Oliver Kamm on Obama's Cairo speech, Islam, and political reforms:
I'm uneasy about an American President (or sometime
British Prime Minister, for the same applies to Tony Blair) declaring
as a matter of policy deep respect for Islam. I can see the political
imperative for doing so and (in the case of the statesmen concerned)
the sincerity of the sentiment. But the proper attitude of a
constitutional democracy towards religious faith is not respect but
disinterest (i.e. neutrality). Our societies defend religious liberty
and conscience. That's the least, but also the limit, of how the state
should treat religion.
There's a pragmatic reason for such a stand. The Islamic faith is a fact of life and a huge influence on the world order. It's essential for peace and justice that Islam be dominated by elements that make their accommodation with democratic values, modern mores and secular education. To speak in an undifferentiated way of Islam and its achievements does not give the right message to those elements: to political reformers, religious moderates and heroic secular forces in autocratic states. Their voices need to be heard and encouraged, in the same way that dissidents in the Soviet bloc were given heart by an explicit commitment (in the Helsinki Final Agreement of 1975) to human rights.
That was the missing element in Obama's address. And when you see the pictures of demonstrators demanding freedom in Tehran, you have to conclude that the omission was not even good politics.
There's a pragmatic reason for such a stand. The Islamic faith is a fact of life and a huge influence on the world order. It's essential for peace and justice that Islam be dominated by elements that make their accommodation with democratic values, modern mores and secular education. To speak in an undifferentiated way of Islam and its achievements does not give the right message to those elements: to political reformers, religious moderates and heroic secular forces in autocratic states. Their voices need to be heard and encouraged, in the same way that dissidents in the Soviet bloc were given heart by an explicit commitment (in the Helsinki Final Agreement of 1975) to human rights.
That was the missing element in Obama's address. And when you see the pictures of demonstrators demanding freedom in Tehran, you have to conclude that the omission was not even good politics.
I'm agnostic on this issue as I am on most Obama's speeches because I don't think that speeches are good substitutes for policy. Kamm has a point, but I wonder if all of this fluff matters.
Comments