Much ink has been spilled—pixels expended, bytes consumed—since President Obama first offered his remarks about religious freedom and the Ground Zero mosque at a White House dinner celebrating Ramadan. At the moment, I’m not particularly interested in what these remarks and the President’s reaction to the reaction tell us about his political judgment or leadership style (though, of course, they do tell us volumes about both). Rather, I’m interested in what he appeared initially to place on the foreground—religious freedom.
Having initially avoided any commentary, President Obama clearly came to regard the controversy over building a very prominent mosque near Ground Zero as a proverbial teachable moment, an opportunity to talk about religious freedom, toleration, and respect. So he took the occasion of the iftar dinner he hosted at the White House to make his points. He’s not the first President to take advantage of such an occasion. Consider these remarks by George W. Bush, offered at his second annual iftar dinner in 2002:
Tonight’s Iftar also sends a message to all Americans: Our Nation is waging a war on a radical network of terrorists, not on a religion and not on a civilization. If we wage this war to defend our principles, we must live up to those principles, ourselves. And one of the deepest commitments of America is tolerance. No one should be treated unkindly because of the color of their skin or the content of their creed. No one should be unfairly judged by appearance or ethnic background or religious faith. We must uphold these values of progress and pluralism and tolerance.
George Washington said that America “gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance.” This was our policy at our Nation’s founding; this is our policy today. America rejects all forms of religious intolerance. America grieves with all the victims of religious bigotry. And America opposes all who commit evil in God’s name.
Presidents have been recognizing Ramadan since the Ford Administration and hosting iftar dinners since 2001. For the most part, the proclamations and dinners have addressed a largely international audience and served a largely diplomatic purpose.
Indeed, for me it’s that audience that makes both President Bush’s 2002 statement and President Obama’s 2010 statement problematical. The former statement refers to toleration and the latter to religious freedom as an American principle. Both presidents insist that part of what defines us as Americans is our embrace of these principles. When you’re speaking to a purely national audience, this is very effective rhetoric, appealing to solidarity, pride, and love of one’s own as motives to adhere to a universal principle. But when there’s an international audience in the room, you can give them the impression that devotion to such a principle is merely a national idiosyncrasy, something that we Americans do because we want to, not because it’s just plain right. Articulated in this way in front of this audience, commitment to religious liberty is as American as apple pie, but not necessarily as Scottish as haggis, as Japanese as sushi, or as Kurdish as kebabs. When as a nation you wish to hold others accountable for their infringement on the universal natural right to religious liberty, this is not the right message to send.
You might say that in seizing a teachable moment for Americans, Presidents Bush and Obama bobbled one for our friends, especially in the Islamic world, where the U.S Commission on International Religious Freedom regards Iran, Iraq, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan as countries of particular concern and has placed Afghanistan, Egypt, Indonesia, Somalia, Tajikistan, and Turkey on a watch list.
In his remarks, President Obama said that “our enemies respect no religious freedom.” He’s certainly right about that and right to point it out. But couldn’t he gently (and publicly) nudge our friends to be more scrupulous in their respect for the universal natural rights of conscience? And while he’s at it, could he undertake to articulate more consistently a properly comprehensive definition of religious liberty, one that’s more realistic and expansive than his narrow and crabbed vision of freedom to worship?
Tags: ground zero, mosque, Obama