bad as his analysis of the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians is, Obama's analysis of the conflict between the US and Iran is worse—and it sums up the essence of his speech.
For many years, Iran has defined itself in part by its opposition to my country, and there is indeed a tumultuous history between us. In the middle of the Cold War, the United States played a role in the overthrow of a democratically-elected Iranian government. Since the Islamic Revolution, Iran has played a role in acts of hostage-taking and violence against US troops and civilians.
Here we see what makes Obama's moral equivalence possible. It is what happens when he ignores the fact that America stands for something—and when he refuses to acknowledge that our enemies also stand for something. He cites a few concrete grievances on each side and concludes that both parties must have a good point. He ignores the fact that the government of Iran stands for Islamic theocratic rule, which it has been vigorously spreading through terror and murder—while the United States stands for liberty, to be protected by defending free nations around the world.
In short, we have a president who has blinded himself to what is really going on the world, who refuses to recognize the real essence and underlying causes of the big conflicts that threaten us—and who therefore refuses to stand up for our side in those conflicts, either intellectually or materially. That is the message of Obama's big speech in Cairo.—RWT
We must always examine the ways in which we protect [religious freedom]. For instance, in the United States, rules on charitable giving have made it harder for Muslims to fulfill their religious obligation. That is why I am committed to working with American Muslims to ensure that they can fulfill zakat.
Likewise, it is important for Western countries to avoid impeding Muslim citizens from practicing religion as they see fit—for instance, by dictating what clothes a Muslim woman should wear [i.e., restriction on girls wearing Muslim headscarves in public schools]. We cannot disguise hostility towards any religion behind the pretence of liberalism.
Funny he should mention the hijab. When addressing adherents of a religion in which girls are regularly forced to cover their heads and faces, barred from school, traded away in arranged marriages, and murdered by their own parents for the suspicion of violating their family's "honor"—a religion in which prominent imams issue guides for the proper way to beat one's wife—this is what President Obama had to say on the subject of women's rights:
Now let me be clear: issues of women's equality are by no means simply an issue for Islam. In Turkey, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Indonesia, we have seen Muslim-majority countries elect a woman to lead. Meanwhile, the struggle for women's equality continues in many aspects of American life, and in countries around the world.
As a regular reader of the updates sent out by the Middle East Media Research Institute, I have heard far better, more hard-hitting criticisms of Islam and far more extensive and sincere praise of the West from Arab and Muslim intellectuals than we just heard from our own president, who is supposed to be a champion of our values.
But the essence of Obama's speech turned out to be something different. It was not a sin of commission, but a sin of omission. The theme of Obama's speech is: there is nothing special about America.
Here is the best thing President Obama had to say about the nation he leads.
I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear. But that same principle must apply to Muslim perceptions of America. Just as Muslims do not fit a crude stereotype, America is not the crude stereotype of a self-interested empire. The United States has been one of the greatest sources of progress that the world has ever known. We were born out of revolution against an empire. We were founded upon the ideal that all are created equal, and we have shed blood and struggled for centuries to give meaning to those words—within our borders, and around the world. We are shaped by every culture, drawn from every end of the Earth, and dedicated to a simple concept: E pluribus unum: "Out of many, one."
America certainly has been "one of the greatest sources of progress that the world has ever known." But what is the essence of that progress? The only things Obama names are that we stand for equality and unity. What about that actual value that is most distinctive to America—liberty?
Well, here is what President Obama had to say about what America stands for:
I believe that America holds within her the truth that regardless of race, religion, or station in life, all of us share common aspirations—to live in peace and security; to get an education and to work with dignity; to love our families, our communities, and our God. These things we share. This is the hope of all humanity.
If this bland, anodyne collection of bromides is all that America stands for, then American doesn't stand for anything. It has no unique importance among nations and no special role to play in the world. And that is precisely the conclusion Obama draws. Since America is not exceptional in the world, it should not act as if it is exceptional.
[H]uman history has often been a record of nations and tribes subjugating one another to serve their own interests. Yet in this new age, such attitudes are self-defeating. Given our interdependence, any world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will inevitably fail. So whatever we think of the past, we must not be prisoners of it. Our problems must be dealt with through partnership; progress must be shared.
Or, regarding the Iranian nuclear program, he adds:
I understand those who protest that some countries have weapons that others do not. No single nation should pick and choose which nations hold nuclear weapons. That is why I strongly reaffirmed America's commitment to seek a world in which no nations hold nuclear weapons.
This is why Barack Obama responds to North Korean and Iranian nuclear programs with proposals for the disarmament of the US and Israel. To do otherwise, he would have to say that free nations have a right to nuclear weapons and murderous dictatorships do not.
This approach—the idea that America is just one nation among many—contributes to the theme of moral equivalency that runs throughout the speech. And nowhere is this theme clearer than in Obama's analysis of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
America's strong bonds with Israel are well known. This bond is unbreakable. It is based upon cultural and historical ties, and the recognition that the aspiration for a Jewish homeland is rooted in a tragic history that cannot be denied….
On the other hand, it is also undeniable that the Palestinian people—Muslims and Christians—have suffered in pursuit of a homeland. For more than sixty years they have endured the pain of dislocation. Many wait in refugee camps in the West Bank, Gaza, and neighboring lands for a life of peace and security that they have never been able to lead. They endure the daily humiliations—large and small—that come with occupation. So let there be no doubt: the situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable. America will not turn our backs on the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for dignity, opportunity, and a state of their own.
For decades, there has been a stalemate: two peoples with legitimate aspirations, each with a painful history that makes compromise elusive…. Israelis must acknowledge that just as Israel's right to exist cannot be denied, neither can Palestine's.
So Palestinians are the same as Israelis because they, too, have "suffered in pursuit of a homeland." No matter that they pursued it through terror and wish to achieve their homeland by establishing it on the ruins of the destruction of Israel.
But as bad as his analysis of the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians is, Obama's analysis of the conflict between the US and Iran is worse—and it sums up the essence of his speech.
For many years, Iran has defined itself in part by its opposition to my country, and there is indeed a tumultuous history between us. In the middle of the Cold War, the United States played a role in the overthrow of a democratically-elected Iranian government. Since the Islamic Revolution, Iran has played a role in acts of hostage-taking and violence against US troops and civilians.
Here we see what makes Obama's moral equivalence possible. It is what happens when he ignores the fact that America stands for something—and when he refuses to acknowledge that our enemies also stand for something. He cites a few concrete grievances on each side and concludes that both parties must have a good point. He ignores the fact that the government of Iran stands for Islamic theocratic rule, which it has been vigorously spreading through terror and murder—while the United States stands for liberty, to be protected by defending free nations around the world.
In short, we have a president who has blinded himself to what is really going on the world, who refuses to recognize the real essence and underlying causes of the big conflicts that threaten us—and who therefore refuses to stand up for our side in those conflicts, either intellectually or materially. That is the message of Obama's big speech in Cairo.—RWT
0 comments:
Post a Comment