STATE DEPT SPEAKS OUT ON QUR'AN BURNING

There are two very strong similarities between the Ground Zero mosque and the proposed burning of Qur'ans at a Florida church on 9/11. The issues are legality vs. appropriateness. Barack Obama defended the mosque being built but later said he would not comment on the 'wisdom' of whether or not it should be built. Contrast that stance vs. the stance of Hillary's State Department spokesman, P.J. Crowley. He goes beyond commenting on the wisdom of the decision to burn the Qur'an. He actually compares it to the actions of the 9/11 hijackers.

The issue of the scheduled Qur'an burning involved an extensive back and forth, with reporters asking extremely good questions of Crowley, who had to have been mildly uncomfortable answering them. I'm posting the entire relevant portion of the briefing because it's that good. Via the State Department daily press briefing transcript:

QUESTION: Thank you, sir. P.J., as we approach 9/11 and also the Eid, and now we have a special session this evening here with the Secretary and also Special Representative for Muslims Ms. Pandith and you have heard the warnings from General Petraeus in Afghanistan, where – how do you characterize the relations between the United States and the Muslims around the globe and especially here in (inaudible) America and – because you see a lot of things are happening because – burning of the Qu’ran – Qu’ran and all those things are going to create so much problems, sir?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, first of all, people need to understand that in this country, we have freedom of religion, we have a tradition of religious tolerance, we also have freedom of expression. We believe that these are fundamental principles of U.S. society. We’re very conscious of what has been discussed as potential actions down in Florida at the end of this week. We think that these are provocative acts, they are disrespectful, they’re intolerant, they’re divisive, and we’re conscious that a number of voices have come out and rejected what this pastor and this community have proposed.

And we would like to see more Americans stand up and say that this is inconsistent with our American values. In fact, these actions themselves are un-American. The pastor says that he’s contemplating these actions to combat radicalism. In fact, these actions, if they take place – we hope they don’t – will actually feed radicalism. As General Petraeus mentioned over the weekend, given social media, they can have at least as powerful an impact as the tragic events and photos of Abu Ghraib had.

But at the same time, people around the world need to also understand that America is not represented by one pastor or 50 followers. We are a nation of 300 million people. And the vast majority of Americans are standing up this week and saying that these contemplative actions are inappropriate, they’re abhorrent, and this should not happen.

QUESTION: And --

QUESTION: Do you reject it? You said a great many people are rejecting it. Do you reject this? Do you just flatly feel that this particular group in Florida should not do this?

MR. CROWLEY: They should not do this. And as General Petraeus said, they potentially put soldiers at risk. For any American who is traveling, any diplomat in posts around the world, these put – these actions, whatever their motivation, potentially put American interest and American lives at risk.

QUESTION: And why is it un-American, which is a word that doesn’t get lobbed around very often in this briefing room? And you point out that there are two principles here; one is sort of freedom of religion and tolerance and another one is freedom of expression, which means that you can burn American flags and so on and not be called un-American. I mean, why is it un-American for them to do this?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, there – it is one thing to have a right. It’s another thing as to how one exercises that right. This is a divisive potential act of disrespect of one of the world’s great religions. And while we support – and those of us are who are constitutionally charged to defend our freedoms, including freedom of expression, this is an action that has potential serious ramifications. It is a statement of intolerance that we believe is contrary to our – how we – how – our values and how we conduct ourselves day in and day out here in the United States of America.

QUESTION: P.J., Arshad is right. I mean, what – honestly, what could be more American than expressing one’s freedom of speech, freedom to --

MR. CROWLEY: There – we --

QUESTION: -- assemble and freedom to do --

MR. CROWLEY: Absolutely right.

QUESTION: I mean, why is it that --

MR. CROWLEY: But there --

QUESTION: You wouldn’t say burning the American flag is un-American, would you?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, it is inconsistent with the values of religious tolerance and religious freedom that are innate to us as Americans. You’ve got a clash of two principles here. There are – in our view, there are far better ways to commemorate 9/11 and the religious bigotry that that event represents than to commit yet another act of what I would consider to be religious radicalism.

QUESTION: Okay. But I guess --

MR. CROWLEY: Go ahead, go ahead.

QUESTION: -- I guess the point – again, I’m having a hard time --

MR. CROWLEY: Right.

QUESTION: Excuse me. I’m having a hard time understanding, first of all, why the State Department is getting involved in an issue that relates directly to a Florida church.

MR. CROWLEY: Well, first of all, I was asked.

QUESTION: Well, okay. Fair enough. But you made the – but then you made the observation that what they planned to do is un-American. And I --

MR. CROWLEY: I think – there’s – there are a balance --

QUESTION: Are you prepared to say the same thing if someone wants to --

MR. CROWLEY: Look, there are a balance of interests here. But this, in our view, has the potential to inflame public opinion around the world in a way that will jeopardize American lives and American interests. It does not represent our core values as Americans. We hope it does not happen. We hope that between now and Saturday, there’ll be a range of voices across America that make clear to this community that this is not the way for us to commemorate 9/11. In fact, it is consistent with the radicals and bigot – with those bigots who attacked us on 9/11.

QUESTION: Right. But in fact, it is – but wait --

MR. CROWLEY: Hold on – Matt. Matt, others want to ask questions, too.

QUESTION: You’re saying that this may be incitement, but it is still a First Amendment issue. What really – what recourse does the government have to, say, go to the city of Gainesville and say maybe you should not issue a bonfire or whatever it is permit and all these things?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, I mean, all we really have here is a bully pulpit. The community is going to do what they do. I mean, the city government has declined to provide a permit for this event. The pastor appears to be unswayed by comments by General Petraeus and others who have expressed concern about the action that is being contemplated. We want to see – we support a vigorous debate in this country, even about issues that have great sensitivity. That said, there is a point where the debate yields to something more significant.

We are hopeful, between now and Saturday, that a range of voices, whether they’re political figures, religious figures, others, can rise and convince this community that there are better ways of commemorating 9/11 than through this action.

QUESTION: But, P.J., one more thing. The Secretary is going to speak out this evening. And second, freedom of expression or freedom of religion doesn’t mean that you put the whole country on fire.

MR. CROWLEY: Well, and, Goyal, there is another side to this. That’s true. But if this community goes ahead and – with this proposed event on Saturday, we would hope that the rest of the world will judge us not by the actions of one pastor or 50 followers, but judge us by a tradition that goes back to our founding. We did not indict entire countries or an entire religion over the actions of 9/11, and we would hope that the rest of the world does not indict the United States for the actions of one fringe element in Florida.

QUESTION: P.J., can I ask just one on this? Are you absolutely certain that you want to stick with the word “un-American” to describe this potential action, or do you want maybe walk back from that word?

MR. CROWLEY: Let me define what I meant by this. We have a tremendous tradition of religious tolerance in this country. We believe that the potential act of burning a Qu’ran shows enormous disrespect to one of the world’s great religions. It is contrary to our values. It’s contrary to how civil society has emerged in this country. It is un-American in the sense that it does not represent the views of the vast majority of Americans who are respectful of religions – of the world’s great religions.

So while it may well be within someone’s rights to take this action, we believe and hope that cooler heads will prevail and other ways can be found to promote a dialogue among the world’s greatest religions, which is what we have been trying to do here within this country and within this Department since 9/11.

QUESTION: P.J., I wanted to ask real quick – you touched on it earlier in your remarks that General Petraeus talked about the risk to members of the military abroad. Can you say whether you have similar concerns about whether this poses any threats to Americans tourists, for example?

MR. CROWLEY: I think I encompassed that in my remarks. It does. To – we’ve already seen small-scale demonstrations in various countries overseas where anxiety levels are building because of the publicity surrounding this proposed action. It does put the lives of ordinary Americans at risk, as well as diplomats, as well as soldiers.

QUESTION: P.J., you don’t believe that as far as – because many Americans don’t like, as far as building the mosque at Ground Zero, you think anything to do with that?

MR. CROWLEY: Goyal, I don’t believe that the proposed events in Florida are related – excuse me – to the debate --

QUESTION: Bless you.

MR. CROWLEY: -- in New York.

QUESTION: P.J., both General Petraeus and yourself, and presumably – and, actually, all federal employees take an oath to uphold the Constitution, to defend the Constitution. And it seems to me that whether someone wants to burn a Qu’ran or a flag or an American flag or the Bible or the Torah or any other symbol of something that we think or that the general society thinks is a good or a great thing – like the flag is a symbol of the country which people routinely say is going to have the greatest example of representative democracy on earth, and yet, when people burn American flags in this country or around the world, we don’t hear this kind of thing saying that that’s un-American. In fact, that’s protected speech.

So I guess what my question is that it seems to me that while it may be against the values of the great majority of Americans for them to do it, you and people in this government, as sworn defenders of the Constitution, have the obligation to defend their right to do it, regardless of how abhorrent you find it.

MR. CROWLEY: And, Matt, you’ve made a good scholarly and legal argument there, which I accept. I mean, I think you have to distinguish between legal rights that we have – and freedom of expression and the First Amendment are, in fact, enshrined in our Constitution as something that we support here and elsewhere every day. What we’re concerned about is there is the right and then there’s how you exercise that right. This is a potential action that has serious implications for U.S. interests around the world. It potentially puts American lives at risk. And when you balance out a right and a responsibility, in our view, we hope that this pastor and this community will find a different way to commemorate 9/11 and express a justified concern about religious radicalism anywhere in the world.

But as Americans, I think this is an act of disrespect to a religious symbol and a great religion that we think is uncharacteristic of our tradition and the religious tolerance that has been an essential part of our society and our history.

QUESTION: On the Iftar dinner tonight, in the original notice that went out, Secretary Clinton was going to speak and deliver live remarks. I’m wondering why she’s now delivering taped remarks. And also, why was the time of the event changed?

QUESTION: That’s two different events.

MR. CROWLEY: Right. No, it’s two different events.

QUESTION: Oh, she --

MR. CROWLEY: She will be delivering some remarks tonight.

QUESTION: Will she discuss this issue in her remarks tonight?

MR. CROWLEY: I expect she will.

QUESTION: To talk about what? The mosque or about the Florida --

MR. CROWLEY: She – I expect that she – between her remarks tonight and her remarks tomorrow at CFR, I would fully expect that she will comment on this issue.

QUESTION: Do you know on how this individual might be held accountable for anything that happens some 7,000 miles away?

MR. CROWLEY: And now that is a matter for local authorities. But our concern here is that the implications that this has in terms of our relations with people in Muslim-majority countries all over the world.

Remember, Crowley is the same man who apologized for Arizona to the Chinese and defended the State Department's decision to include Arizona's SB 1070 in its report to the U.N. Council on Human Rights.

Crowley is on the wrong side of nearly every issue. Ain't it strange how Obama would not comment on the 'wisdom' of the Ground Zero mosque but Crowley is all too willing to comment on the wisdom of burning the Qur'an. Both are first amendment issues yet, this administration is condemning one without condemning the other.

I disagree with the Florida pastor's decision but if there's any good to come out of it, it's that he is exposing a blatant and egregious double standard.

Here's the video. Fast forward to the 16:00 mark:



h/t to Free Republic