President Obama pointed out the ban on headscarves in France and some other parts of Europe as an example of where the West has falled short of its own values, one of them being respect for freedom of religion. He was not offering this as an example of discrimination or mistreatment of Muslim girls in the West.

Nonetheless, this was the wrong example to provide to the Muslims in his audience. The Europeans are so tolerant of most anything that places such as England and parts of Sandinavia have had to in essence accomodate Sharia law within their own common laws. In Britain Muslims have the right to now bring certain "family issues," ones which are typically handled by the government and include things like wife beating, first to councils of British imams. (Oh, and on que those British politicians who spoke out about this separation from British law and society were immediately and loudly pilloried as racist and anti-Muslim.) Go to many parks on any given day in London and shudder at the radicalism and hatred being spewed by British-born and foreign Muslim radicals.

France's ban was a reaction to this same type of hostile Muslim subculture growing from within. They wanted to hold the line against Muslim extremists in France who wanted to create their own little bit of Sharia in the midst of French public schools. The law didn't just single out Muslims of course, but applied to the wearing of crucifixes and the like.

Obama used the wrong example.

I know of no where in the U.K. where it has been "necessary" to "accomodate Sharia law within" the Common Law of England or Scotland, "in essence" or in any other manner.

I'm fairly sure Early Bird is correct about Britain accommodating sharia law regarding some domestic cases, unfortunately: <link>

And Britain's recent problems with its own radical, violence-inciting Muslims are very real indeed. I would have to question the claim, however, that any British politician speaking out against a separate sharia law being "immediately and roundly pilloried as racist" is extremely dubious. Early, where did you get that information? I think the truth is quite the opposite, or at least that was the case when I lived in Britain a few years ago. Surely you remember the outrage and demands for resignation when the Archbishop of Canterbury called sharia law "unavoidable", right? <link>

I realize he's not a politician but the public sentiment is the same either way.

The Common Law of England and Wales (and upon which the laws of several other countries are based also) does not accomodate Sharia Law. The arrangements in the (misleading) Times article are for arbitration where bothe parties are Moslem and agree to be bound by the arbitration. This is quite different to the concept of law which can be and is applied in all cases notwithstanding. Similar arrangements were made previously for Jewish tribunals, also confusingly described as 'courts'. They are not and they have no powers to impose judgements, unlike County or High Courts.

In trying to tip-toe through the minefield of Islamic sensitivities, there are no "good examples."

I think that what you mean to say is that they have no legal power to bind the state. Those individuals who submit themselves to these "courts" are usually willing to accept their judgements. It is thus a private matter. Nevertheless, these "courts" may not under any circumstances, pass judgements which go against the laws of the country.

After reading my original post I realized that it isn't written very well. I meant to say simply that although the US will not (yet) prohibit a Muslim, or Jew or Christian from wearing outward symbols of their religiosity, France did but not simply by being anti-freedom of religion of expression. They are under extreme pressure by a radical Muslim minority and they felt this was a necessary countermeasure towards these groups.

See. A bloody damned minefield because of a group who doesn't yet understand the concepts of freedom and democracy and, in fact, regularly violates them in the name of religion.

You think I meant to say "[these arbitrations] have no power to bind the state". The law is what was being discussed. A poster above suggested (based upon a misleading Murdoch Press report) that, indeed, the law of the land (England) had had to be made (forced?) to 'accomodate' Moslem and Islamic codes. This is not true, though some Isamists would wish it to be so, and perhaps not just them either. Incidentally, where the Abrahamic Faiths are concerned, the English and Welsh Common Law (perhaps the Scottish also) fully embrace ideas and concepts which are central guiding principles common to all. There is only a marginal 'religious' area to do with the governance of the faithful which can be allowed to order things independently providing these do not deny recourse to justice, a justice instituted and stemming from Parliament. (Something similar occurs today in the 'rulings' of various professional bodies, including sports 'councils', whose judgements may be [and are] challenged from time to time in the Civil Courts.) Some north American friends may now sleep easy in their hard beds.

EarlyBird:

Your real mistake was being distracted from the real import of Obama's pile of typical liberal multiculti bullshit by an argument over whether this or that "example" was appropriate. Yurmom has a real good post, extensively quoting Krauthammer, which concludes:

Obama undoubtedly thinks he is demonstrating historical magnanimity with all these moral equivalencies and self-flagellating apologetics. On the contrary. He's showing cheap condescension, an unseemly hunger for applause and a willingness to distort history for political effect.

Distorting history is not truth-telling, but the telling of soft lies. Creating false equivalencies is not moral leadership, but moral abdication. And hovering above it all, above country and history, is a sign not of transcendence but of a disturbing ambivalence toward one's own country. <link>

Yourmom's opening line also gets my vote: "I love Hitch, but he's crazy for having supported Obama for the Presidency."

Obama most definitely was distorting history and giving "the Muslim world" far too much credit for anything, especially in comparison to the Western world. He was setting up false equivalencies.

But what he was doing was old fashioned diplomacy. You are not so young that you can't remember when even conservative leaders actually spoke nicely in public to rotten regimes, in the interest of forwarding our agenda.

You are also mature enough to realize that the guy in the workplace who may be brilliant but who just can't get along with others isn't going to go too far in his career. Not that going along to get along is the point; not going out of one's way to antagonize others is the point.

Obama - and no president for that matter - is going to change the Muslim world by working on them directly from the outside. The more we seem to push the more they seem to resist. What he does have the opportunity to do is undercut the fear and anger that animates so much of the popularity of many Arab and Muslim governments, and crazy non-government leadership groups. You've heard of the phrase "kill them with kindness"?

He hurts people like Ahmadinejad whose entire popularity is based on his image of standing up against the Abusive Cowboy or whatever they want to see the United States as. What does it hurt the US - tangibly - to speak nicely to "the Muslim world" and increase the likelihood that Ah'jad looks like a dangerous paranoid loon to the people of Iran?

Obama's nice guy image hurts idiots like Chavez, again whose popularity is almost entirely based on the image of standing up to America.

Now, let's start looking at what Obama does and see if we should see him as the naive mushball he was caricaturized as being before he even got the Dem nomination.

I don't even see him as having done anything so far but indicate to Israel that we may not be as completely compliant on new settlements as before. That's a great thing for Israel, the US and the region in general.

EarlyBird:

"Diplomacy" may require one to avoid gratuitous criticisms of others, but it does not require our president to volunteer to make speeches papering over the differences between our own country and others. There are two sides to diplomacy, just like lawyering. Reagan's calling the Soviet Union an "evil empire" was a powerful piece of effective diplomacy, encouraging Soviet dissidents (just ask them) and other would-be allies around the world.

Speaking as if we stand for nothing encourages the enemies who think us weak, demoralizes the allies who look to us for leadership, and turns us into, in fact, an "unexceptional" country.

The major flaw in your "kill them with kindness" view is the common liberal deterministic premise, that our enemies' animus is generated by us. That's the "condescending" part of Krauthammers' and others' analysis. If only we put on a more friendly face, all the jihadists' and dictators' powers and support would vanish. That's more naive than Bush's faith in promoting democracy as a panacea.

(If "liberal" hits below the belt, excuse me, but that determinism is almost a defining characteristic of liberals. We all need frequent check-ups on that score.)

Reagan's hard line and talk about "evil empire" was a necessary corrective to the mushy four years of Carter and the general malaise that had gripped the US and the Europeans. We looked defeated and insular after Vietnam; Carter was making arms reductions overtures from a point of weakness; basically gave Afghanistan to them, etc.

Reagan knew that the first thing he had to is get respect from the Soviets once again, put them on their heels and show some confidence.

Obama has a different problem with the Arab world and Iran. Rather than one government to deal with, he (or any president) must consider the whole broad variety of audiences he's interacting with, and in the context of following on eight years of American military action in their neigborhood.

It's not that speaking nicely will make our enemies like us more; it will make their supporters and would-be supporters like them less.

Outside pressure helps these tyrants consolidate and hold onto power. We don't need to constantly give their domestic PR machine fodder, by stating the obvious, that Islam as practiced in most countries is backwards and wretched, or that the Arab world is a dysfunctional mess. These people have an abundance of pride and fear, perhaps the two most overriding emotions they have.

Ahmadinejad has relied on this for years now. There is no better way to consolidate power, especially in a part of the world that is historically whiny and feels picked on and abused by history, to say, "See, if I am not in charge, the Great Satan will come in and mess with us again!" Same goes for extremist Islamist political parties and other groups, when it comes time to recruit new savages. Bush's bellicosity was the best thing that ever happened to the mullahs in Iran and elsewhere; Obama's softness really messes with their power over their people.

I think Obama has struck exactly the right tone for the situation we are in at this time.

Oh yeah. I've already been in a political existential crisis since '04, and now I'm being tarred as "liberal." You really know how to hurt a guy! : )

I wanted to share with you Pat Buchanan's recent statements about how to interact with Iran at this time, which sums my feelings up almost exactly (although he tends to be a bit too paleo from my perspective):

"When your adversary is making a fool of himself, get out of the way. That is a rule of politics Lyndon Johnson once put into the most pungent of terms. U.S. fulminations will change nothing in Tehran. But they would enable the regime to divert attention to U.S. meddling in Iran’s affairs and portray the candidate robbed in this election, Mir-Hossein Mousavi, as a poodle of the Americans...

The dilemma for America is that the theocracy defines itself and grounds its claim to leadership through its unyielding resistance to the Great Satan—the United States—and to Israel. Nevertheless, Obama, with his outstretched hand, his message to Iran on its national day, his admission that the United States had a hand in the 1953 coup in Tehran, his assurances that we recognize Iran’s right to nuclear power, succeeded. He stripped the Ayatollah and Ahmadinejad of their clinching argument—that America is out to destroy Iran and they are indispensable to Iran’s defense."

When Pat Buchanan starts making statements that give pause to those on the left or middle, there must indeed be a shift happening in a new global reality.... or America's need to be more cognizant and subtle when approaching world issues in the 21st century.

To compare the threats the Soviet Union once posed (as a monolithic threat to our system) is inaccurate. To present an attitude as Bush1 did once "I will never apologize for the United States — I don't care what the facts are... I'm not an apologize-for-America kind of guy." shows a character complex that is juvenile in the least.... and this was after a US destroyer shot down a filled Iranian commercial flight in Iranian airspace.