Obama's Cairo Speech

[y66]

Text of speech.

 

Some comments from blogosphere (NYT and Andrew Sullivan's blog):

 

“It was honest, is the first word that comes to mind,” said Hossam Bahgat, executive director of the Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights, an independent human rights organization.

 

Mr. Bahgat, who attended the speech at Cairo University, said that one of the most important elements of the speech was what was left out. “I think it was remarkable the speech left out the term terrorism completely,” he said. “It may have been a paradigm shift for the United States, away from using this politically charged word.”

This is a guy who's not afraid to discuss complicated or difficult ideas. -- -- Matt Yglesias

As the President said, a speech is just a speech. But that doesn't mean it is only a speech. Obama's ambition was to speak to Muslims all around the world, not just to dictators and princes and emirs. The existence of the speech was probably more important than anything Obama actually said - most of which will be just as perishable as most speeches. But the image of the American president in Cairo may endure rather longer. Who knows how much it can achieve? -- Alex Massie

[Al_U_Card]

His speech writer(s) really know their stuff.

 

I always got the impression that W was given some talking points and then proceeded to "wing it".

 

Obama addresses the issues in a clear and concise manner.

 

My only concern is the mention of peace so often while so many militaristic operations are on-going.......

[blackshoe]

"military" and "militaristic" do not mean the same thing.

[Al_U_Card]

I was including all of the black ops, secret prisons, CIA plots, arms deals, institutionalized corruption etc. ;)

[kenberg]

Quickies:

 

I of course hope for the best. I am not optimistic.

 

Obama deplores the mistrust. Sure. But the Soviet Union and the US managed to not (yet) destroy the world. This was at least partly through accepting that they would never trust each other and finding ways to deal with that fact.

 

Personally, I don't hate anyone. I find it sensible to be wary of some people.

 

Best wishes to us all. Perhaps our prez can make it all work some day. Man never is, but always to be blessed.

 

Anyway, a few years will make the impact of the speech clearer. Shall we place some bets?

[hotShot]

Criticism comes from Spain (saying he mixed up facts from Spanish history) and from women in France ( because he encouraged that muslim women should were burqas ).

[Winstonm]

I think President Obama is terribly naive and misplaces his trust; however, if his speech reflects his genuine beliefs then we have the right type of thinking in the oval office. The problem he has is in shaping his vision by utilizing people who are adamantly opposed to his proposals and will knife him in the back at any and every chance they get.

[blackshoe]

Criticism comes from Spain (saying he mixed up facts from Spanish history) and from women in France ( because he encouraged that muslim women should were burqas ).

Can't speak to the first, but I don't recall reading the second in the speech. He did say that women have a right to wear the hijab if they want.

 

I had thought that "hijab" referred only to head covering, but according to wkipedia it seems I was mistaken.

 

I note that, again according to wikipedia, the burka has been banned in French schools since 2003. Way to go, France! :)

[mike777]

"I note that, again according to wikipedia, the burka has been banned in French schools since 2003. Way to go, France!"

 

side comment....many parents have pulled their children out of French schools as a result of this ruling...do not be surprised to see it unbanned ten/twenty years down the road.

[Winstonm]

I note that, again according to wikipedia, the burka has been banned in French schools since 2003. Way to go, France!

 

I'm unclear as to your supportive exclamation - would you be as supportive if France had banned the wearing the Yamulka at school? Are you suggesting all religious symbols be banned from school, including the crucifix?

[blackshoe]

Winston, did you read my original post, or just Mike's out of context quote? Note the smley in the the original. I was trying to be sarcastic.

 

I don't know if France bans wearing yarmulkas in schools, but if they do it's equally stupid. And I'm not suggesting that the wearing of any religious symbol be banned. Including the pentacle and the Seal of Lucifer. Quite the opposite, in fact.

[Winstonm]

Winston, did you read my original post, or just Mike's out of context quote? Note the smley in the the original. I was trying to be sarcastic.

 

I don't know if France bans wearing yarmulkas in schools, but if they do it's equally stupid. And I'm not suggesting that the wearing of any religious symbol be banned. Including the pentacle and the Seal of Lucifer. Quite the opposite, in fact.

Thanks,

 

I was not trying to be snarky but had a legitimate question. Myself, I like the idea of disallowing any and all religious expressions at public school.

[helene_t]

Strongly agree with the French burka ban.

 

I can't say exactly where to draw the line, though. The problem with burkas IMHO) has nothing to do with the religion or social norms they symbolize. It's a practical thing. You can barely communicate with someone wearing a burka,

[Al_U_Card]

Strongly agree with the French burka ban.

 

I can't say exactly where to draw the line, though. The problem with burkas IMHO) has nothing to do with the religion or social norms they symbolize. It's a practical thing. You can barely communicate with someone wearing a burka,

But they ARE good for hiding bandoliers and explosive vests.....

[hanp]

I agree with Helene. It is a very difficult issue, and the decision to ban burkas was not taken lightly.

 

This is not about religious symbols. It is about being able to socially interact with other kids. It is about kids who do not necessarily choose to wear such clothing but are being often forced to do so by their family. Wearing such clothes makes it also impossible for them to integrate with the non-muslim population. This is about immigrants who come from countries where women have very different rights than men. While France cannot force these countries to change their laws, it can do something for the rights of women living in France.

 

Note that we are not talking about headscarfs here. The fact that some parents (or maybe it should be fathers and older brothers?) take their children off school because they are not allowed to wear burkas there shows that there is something seriously wrong, at least from a western European perspective.

[Winstonm]

This is not about religious symbols. It is about being able to socially interact with other kids. It is about kids who do not necessarily choose to wear such clothing but are being often forced to do so by their family.

 

I don't know but suggest that if you questioned the families they would say it is very much about religious observations.

 

 

Wearing such clothes makes it also impossible for them to integrate with the non-muslim population.

 

This is forced religious integration, is it not?

 

This is about immigrants who come from countries where women have very different rights than men. While France cannot force these countries to change their laws, it can do something for the rights of women living in France.

 

Yes, but France cannot force rights upon women unwilling to accept them because they believe it taboo in their religion.

 

Note that we are not talking about headscarfs here. The fact that some parents (or maybe it should be fathers and older brothers?) take their children off school because they are not allowed to wear burkas there shows that there is something seriously wrong, at least from a western European perspective.

 

I think it is disingenuous to say this restriction is not religious-based. I can't see this as much different than placing kids in Christian schools because of beliefs.

[blackshoe]

Strongly agree with the French burka ban.

 

I can't say exactly where to draw the line, though. The problem with burkas IMHO) has nothing to do with the religion or social norms they symbolize. It's a practical thing. You can barely communicate with someone wearing a burka,

I was not aware that burkas include earplugs.

[hotShot]

I wonder, if it were a religious order and not some sort of cultural norm, why could a Muslim dominated country like Turkey ban them at least at universities. (Rumor has it that female students you feel bond by tradition use wigs as substitute.)

[blackshoe]

But they ARE good for hiding bandoliers and explosive vests.....

True. Of course, it would mean that either islamic terrorists are now using women as suicide bombers, that the person under the burka is a male islamic terrorist, or that whoever it is isn't islamic at all, but is trying to place the blame on them. None of these options seems very likely.

[hotShot]

Strongly agree with the French burka ban.

 

I can't say exactly where to draw the line, though. The problem with burkas IMHO) has nothing to do with the religion or social norms they symbolize. It's a practical thing. You can barely communicate with someone wearing a burka,

I was not aware that burkas include earplugs.

Communications experts say that 80% of the communication is nonverbal.

If facial expressions (and gestures) are hidden in a burka communication is disturbed.

 

So if this was intended as a joke, it did not work.

[helene_t]

This is not about religious symbols. It is about being able to socially interact with other kids. It is about kids who do not necessarily choose to wear such clothing but are being often forced to do so by their family.

 

I don't know but suggest that if you questioned the families they would say it is very much about religious observations.

Sure, but that's irrelevant. We have laws against child abuse. "My religion commands me to abuse my children" is no better excuse for crime than "my card game commands me to rob banks".

 

I would go further than the French laws. Parents who prevent their children from socializing with other kids, who prevent them from receiving education or health care, or who have their genitals mutilized, should be put in prison and should not be allowed to raise children.

 

And whether they use superstition, tribal peer pressure, ancient traditions or something else as an excuse for their criminal behavior ought to be irrelevant.

[awm]

You are mis-stating the French ban on religious apparel, which in fact bans all such items including head scarves, yarmulkes, crosses, etc. It's relatively easy to find this out from a web search.

 

There are not a lot of people wearing burqas in France, and those who are there probably don't send their kids to public (coed!) schools regardless.

[helene_t]

tx Adam. That's a different discussion, then.

[blackshoe]

"The ban is designed to maintain France's tradition of strictly separating state and religion." From an article I googled.

 

As the article suggests the ban applies to wearing these things in schools (as opposed to say, in France), perhaps this is an argument against state run schools.

 

IAC, there's a difference between schools actively supporting a particular religion, and allowing personal self-expression by students.

 

Note: I am not suggesting that I support the custom of clothing women in burkas, or the coercion by parental or peer pressure of young women who don't want to wear them. Quite the opposite, in fact. But if a person wants to wear the damn thing, I don't think the state (any state, matter of a general principle) has a right to tell her she can't, just as I believe no state (or for that matter, religion) has a right to tell her she must.

[Winstonm]

This is not about religious symbols. It is about being able to socially interact with other kids. It is about kids who do not necessarily choose to wear such clothing but are being often forced to do so by their family.

 

I don't know but suggest that if you questioned the families they would say it is very much about religious observations.

Sure, but that's irrelevant. We have laws against child abuse. "My religion commands me to abuse my children" is no better excuse for crime than "my card game commands me to rob banks".

 

I would go further than the French laws. Parents who prevent their children from socializing with other kids, who prevent them from receiving education or health care, or who have their genitals mutilized, should be put in prison and should not be allowed to raise children.

 

And whether they use superstition, tribal peer pressure, ancient traditions or something else as an excuse for their criminal behavior ought to be irrelevant.

Perhaps you misunderstand my position - I am only strongly against this concept if it singles out a particular group and a particular custom.

 

Forcing fundamental religious beliefs onto progeny is a form of abuse in its own right.