Some folks have been critical of Mr. Obama’s public response on this issue. Some would like to see him do more. Some would like him to stay out of it. Some think he should have addressed the matter earlier. Some believe that he backtracked from his initial comments about the Religious Rights of the organizers when he later said he was not commenting on the “wisdom” of the decision to build it. Some thought that caused additional confusion or showed political posturing.
I can see the points of all of these criticisms. All are valid points of view in some respect, but not to say all are valid criticism.
However, overall I think President Obama has handled this correctly.
Why?
1) We all seem to agree that the organizers have rights under religious freedom. That is an area where the Federal Government has authority. Mr. Obama has made clear that he believes they have the legal right to build this project. So his comment on that is appropriate for clarity. Again, I think most of us agree on this point of rights.
2) The question of “should” they build the project is a) a moral question and b) a security question.
a. On the moral level he has stayed out of thus far. I think that is the correct answer. I think this matter is under the “authority” of religious/moral figures and other leaders. Said another way, if Americans are going to attempt to understand all sides of the matter and attempt to reconcile these views this will require a Moral Figure(s) to show us leadership and action. It will also require each of us doing our part.
b. Security reasons – There are some that are suspicious of the motivations of the Inman and the true purpose of the proposed center. There are some that are concerned that regardless of intentions, those intentions will be hijacked by radical Islamists and their supporters (ie. They will use the project to spin it to their advantage or something worse).
On this point, unless the President knows something specific and provable, then I believe he is correct not to address it in his response.
3) I think he had to address this matter in some respect. His silence would have caused more confusion. Since, there was the obvious Religious Freedom element he used that to address the matter and to reiterate that element of the discussion.
I give him high mark thus far on this matter. At least as it relates to his public comments (or lack thereof) thus far.