Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Soul Crusher on February 05, 2015, 07:21:56 AM
-
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/02/05/obama-at-national-prayer-breakfast-people-committed-terrible-deeds-in-the-name-of-Christ
At the National Prayer Breakfast, President Obama reminded attendees that violence rooted in religion isn’t exclusive to Islam, but has been carried out by Christians as well.
Obama said that even though religion is a source for good around the world, there will always be people willing to “hijack religion for their own murderous ends.”
“Unless we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ,” Obama said. “In our home country, slavery and Jim Crow all too often was justified in the name of Christ.”
Obama also denounced Islamic State terrorists for professing to stand up for Islam when they were actually “betraying it.”
“We see ISIL, a brutal vicious death cult that in the name of religion carries out unspeakable acts of barbarism,” he said criticizing them for “claiming the mantle of religious authority for such actions.”
-
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/02/05/obama-at-national-prayer-breakfast-people-committed-terrible-deeds-in-the-name-of-Christ
At the National Prayer Breakfast, President Obama reminded attendees that violence rooted in religion isn’t exclusive to Islam, but has been carried out by Christians as well.
Obama said that even though religion is a source for good around the world, there will always be people willing to “hijack religion for their own murderous ends.”
“Unless we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ,” Obama said. “In our home country, slavery and Jim Crow all too often was justified in the name of Christ.”
Obama also denounced Islamic State terrorists for professing to stand up for Islam when they were actually “betraying it.”
“We see ISIL, a brutal vicious death cult that in the name of religion carries out unspeakable acts of barbarism,” he said criticizing them for “claiming the mantle of religious authority for such actions.”
Why does there always have to be some "moral" equivalency? Well shit Christians did some shit 500 years ago, so..............
Obama should read a little history, see how the mongols dealt with these types of assholes.
-
How can no one see the Catholic church is far from Christian. They tortured and burned Christians for reading the Bible.
-
That was how long ago? So is Obama saying these animals have not advanced in 500 years? And 2nd - no one is condoning that now or has for hundreds of years!
Typical communist pos ofag making moral equalients to justify his doing nothing to allow terrorism and sharia to spread
-
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-people-committed-terrible-deeds-name-christ_840302.html
For a devout Christian as ofag claims to be - his actions as of late are very puzzling ;)
-
How can no one see the Catholic church is far from Christian. They tortured and burned Christians for reading the Bible.
Yeah.......your kidding right? I love the left and their moral equivalency bullshit.
-
Why does there always have to be some "moral" equivalency? Well shit Christians did some shit 500 years ago, so..............
Obama should read a little history, see how the mongols dealt with these types of assholes.
I agree. Very bad comparison.
-
It's his way of covering and making excuses for radical Islam. There's no two ways about it. He met with Muslim leaders but would not say who they were.
-
Obama is a divisive con man and a terrorist president in his own right. What purpose did he have in saying that a a national prayer breakfast other than to incite people?
F him - he is scurge and plague on this nation
-
http://twitchy.com/2015/02/05/equivocate-much-obama-compares-isis-barbarism-to-horrors-justified-in-the-name-of-christ/?utm_source=autotweet&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=twitter
>:(
-
Why does there always have to be some "moral" equivalency? Well shit Christians did some shit 500 years ago, so..............
Obama should read a little history, see how the mongols dealt with these types of assholes.
or six years ago
-
or six years ago
6 years ago? WTF are you talking about 6 years ago and who approved and condoned it?
-
Obama condemns those who seek to 'hijack religion'
Feb 5, 11:11 AM (ET)
By NEDRA PICKLER
(AP) President Barack Obama speaks during the National Prayer Breakfast in Washington,...
Full Image
Google sponsored links
We Will Rent Your Roof - New York Homeowners: We Pay Homeowners To Go Solar. Sign Up!
www.firststepsolar.com
NY-Debt Relief Assistance - $5,000 - $130,000+ Debt. See If You Qualify. See Your Savings! Start
newyorkdebtrelief.org/Online
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama on Thursday condemned those who seek to use religion as a rationale for carrying out violence around the world, declaring that "no god condones terror."
"We are summoned to push back against those who would distort our religion for their nihilistic ends," Obama said during remarks at the National Prayer Breakfast. He singled out the Islamic State group in Iraq and Syria, calling the militants a "death cult," as well as those responsible for last month's terror attacks in Paris and deadly assault on a school in Pakistan.
Obama offered a special welcome to a "good friend," the Dalia Lama, seated at a table in front of the dais among the audience of 3,600. Earlier Obama, seated at the head table, pressed his hands together in a prayer-like position and bowed his head toward the Dalai Lama, then gave him a wave and a broad smile.
It was the first time the president and the Tibetan Buddhist leader attended the same public event, with China objecting to foreign leaders meeting with the Dalai Lama because of his quest for greater Tibetan autonomy from Beijing. Obama's three previous meetings with the Dalai Lama have been private because of the sensitivity of the situation.
(AP) Valerie Jarrett, senior adviser to President Barack Obama, right, talks with the...
Full Image
But in a show of White House support for the Dalai Lama, he was seated at a table with top Obama adviser Valerie Jarrett. Actor Richard Gere, a friend and follower of the Dalai Lama, was also nearby. Meanwhile, outside, hundreds of demonstrators banged drums and waved Tibetan flags under heavy police presence.
The Dalai Lama fled to exile in India after a failed 1959 Tibetan uprising against Chinese rule. Obama on Thursday called him "a powerful example of what it means to practice compassion and who inspires us to speak up for the freedom and dignity of all human beings."
The president joked that it's a rare event that can bring together the Dalai Lama and NASCAR, after retired driver and commentator Darrell Waltrip gave the keynote address. Waltrip told how he had accepted Jesus Christ as his savoir after a 1993 crash left him wondering what would happen if he died.
"If you've never gotten on your knees and asked him to forgive you of your sins, you're just a pretty good guy or a pretty good gal? You're going to go to hell," Waltrip said.
Obama had a more non-denominational message for the audience that also included prominent leaders of non-Christian faiths. The president said that while religion is a source for good around the world, people of all faiths have been willing to "hijack religion for their own murderous ends."
(AP) Actor Richard Gere listens as President Barack Obama speaks during the National...
Full Image
"Unless we get on our high horse and think that this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ," Obama said. "In our home country, slavery and Jim Crow all too often was justified in the name of Christ.
"So it is not unique to one group or one religion," Obama said. "There is a tendency in us, a simple tendency that can pervert and distort our faith."
Obama called for all people of faiths to show humility about their beliefs and reject the idea that "God speaks only to us and doesn't speak to others."
Jordan's King Abdullah II canceled plans to attend the breakfast after Islamic State militants released a video this week showing a captured Jordanian pilot being burned to death. In his place, Sen. Roger Wicker, R-Wisc., offered prayers for Jordan and read the New Testament parable of the Good Samaritan who saved a stranger who had been beaten and left for dead.
---
Follow Nedra Pickler on Twitter at https://twitter.com/nedrapickler
Yeah and Obama is not a Muslim? LMFAO
-
(http://i.imgur.com/DoYrqO1.jpg)
-
"We are summoned to push back against those who would distort our religion for their nihilistic ends," Obama said during remarks at the National Prayer Breakfast. He singled out the Islamic State group in Iraq and Syria, calling the militants a "death cult," as well as those responsible for last month's terror attacks in Paris and deadly assault on a school in Pakistan.
-
(http://i.imgur.com/DoYrqO1.jpg)
Oh snap.
-
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/04/isis-crucified-children_n_6613578.html?cps=gravity_2684_-6057305856523741620
FNG SICK!!!!!!
-
(http://i.imgur.com/DoYrqO1.jpg)
Awesome.
-
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/02/video-outrageous-obama-equates-christianity-with-isis-at-prayer-breakfast
>:(
-
hannity was wrecking obama about this... earlier on his radio show, 430ish.
-
hannity was wrecking obama about this... earlier on his radio show, 430ish.
yeah, christians hate being reminded when one of their own commits violence motivated by their christian religious beliefs
they don't even like those types of people being referred to as christian extremists even though that's exactly what they are
-
yeah, christians hate being reminded when one of their own commits violence motivated by their christian religious beliefs
they don't even like those types of people being referred to as christian extremists even though that's exactly what they are
I agree. In the 21st century Christians are renowned for slavery, rape and suicide bombings in the name of Christ. I'm glad someone on this message board was intelligent enough to tell the truth.
-
I agree. In the 21st century Christians are renowned for slavery, rape and suicide bombings in the name of Christ. I'm glad someone on this message board was intelligent enough to tell the truth.
bombing and murder yes
not sure where you got the rest of that from but I guess you must believe it
-
bombing and murder yes
not sure where you got the rest of that from but I guess you must believe it
Holy shit.
-
Holy shit.
I know you'd like to pretend the the bombing of abortion clinics and the murder of doctors are not acts committed by Christian Extremist
Same goes for the Olympic Park Bombing
People committing acts of violence motivated by the christian religious beliefs
Don't feel so bad. Shit, every religion has their violent nutbags. Even Buddhist
-
How can no one see the Catholic church is far from Christian. They tortured and burned Christians for reading the Bible.
I thought this placed was lost but then a gem like this turns up.
+1
-
It's his way of covering and making excuses for radical Islam. There's no two ways about it. He met with Muslim leaders but would not say who they were.
You know they are planning a takeover of the US right?
Are you gonna fight back ???
-
How quickly will Coach become a terrorist sympathizer given how often he has made very thinly veiled wishes for horrible things for Obama on this site (that of course our shit Mods never remove)
'We will cut off your head in the White House': ISIS threatens to behead Obama and turn the U.S. into a 'Muslim province' in new execution video
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2928426/ISIS-claim-execute-Japanese-hostage-24-hours.html#ixzz3QvGNXrmi
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
-
LOL....amazing. You lefties really are mental cases. Hahahaha
-
The funny thing too is that the pos of muslim shit in the WH wont even call ISIS Islamic
-
http://therightscoop.com/hes-not-my-president-mark-levin-impeaches-obama-even-though-congress-wont
-
@CarlosC: The Shoe Bomber was a Muslim
The Beltway Snipers were Muslims
The Fort Hood Shooter was a Muslim
The underwear Bomber was a Muslim
The U-S.S. Cole Bombers were Muslims
The Madrid Train Bombers were Muslims
The Bafi Nightclub Bombers were Muslims
The London Subway Bombers were Muslims
The Moscow Theatre Attackers were Muslims
The Boston Marathon Bombers were Muslims
The Pan-Am flight #93 Bombers were Muslims
The Air France Entebbe Hijackers were Muslims
The Iranian Embassy Takeover, was by Muslims
The Beirut U.S. Embassy bombers were Muslims
The Libyan U.S. Embassy Attack was by Musiims
The Buenos Aires Suicide Bombers were Muslims
The Israeli Olympic Team Attackers were Muslims
The Kenyan U.S, Embassy Bombers were Muslims
The Saudi, Khobar Towers Bombers were Muslims
The Beirut Marine Barracks bombers were Muslims
The Besian Russian School Attackers were Muslims
The first World Trade Center Bombers were Muslims
The Bombay & Mumbai India Attackers were Muslims
The Achille Lauro Cruise Ship Hijackers were Muslims
The September 11th 2001 Airline Hijackers were Muslims'
Think of it:
Buddhists living with Hindus = No Problem
Hindus living with Christians = No Problem
Hindus living with Jews = No Problem
Christians living with Shintos = No Problem
Shintos living with Confucians = No Problem
Confusians living with Baha'is = No Problem
Baha'is living with Jews = No Problem
Jews living with Atheists = No Problem
Atheists living with Buddhists = No Problem
Buddhists living with Sikhs = No Problem
Sikhs living with Hindus = No Problem
Hindus living with Baha'is = No Problem
Baha'is living with Christians = No Problem
Christians living with Jews = No Problem
Jews living with Buddhists = No Problem
Buddhists living with Shintos = No Problem
Shintos living with Atheists = No Problem
Atheists living with Confucians = No Problem
Confusians living with Hindus = No Problem
Muslims living with Hindus = Problem
Muslims living with Buddhists = Problem
Muslims living with Christians = Problem
Muslims living with Jews = Problem
Muslims living with Sikhs = Problem
Muslims living with Baha'is = Problem
Muslims living with Shintos = Problem
Muslims living with Atheists = Problem
MUSLIMS LIVING WITH MUSLIMS = BIG PROBLEM
**********SO THIS LEAD TO *****************
They’re not happy in Gaza
They're not happy in Egypt
They're not happy in Libya
They're not happy in Morocco
They're not happy in Iran
They're not happy in Iraq
They're not happy in Yemen
They're not happy in Afghanistan
They're not happy in Pakistan
They're not happy in Syria
They're not happy in Lebanon
They're not happy in Nigeria
They're not happy in Kenya
They're not happy in Sudan
******** So, where are they happy? **********
They're happy in Australia
They're happy in England
They're happy in Belgium
They're happy in France
They're happy in Italy
They're happy in Germany
They're happy in Sweden
They're happy in the USA & Canada
They're happy in Norway & India
They're happy in almost every country that is not Islamic! And who do they blame? Not Islam... Not their leadership... Not themselves... THEY BLAME THE COUNTRIES THEY ARE HAPPY IN!! And they want to change the countries they're happy in, to be like the countries they came from where they were unhappy and finally they will be get hammered!!!!
Islamic Jihad: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
ISIS: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Al-Qaeda: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Taliban: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Hamas: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Hezbollah: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Boko Haram: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Al-Nusra: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Abu Sayyaf: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Al-Badr: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Muslim Brotherhood: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Lashkar-e-Taiba: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Palestine Liberation Front: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Ansaru: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Jemaah Islamiyah: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Abdullah Azzam Brigades: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
AND A LOT MORE!!!!!!!
Think about it......
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-people-committed-terrible-deeds-in-the-name-of-christ-2015-2#ixzz3QyJ66IzX
-
http://m.therightscoop.com/mark-levin-eviscerates-obama-for-broad-based-attack-on-christianity
Obama wrecked by Levin for his communism and islamoism
-
On Tuesday, the so-called Islamic State released a slickly produced video showing a Jordanian pilot being burned alive in a steel cage. On Wednesday, the United Nations issued a report detailing various “mass executions of boys, as well as reports of beheadings, crucifixions of children, and burying children alive” at the hands of the Islamic State.
And on Thursday, President Obama seized the opportunity of the National Prayer Breakfast to forthrightly criticize the “terrible deeds” . . . committed “in the name of Christ.”
“Humanity has been grappling with these questions throughout human history,” Obama said, referring to the ennobling aspects of religion as well as the tendency of people to “hijack” religions for murderous ends.
"And lest we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ. In our home country, slavery and Jim Crow all too often was justified in the name of Christ."
Obama’s right. Terrible things have been done in the name of Christianity. I have yet to meet a Christian who denies this.
But, as odd as it may sound for a guy named Goldberg to point it out, the Inquisition and the Crusades aren’t the indictments Obama thinks they are. For starters, the Crusades — despite their terrible organized cruelties — were a defensive war.
“The Crusades could more accurately be described as a limited, belated and, in the last analysis, ineffectual response to the jihad — a failed attempt to recover by a Christian holy war what had been lost to a Muslim holy war,” writes Bernard Lewis, the greatest living English-language historian of Islam.
As for the Inquisition, it needs to be clarified that there was no single “Inquisition,” but many. And most were not particularly nefarious. For centuries, whenever the Catholic Church launched an inquiry or investigation, it mounted an “inquisition,” which means pretty much the same thing.
Historian Thomas Madden, director of the Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies at Saint Louis University, writes that the “Inquisition was not born out of desire to crush diversity or oppress people; it was rather an attempt to stop unjust executions.”
In medieval Europe, heresy was a crime against the state, Madden explains. Local nobles, often greedy, illiterate, and eager to placate the mob, gleefully agreed to execute people accused of witchcraft or some other forms of heresy. By the 1100s, such accusations were causing grave injustices (in much the same way that apparatchiks in Communist countries would level charges of disloyalty in order to have rivals “disappeared”).
“The Catholic Church’s response to this problem was the Inquisition,” Madden explains, “first instituted by Pope Lucius III in 1184.”
I cannot defend everything done under the various Inquisitions — especially in Spain — because some of it was indefensible. But there’s a very important point to make here that transcends the scoring of easy, albeit deserved, points against Obama’s approach to Islamic extremism (which he will not call Islamic): Christianity, even in its most terrible days, even under the most corrupt popes, even during the most unjustifiable wars, was indisputably a force for the improvement of man.
Christianity ended greater barbarisms under pagan Rome. The church often fell short of its ideals — which all human things do — but its ideals were indisputably a great advance for humanity. Similarly, while some rationalized slavery and Jim Crow in the U.S. by invoking Christianity, it was ultimately the ideals of Christianity itself that dealt the fatal blow to those institutions. Just read any biography of Martin Luther King Jr. if you don’t believe me.
When Obama alludes to the evils of medieval Christianity, he fails to acknowledge the key word: “medieval.” What made medieval Christianity backward wasn’t Christianity but medievalism.
It is perverse that Obama feels compelled to lecture the West about not getting too judgmental on our “high horse” over radical Islam’s medieval barbarism in 2015 because of Christianity’s medieval barbarism in 1215.
It’s also insipidly hypocritical. President Obama can’t bring himself to call the Islamic State “Islamic,” but he’s happy to offer a sermon about Christianity’s alleged crimes at the beginning of the last millennium.
We are all descended from cavemen who broke the skulls of their enemies with rocks for fun or profit. But that hardly mitigates the crimes of a man who does the same thing today. I see no problem judging the behavior of the Islamic State and its apologists from the vantage point of the West’s high horse, because we’ve earned the right to sit in that saddle.
-
I know you'd like to pretend the the bombing of abortion clinics and the murder of doctors are not acts committed by Christian Extremist
Same goes for the Olympic Park Bombing
People committing acts of violence motivated by the christian religious beliefs
Don't feel so bad. Shit, every religion has their violent nutbags. Even Buddhist
This is utter horseshit...in the time it took to write that shit and this response more people have died at the hands of muslin shitbags then in the entire anti abortion movement. I had a thread a few months back that detailed every murder and incident/injury....I want to say 26 or something. So give me a break. Obama is a piece of shit and he defends what cannot be defended. Typical lib to the core.
-
Boko Haram and Isis kill tens of thousands of people , 9/11, all sorts of daily shit from these animals - and the best lib fags can do is point to a few lone wolf types in this country over a period of decades. ::)
-
Boko Haram and Isis kill tens of thousands of people , 9/11, all sorts of daily shit from these animals - and the best lib fags can do is point to a few lone wolf types in this country over a period of decades. ::)
Exactly.
It's so pathetic.
-
This is utter horseshit...in the time it took to write that shit and this response more people have died at the hands of muslin shitbags then in the entire anti abortion movement. I had a thread a few months back that detailed every murder and incident/injury....I want to say 26 or something. So give me a break. Obama is a piece of shit and he defends what cannot be defended. Typical lib to the core.
It's amazing how sick liberals mindset truly is.
People being burnt alive, children being raped/tortured, beheadings and this is their response.
-
It's amazing how sick liberals mindset truly is.
People being burnt alive, children being raped/tortured, beheadings and this is their response.
Some liberals just might have a mental disorder. :-\
-
wow...we are really fucked.
"these guys killed more people than these guys in the name of religion..."
"oh well these guys did it like a long time ago so it doesnt count"
What in the shit man..
Bros the kkk is a terroist group...you guys do know that they are a Christian Orginazation as per their history and their current leader.
Retarded religion is the freaking issue. Killing in the name of!!!... But to discount the fucked up shit of one religion because the bulk of it was done a while ago, i mean its insane to me.
-
This is utter horseshit...in the time it took to write that shit and this response more people have died at the hands of muslin shitbags then in the entire anti abortion movement. I had a thread a few months back that detailed every murder and incident/injury....I want to say 26 or something. So give me a break. Obama is a piece of shit and he defends what cannot be defended. Typical lib to the core.
please explain how the fact that muslim nutbags commit more acts of violence in the name of their religion changes the fact that fundie christians have also done the same thing
they are both example of terrorism in the name of religion
I assume you have no problem calling a spade a spade and calling a christian extremist a christian extremist just like you have no problem calling a muslim extremist a muslim extremist (and I'm already on the record saying it's complete horseshit that the administration won't use that term)
in spite of your right wing nuttiness you don't seem to be the type of person that has a problem calling things what they are
-
wow...we are really fucked.
"these guys killed more people than these guys in the name of religion..."
"oh well these guys did it like a long time ago so it doesnt count"
What in the shit man..
Bros the kkk is a terroist group...you guys do know that they are a Christian Orginazation as per their history and their current leader.
Retarded religion is the freaking issue. Killing in the name of!!!... But to discount the fucked up shit of one religion because the bulk of it was done a while ago, i mean its insane to me.
there's a statue of limitations on religion,you didn't know that
-
there's a statue of limitations on religion,you didn't know that
its insane to me..like for real
-
there's a statue of limitations on religion,you didn't know that
HH seems to think that sheer numbers matter when defining a specific act
Apparently if one person commits 500 robberies and another only commits 5 then the second person should not be labeled a "thief"
-
wow...we are really fucked.
"these guys killed more people than these guys in the name of religion..."
"oh well these guys did it like a long time ago so it doesnt count"
What in the shit man..
Bros the kkk is a terroist group...you guys do know that they are a Christian Orginazation as per their history and their current leader.
Retarded religion is the freaking issue. Killing in the name of!!!... But to discount the fucked up shit of one religion because the bulk of it was done a while ago, i mean its insane to me.
The issue is Radical Islam, not what some fanatics did during the 12th century. One has absolutely nothing to do with the other. The US and many other parts of the world are at war with terrorists who are part of an ideology. We are not at war with Christians, Christian ideology, radical Christians, 12th Century Catholics, the 1950s KKK, etc.
What's insane is all of this moral equivalency.
-
The issue is Radical Islam, not what some fanatics did during the 12th century. One has absolutely nothing to do with the other. The US and many other parts of the world are at war with terrorists who are part of an ideology. We are not at war with Christians, Christian ideology, radical Christians, 12th Century Catholics, the 1950s KKK, etc.
What's insane is all of this moral equivalency.
how about acts of violence by christian extremists in the 21rst century?
I'm sure you must be aware that those exist
-
We need get Michelle to bust out her Marks-a-lot and get this whole matter straightened out.
(http://rack.2.mshcdn.com/media/ZgkyMDE0LzA1LzA4L2FlL01pY2hlbGxlT2JhLjc1NDBlLmpwZwpwCXRodW1iCTk1MHg1MzQjCmUJanBn/82c6c83e/a64/MichelleObamaBringBackOurGirls.jpg)
-
Funny being lectured about extremism by a pos who was BFF w a domestic terrorist himself
-
The issue is Radical Islam, not what some fanatics did during the 12th century. One has absolutely nothing to do with the other. The US and many other parts of the world are at war with terrorists who are part of an ideology. We are not at war with Christians, Christian ideology, radical Christians, 12th Century Catholics, the 1950s KKK, etc.
What's insane is all of this moral equivalency.
youre kidding me right?
-
youre kidding me right?
Kidding about the complete inapplicability of the KKK to our fight against Radical Islam? Not at all.
-
youre kidding me right?
People like Bum have decided that people who commit horrible acts of violence which are either inspired or justified by their christian beliefs are not actually christians therefore are not christian extremists i.e. christian extremist don't actually exist (in spite of the dead bodies). It's the exact same stupid argument that the Obama administration makes for not using the term muslim extremist
Guys like HH will tell you that christian extremist don't exist because muslim extremist commit so much more violence (I guess they simply round down to zero the christian extremists when compared to muslim extremists or something like that)
-
Friend of mine posted the article on his facebook and stated "Obama defends ISIS" So I read the article and couldn't find anywhere that he defended ISIS and cut and pasted the portion where he condemns their actions.... my friend, being the avid conservative O'Reilly type, totally ignores the facts and rants off on a rabbit trail....
-
Friend of mine posted the article on his facebook and stated "Obama defends ISIS" So I read the article and couldn't find anywhere that he defended ISIS and cut and pasted the portion where he condemns their actions.... my friend, being the avid conservative O'Reilly type, totally ignores the facts and rants off on a rabbit trail....
Its not defending ISIS as much as it is diminishing their acts of barbarism and diverting attention away from the evil that these asshole sand rats are committing in the name of Islam.
Funny too how Obama never mentioned 9/11 being done in the name of Islam either.
-
Its not defending ISIS as much as it is diminishing their acts of barbarism and diverting attention away from the evil that these asshole sand rats are committing in the name of Islam.
Funny too how Obama never mentioned 9/11 being done in the name of Islam either.
Exactly.
-
You American leftists who actually defend what Isis and similar groups are doing today as ok - because Obama said it's ok, since "Christians" killed people 1000 years ago and whites bought black slaves from other blacks in Africa and brought them here 400 years ago (eventually giving their descendants better lives than they'd ever dream of in Africa BTW) - are unreal.
-
Haven't seen anyone here defending ISIS or condoning their actions..
-
You American leftists who actually defend what Isis and similar groups are doing today as ok - because Obama said it's ok, since "Christians" killed people 1000 years ago and whites bought black slaves from other blacks in Africa and brought them here 400 years ago (eventually giving their descendants better lives than they'd ever dream of in Africa BTW) - are unreal.
Christians have killed people in this country in the name of their christian beliefs within the last 6 years and I haven't seen anyone (left, right or center) defending ISIS nor have I seen Obama saying what ISIS is doing is OK "since "Christians" killed people 1000 years ago"
-
Haven't seen anyone here defending ISIS or condoning their actions..
Then why even mention the Inquisition?
-
Haven't seen anyone here defending ISIS or condoning their actions..
Then why bring up Christians of 800 years ago other than to either diminish, deflect, or divert attention away from ISIS as Obama is doing?
-
Christians have killed people in this country in the name of their christian beliefs within the last 6 years and I haven't seen anyone (left, right or center) defending ISIS nor have I seen Obama saying what ISIS is doing is OK "since "Christians" killed people 1000 years ago"
Oh FNG please - more blacks kill other blacks WEEKLY!!!! and not a peep from you leftists
-
Haven't seen anyone here defending ISIS or condoning their actions..
nonsense, the president is a member and libs wear ISIS t-shirts to work, if they had jobs.
-
Obama's "high horse" remarks are incredibly stupid and show his fundamental failure to comprehend what is unfolding in the world we inhabit 2015.
What would he say if some European leader suggested he get off his high horse about Jim Crow and American Slavery? The Arab slave trade was established in the 8th and 9th Centuries in AFRICA.
In fact - Boko Haram and Isis ARE TAKING SLAVES RIGHT FUCKING NOW!!!!
-
Christians have killed people in this country in the name of their christian beliefs within the last 6 years and I haven't seen anyone (left, right or center) defending ISIS nor have I seen Obama saying what ISIS is doing is OK "since "Christians" killed people 1000 years ago"
You're all rationalizing and downplaying their savagery and comparing it in a positive light to other barbaric behavior by other idiots (basically defending them) instead of condemning them and wanting to do what it takes to stop them.
If it's somebody here in America blowing up abortion clinics or government buildings for whatever reasons, I say try them and execute them. How about you?
You'll of course next say it's all Bush's fault and all because of the west that Isis doing these things in the first place.
-
Haven't seen anyone here defending ISIS or condoning their actions..
I guess that's a matter of opinion.
You guys bringing up things that happened 1000 years ago to try to make some sort of moral equivalence argument sound like the heartbroken parents of a son on death row who are making excuses for his savagery and blaming others for it and begging for his life.
-
You're all rationalizing and downplaying their savagery and comparing it in a positive light to other barbaric behavior by other idiots (basically defending them) instead of condemning them and wanting to do what it takes to stop them.
If it's somebody here in America blowing up abortion clinics or government buildings for whatever reasons, I say try them and execute them. How about you?
You'll of course next say it's all Bush's fault and all because of the west that Isis doing these things in the first place.
I'm not defending or condoning "them"
I'm pointing out that your statement is false as in factually incorrect
-
nonsense, the president is a member and libs wear ISIS t-shirts to work, if they had jobs.
I'm not sure you realize this but you lose credibility when you post things of this nature. It really makes it hard to put any weight to your comments.
-
Obama's "high horse" remarks are incredibly stupid and show his fundamental failure to comprehend what is unfolding in the world we inhabit 2015.
What would he say if some European leader suggested he get off his high horse about Jim Crow and American Slavery? The Arab slave trade was established in the 8th and 9th Centuries in AFRICA.
In fact - Boko Haram and Isis ARE TAKING SLAVES RIGHT FUCKING NOW!!!!
Let me try and put some context to it for you....... I think I'm spinning wheels but here goes...
There are a great many people who are ready to condemn the entire religion of Islam for what some extremists are doing in the name of that religion. Hatred continues to build that ultimately if left unchecked, could boil over into a multitude of problems in the near future. Your average bubba thinks all Muslims want to see him beheaded. Obama is trying to add some perspective and say "before you condemn all of Islam for what ISIS is doing, don't forget we had our own extremists do horrible things in the name of Christianity. It doesn't mean we were all like that.
Hence the high horse comment which i think was poorly thought out.. but I get what he was saying because I am not clouded by a rage
-
Let me try and put some context to it for you....... I think I'm spinning wheels but here goes...
There are a great many people who are ready to condemn the entire religion of Islam for what some extremists are doing in the name of that religion. Hatred continues to build that ultimately if left unchecked, could boil over into a multitude of problems in the near future. Your average bubba thinks all Muslims want to see him beheaded. Obama is trying to add some perspective and say "before you condemn all of Islam for what ISIS is doing, don't forget we had our own extremists do horrible things in the name of Christianity. It doesn't mean we were all like that.
Hence the high horse comment which i think was poorly thought out.. but I get what he was saying because I am not clouded by a rage
Who are all these people Obama is talking about the represent such a problem labeling all muslims ? More straw Man bullshit from Obama in order to deflect from his arab brothers and sisters acting like animals.
-
“‘Lest we get on our high horse’ is a comic piece of rhetorical construction, as it actually signals the speaker is getting on his high horse,” writes John Podhoretz.
Yesterday, President Obama used the phrase during his speech at the National Prayer Breakfast, an interfaith gathering of political leaders. He said people of all faiths have been willing to “hijack religion for their own murderous ends… And lest we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ.”
It’s unclear precisely why President Obama is intent on bringing up the events of nearly 1000 years ago to downplay the brutal acts of the (totally not Islamic, why would you think they’re Islamic? That’s weird of you) Islamic State or (nothing whatsoever to do with Islam, it’s pretty racist of you to suggest it, actually) Boko Haram and (what gave you the idea that the Charlie Hebdo assassins were motivated by religion? You must watch Fox News) al Qaeda in Yemen. Some critics of war worry, I think incorrectly, that we can’t detail ISIS’ atrocities or freely discuss the threat of Islamist jihadism without it leading to unbridled involvement in foreign lands.
Still, the Crusades aren’t a great example of high-horse Christian aggression for a few different reasons. For one, the wars were defensive wars, a centrally important fact left out of most stoned sophomores’ discussion upon first learning any history prior to 1983. To quote the great historian of Islam Bernard Lewis:
The Crusades could more accurately be described as a limited, belated and, in the last analysis, ineffectual response to the jihad -- a failed attempt to recover by a Christian holy war what had been lost to a Muslim holy war...
Mohammed himself led the first jihad, in the wars of the Muslims against the pagans in Arabia. The jihad continued under his successors, with a series of wars that brought the Middle East, including the Holy Land, under Arab Muslim rule and then continued eastward into Asia, westward into Africa, and three times into Europe -- the Moors in Spain, the Tatars in Russia, the Turks in the Balkans. The Crusade was part of the European counterattack. The Christian re-conquest succeeded in Spain, Russia and eventually the Balkans; it failed to recover the Holy Land of Christendom.
That was my rhetorical question yesterday, to which I received wide-ranging responses, such as “the new iPhone” and, closer, “Muslims were taking a stroll through Europe, minding their own business, when Charles Martel attacked them for no reason!”
The idea that you’d use Crusades as a means to tell a story about all religions being the same shows a shocking lack of regard for the historical reason for said crusades.
And, sure, if some significant minority of Christianity, much less any contingent, were not just crusading at this moment in time but actually arguing that the worst atrocities committed during the Crusades should have been approved by the church and were the correct interpretation of Christianity, that might call for a much-needed slap-down. But that is not the real world we live in today.
In the real world that we currently occupy, the one where President Obama is the current president, we have unspeakable atrocities committed by Muslim jihadists with alarming frequency. Some of these have been against Americans and they promise that more are to come. These guys don’t take their religious cues from Obama or anyone else in the administration or anyone in the media, so they could give a rat’s patootie whether those entities question their religious views.
To take just one example, you saw various elites say that the burning in a cage of the Jordanian pilot wasn’t Islamic. Here’s Fareed Zakaria of CNN:
Look, ISIS is not really about Islam or religion. This is a very... I mean, this is a barbarous thing to do and a violation of any kind of humanity, but it's also very un-Islamic. It doesn't follow any precepts of Islam. And so they claim to be Islamic. No! They're a band of thugs.
Fareed Zakaria also claimed:
The only problem with this is that it’s asserted but not substantiated. It’s one thing to say that some Muslims disagree with ISIS’ interpretation of Islam, entirely another to say they’re not making the case that they’re Islamic. This Washington Post story goes through ISIS’ defense of its most recent actions. Not all Muslim scholars agree (which should surprise no one even slightly familiar with Islam) but ISIS made its case and its clerics supported burning a prisoner in a cage on the grounds of qisas:
That Quranic verse (16:126) forms part of the basis for “qisas,” a broad concept in Islamic law that calls for equal retribution for crimes – in essence, an eye for an eye. As Shiraz Maher, a senior fellow at the International Center for the Study of Radicalisation at King’s College London, writes, it’s usually used in cases of murder or mutilation. At points, jihadist groups have used it to justify jihadists’ attacks before: Al-Qaeda later used the concept to justify a 1995 strike on the Egyptian Embassy in Islamabad, for example.
From here on out, any media or Obama administration official issuing an edict of heterodoxy against ISIS should be asked to back their doctrinal claims up. They should tell us how they came to understand Sharia and what books or texts they’re using and precisely how they’re judging ISIS to be non-compliant. Or, perhaps far better, they should stop issuing doctrinal declarations of who is a good Muslim and who is a bad Muslim as if the U.S. was the world’s most under-qualified Sharia Court! It’s true that most Muslims in the world do not support ISIS or other jihadist theology. It’s also true that a pretty significant minority does support violence. Here is a recent subtitled video purporting to show the Jordanian head of the Muslim Brotherhood declining to call ISIS a terrorist group, for what it’s worth.
Listen, I don’t trust the media or politicians to know jack about my Lutheranism. I certainly don’t go to them for expertise on the finer contours of jihadist theology. But it’s about 20 years past time to drop the unbelievably inadequate armchair theologizing and wake up to the reality that whether our presidents view ISIS and similar organizations as heterodox or not, ISIS is making claims about Islam that they are backing up and selling to others.
Condescending to Americans by reiterating that not all Christians are or have been perfect throughout history — in an environment where people are losing their heads on camera, are being burned in cages, and are being gunned down in their offices, markets and cafes by Islamic jihadists — is weird and unbecoming.
It’s also self-defeating. A man telling his girlfriend or wife to “calm down” is a horrible way to resolve conflict. President Obama reacts to things such as the burning of the Jordanian pilot in the cage by telling Americans to calm down. It has precisely the opposite effect. It makes those alarmed by such human rights violations and the threat they represent to American interests think that they are in an even more desperate situation. Following up the demand to “calm down” by bringing up past grievances (that are literally hundreds of years old and told dangerously out of context) is just another bad relationship cliche. Enough.
http://thefederalist.com/2015/02/06/lets-face-isis-reality-and-drop-the-sophomoric-armchair-theologizing/
-
I'm not sure you realize this but you lose credibility when you post things of this nature. It really makes it hard to put any weight to your comments.
I could use the [sarcasm] tag.
But we're in a world where a handful of getbiggers TRULY believe our president supports/member of ISIS. You see that, right?
-
No, it isn't good for a "leader" to say stuff like that in this way. Everywhere you look, there are opportunities given to allow the operation and expansion of whatever "isis" enemy in fact exists. It cannot be denied. For the president to say what he did, it goes a long way toward contributing to that. Of course it does.
Guys like Obama are showing there's some incentive to allow the problem to expand and get worse, which means there must have been the exact same incentive to help create it in the first place, to the point of ridiculousness since 911. Can anyone say otherwise?
-
Haven't seen anyone here defending ISIS or condoning their actions..
That's not what anybody is saying.
People are being lit on fire. Little children are being raped, tortured and killed.
You don't think the president's statement seemed a bit out of place?
-
Just like the FBI scrounging up these "dangerous criminals" that wouldn't have been able to stumble out for a beer successfully, let alone do the things they're charged with trying to do.
The "good guys" are creating crime, and they are burdening Americans and others with their bullshit. It's a dangerous game that won't end well for us.
-
I could use the [sarcasm] tag.
But we're in a world where a handful of getbiggers TRULY believe our president supports/member of ISIS. You see that, right?
aaahhh.... I see
-
http://www.westernjournalism.com/bishop-jackson-obama-frankly-sir-try-closing-mouth/#988H5JT06FgAcQoH.97
Obama is a pos
-
http://www.westernjournalism.com/bishop-jackson-obama-frankly-sir-try-closing-mouth/#988H5JT06FgAcQoH.97
Obama is a pos
is he a member of isis? or supporting them?
-
Gotta make the problem huge, man. There can't be an end to be seen, ever. It must become a permanent burden for the common person, everywhere.
New world, baby.
If it was previously unclear whether Obama is a player in this, it isn't now.
-
is he a member of isis? or supporting them?
He has been their biggest friend by far in allowing them to expand and grow in Iraq, squabbling w those fighting ISIS, not giving weapons to the Kurds and Pershmega, making endless excuses for them, slow walking all attempts to deal w them and arm those who want to fight them, etc.
Same w Boko Harum, Al Queada, etc.
The results speak for itself.
-
Whole thing is a scam, meant to spiral out of control.
Hell yes, actions speak louder than words.
-
He has been their biggest friend by far
The US President has been the biggest friend to ISIS? That's what you're saying?
dropping bombs on them - just part of the cover?
-
The US President has been the biggest friend to ISIS? That's what you're saying?
dropping bombs on them - just part of the cover?
Possibly the most effective enemy-maker on earth, right there.
-
We've got all the power in the world to investigate and identify who is who, and act accordingly.
...but if it was done with legitimate intent, it would cause an effective end to the problem.
-
Jindal Mocks Obama on Crusades: We’ve Got ‘Medieval Christian Threat’ Under Control
(http://static01.mediaite.com/med/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/jindal.jpg)
President Obama yesterday obliquely addressed the controversy over his administration not referring to terrorist groups like ISIS as being “radical Muslims.” The president said that plenty of horrible things have been done in the name of Christianity, like the Inquisition and the Crusades.
Obama’s gotten some mockery from the right for referencing events from hundreds of years ago, and today Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal joined the fray. In a statement today, he says the president really isn’t addressing the pressing issue of terrorism and instead giving people a history lesson.
And then came the mocking:
“We will be happy to keep an eye out for runaway Christians, but it would be nice if he would face the reality of the situation today. The Medieval Christian threat is under control Mr. President. Please deal with the Radical Islamic threat today.”
White House deputy press secretary Eric Schultz said today Obama was talking about being “honest with ourselves” when we fall short of our values.
-
On Tuesday the Islamic State released a 22-minute video showing Flight Lieutenant Muath al-Kasasbeh of the Royal Jordanian Air Force being doused in petrol and burned to death. It is an horrific way to die, and Flt Lt al-Kasasbeh showed uncommon bravery, standing stiff and dignified as the flames consumed him. And then he toppled, and the ISIS cameras rolled on, until what was left was charred and shapeless and unrecognizable as human.
King Abdullah's response to this barbaric act was to execute two ISIS prisoners the following morning, including the evil woman who was part of the cell that blew up the lobby of my favorite hotel in Amman, the Grand Hyatt.
President Obama's response was to go to the National Prayer Breakfast and condescendingly advise us - as if it's some dazzlingly original observation rather than the lamest faculty-lounge relativist bromide - to "remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ".
Gee, thanks. If you're watching on ISIS premium cable, I'm sure that's a great consolation when they're reaching for the scimitar and readying you for your close-up. Oh, and, even by the standards of his usual rote cookie-cutter shoulder-to-shoulder shtick that follows every ISIS beheading of western captives, the President could barely conceal his boredom at having to discuss the immolation of Flt Lt al-Kasasbeh:
Aaand it, I think, will redouble [pause] the vigilance aaand determination on the part of our global coalition to, uh, make sure that they are degraded and ultimately defeated. Ummmm. [Adopting a whimsical look] It also just indicates the degree to which whatever ideology they're operating off of, it's bankrupt. [Suppressing a smirk, pivoting to a much more important subject.] We're here to talk about how to make people healthier and make their lives better.
The lack of passion - the bloodlessness - of Obama's reaction to atrocity is always striking. He can't even be bothered pretending that he means it.
I am not a great fan of the Hashemites, and there is great peril for Jordan in getting sucked deeper into a spiral that could quickly consume one of the weakest polities in the region and turn the least-worst Sunni monarchy into merely the latest Obama-era failed-state - after Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, etc. The UAE took advantage of Flt Lt al-Kasasbeh's capture to cease participation in sorties entirely, and, given the general halfheartedness of Obama's "coalition", King Abdullah could have been forgiven for also deciding to head for the exit.
Yet he understood the necessity of action. Obama, by contrast, declares action, and then does nothing. His war against ISIS was supposed to be one in which the US would not put "boots on the ground", but instead leave that to our allies. The allies have the boots, but they could use some weapons, too. Obama has failed to supply the Kurds or anybody else with what they need to defeat our enemies. It's becoming what they call a pattern of behavior. Elliott Abrams draws attention to this passage in a New York Times story about Ukraine:
The Russians have sent modern T-80 tanks, whose armor cannot be penetrated by Ukraine's aging and largely inoperative antitank weapons, along with Grad rockets and other heavy weapons. Russian forces have also used electronic jamming equipment to interfere with the Ukrainians' communications….
Ukraine has requested arms and equipment, including ammunition, sniper rifles, mortars, grenade launchers, antitank missiles, armored personnel carriers, mobile field hospitals, counterbattery radars and reconnaissance drones.
Hmm. So how much of that shopping list have we responded to? Obama won't write Ukraine a blank check, but he will write them a blanket check:
The $16.4 million in aid that Mr. Kerry will announce in Kiev is intended to help people trapped by the fighting in Donetsk and Luhansk. The aid will be used to buy basic items like blankets and clothing, along with counseling for traumatized civilians.
Could be worse. He might have thrown in another James Taylor singalong. Then they really would need trauma counselors.
With at least another two years of civilizational retreat to go, we're gonna need a lot more security blankets, which is good news for whichever Chinese factory makes them.
~As Kyle Smith points out, the video of Flt Lt al-Kasasbeh's death is an extremely sophisticated and professional production. US news media have declined to run it, because it's too disturbing, as opposed to, say, Brian Williams' ripping yarns of derring-do about being shot out of the sky by an RPG. There are really two parallel media structures now: Consumers of Brian Williams-delivered "news" aren't even aware of the metastasizing of evil. Meanwhile, out there on Twitter and Facebook it's the hottest recruiting tool on the planet. You'll recall Hannah Arendt's tired and misleading coinage "the banality of evil", derived from her observation of Adolf Eichmann at his trial in Jerusalem. As I wrote last August:
Hitler felt obliged to be somewhat coy about just how final the final solution was. As Eichmann testified at his trial, when typing up the minutes of the Wannsee conference, "How shall I put it? Certain over-plain talk and jargon expressions had to be rendered into office language by me." Even the Nazis were reluctant to spell it out.
The Germans didn't have social media, but they had newsreels, and Hitler knew enough not to make genocide available to Pathé or "The March of Time". He had considerations both domestic and foreign. Pre-Wannsee, in Poland and elsewhere, German troops had been ordered to shoot Jewish prisoners in cold blood, and their commanders reported back to Berlin that too many soldiers had found it sickening and demoralizing. So the purpose of "the final solution" was to make mass murder painless, at least for the perpetrators - more bureaucratic, removed, bloodless.
As for foreign considerations, Germany expected to be treated as a civilized power by its enemies, and that would not have been possible had they been boasting about genocide.
Seventy years on, the Islamic State has slipped free of even these minimal constraints. They advertize their barbarism to the world, because what's the downside? Let's say the guys who burned Flt Lt al-Kasasbeh are one day captured by Americans. They can look forward to a decade or two of a soft, pampering sojourn in the US justice system, represented by an A-list dream-team that'll string things along until the administration figures it'll cut its losses and ship them to Qatar in exchange for some worthless deserter.
As for the upside, "the banality of evil" may have its appeal for lower-middle-class Teuton bureaucrats, but the glamor of evil is a far more potent and universal brand. The Islamic State has come up with the ultimate social-media campaign: evil goes viral! At some level German conscripts needed to believe they were honorable soldiers in an honorable cause, no different from the British or Americans. But ISIS volunteers are signing up explicitly for the war crimes. The Islamic State burned Flt Lt al-Kasasbeh alive not only to kill him but to inspire the thousands of ISIS fanbois around the globe, like Moussa Coulibaly, the guy who stabbed three French policemen outside a Jewish school in Nice this week.
For many of its beneficiaries, modern western life is bland, undemanding and vaguely unsatisfying. Some seek a greater cause, and turn to climate change or LGBTQWERTY rights. But others want something with a little more red meat to it. Jihad is primal in a way that the stodgy multiculti relativist mush peddled by Obama isn't. And what the Islamic State is offering is Jihad 2.0, cranking up the blood-lust and rape and sex slavery and head-chopping and depravity in ways that make Osama-era al-Qaeda look like a bunch of pantywaists.
Success breeds success. The success of evil breeds darker evil. And the glamorization of evil breeds ever more of those "recent Muslim converts" and "lone wolves" and "self-radicalized extremists" in the news. That's a Big Idea - a bigger idea, indeed, than Communism or Nazism. Islam, as we know, means "submission". But Xtreme-Sports Hyper-Islam, blood-soaked and baying, is also wonderfully liberating, offering the chance for dull-witted, repressed young men to slip free of even the most basic societal restraints. And, when the charms of the open road in Headchoppistan wear thin, your British and Canadian and Australian and European welfare checks will still be waiting for you on the doormat back home.
By contrast, civilization is a fragile and unnatural state of affairs. Droning on about the Crusades and Jim Crow, Obama offers the foreign policy of Oscar Wilde's cynic: He knows the price of everything and the value of nothing. And so, as the world burns, he, uh, redoubles his, uh, vigilance, uh uh uh... Whatever. That and $16.4 million will buy you coffee and some trauma counseling in Kiev.
© 2015 Mark Steyn Enterprises (US) Inc. All rights reserved.
No part of this website or any of its contents may be reproduced, copied, modified or adapted, without the prior written consent of Mark Steyn Enterprises.
-
The Foolish, Historically Illiterate, Incredible Response to Obama's Prayer Breakfast Speech
Using religion to brutalize other people is not a Muslim invention, nor is it foreign to the American experience.
TA-NEHISI COATESFEB 6 2015, 1:00 PM ET
People who wonder why the president does not talk more about race would do well to examine the recent blow-up over his speech at the National Prayer Breakfast. Inveighing against the barbarism of ISIS, the president pointed out that it would be foolish to blame Islam, at large, for its atrocities. To make this point he noted that using religion to brutalize other people is neither a Muslim invention nor, in America, a foreign one:
Lest we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ. In our home country, slavery and Jim Crow all too often was justified in the name of Christ.
The "all too often" could just as well be "almost always." There were a fair number of pretexts given for slavery and Jim Crow, but Christianity provided the moral justification. On the cusp of plunging his country into a war that would cost some 750,000 lives, Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens paused to offer some explanation. His justification was not secular. The Confederacy was to be:
[T]he first government ever instituted upon the principles in strict conformity to nature, and the ordination of Providence, in furnishing the materials of human society ... With us, all of the white race, however high or low, rich or poor, are equal in the eye of the law. Not so with the negro. Subordination is his place. He, by nature, or by the curse against Canaan, is fitted for that condition which he occupies in our system. The architect, in the construction of buildings, lays the foundation with the proper material-the granite; then comes the brick or the marble. The substratum of our society is made of the material fitted by nature for it, and by experience we know that it is best, not only for the superior, but for the inferior race, that it should be so.
It is, indeed, in conformity with the ordinance of the Creator. It is not for us to inquire into the wisdom of His ordinances, or to question them. For His own purposes, He has made one race to differ from another, as He has made "one star to differ from another star in glory." The great objects of humanity are best attained when there is conformity to His laws and decrees, in the formation of governments as well as in all things else. Our confederacy is founded upon principles in strict conformity with these laws.
Stephens went on to argue that the "Christianization of the barbarous tribes of Africa" could only be accomplished through enslavement. And enslavement was not made possible through Robert's Rules of Order, but through a 250-year reign of mass torture, industrialized murder, and normalized rape—tactics which ISIS would find familiar. Its moral justification was not "because I said so," it was "Providence," "the curse against Canaan," "the Creator," "and Christianization." In just five years, 750,000 Americans died because of this peculiar mission of "Christianization." Many more died before, and many more died after. In his "Segregation Now" speech, George Wallace invokes God 27 times and calls the federal government opposing him "a system that is the very opposite of Christ."
Now, Christianity did not "cause" slavery, anymore than Christianity "caused" the civil-rights movement. The interest in power is almost always accompanied by the need to sanctify that power. That is what the Muslims terrorists in ISIS are seeking to do today, and that is what Christian enslavers and Christian terrorists did for the lion's share of American history.
That this relatively mild, and correct, point cannot be made without the comments being dubbed, "the most offensive I’ve ever heard a president make in my lifetime,” by a former Virginia governor gives you some sense of the limited tolerance for any honest conversation around racism in our politics. And it gives you something much more. My colleague Jim Fallows recently wrote about the need to, at once, infantilize and deify our military. Perhaps related to that is the need to infantilize and deify our history. Pointing out that Americans have done, on their own soil, in the name of their own God, something similar to what ISIS is doing now does not make ISIS any less barbaric, or any more correct. That is unless you view the entire discussion as a kind of religious one-upmanship, in which the goal is to prove that Christianity is "the awesomest."
Obama seemed to be going for something more—faith leavened by “some doubt.” If you are truly appalled by the brutality of ISIS, then a wise and essential step is understanding the lure of brutality, and recalling how easily your own society can be, and how often it has been, pulled over the brink.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/02/the-foolish-historically-illiterate-incredible-response-to-obamas-prayer-breakfast-speech/385246/
-
It's all good. We got Puff Daddy on it. It'll all be sorted out in no time.
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-20vtauowJYo/U2ykfgWJ46I/AAAAAAAAB_c/vly9n85djeo/s1600/Pdiddy-743684.jpg)
-
Hey just burned 3 more problem alive
-
What a weak article by straw. Pathetic pap filled w straw man arguments and conjecture
-
What a weak article by straw. Pathetic pap filled w straw man arguments and conjecture
Here's the guy who wrote it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ta-Nehisi_Coates
Wiki states his dad was a Black Panther. The author himself is a "feminist" :D ::)
More than likely just some confused 'brew with some serious self hate issues.
Coates grew up in Baltimore, Maryland. His father, William Paul Coates, was a Vietnam War veteran and former Black Panther. His mother, Cheryl, was the breadwinner in the family and his father was a stay-at-home dad who ran Black Classic Press, a small publishing house specializing in African American studies[3] during Ta-Nehisi's childhood.[4] Ta-Nehisi's father had seven children.[5] Coates says that Ta-Nehisi is an Egyptian name for ancient Nubia.[6]
Coates had an interest in books at an early age and his mother punished bad behavior by making him write essays.[7] Coates attended a number of Baltimore-area schools, including Baltimore Polytechnic Institute, before graduating from Woodlawn High School.[8] After high school, he enrolled in Howard University but dropped out to become a journalist.[9][10] He currently resides in Harlem with his wife and son.[11] He is an atheist and feminist
(http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTc3vkIP3T7zC-_5Gq_8U11Spe8ahR8wEJDJsyYwCeSxK1D2wWb)
-
What a weak article by straw. Pathetic pap filled w straw man arguments and conjecture
you either didn't read it or have no clue what a straw man argument even is
let's assume you did read it and cite some specific examples to support your claim
-
Here's the guy who wrote it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ta-Nehisi_Coates
Wiki states the dad was a Black Panther. The author himself is a "feminist" :D ::)
More than likely just some confused 'brew with some serious self hate issues.
Coates grew up in Baltimore, Maryland. His father, William Paul Coates, was a Vietnam War veteran and former Black Panther. His mother, Cheryl, was the breadwinner in the family and his father was a stay-at-home dad who ran Black Classic Press, a small publishing house specializing in African American studies[3] during Ta-Nehisi's childhood.[4] Ta-Nehisi's father had seven children.[5] Coates says that Ta-Nehisi is an Egyptian name for ancient Nubia.[6]
Coates had an interest in books at an early age and his mother punished bad behavior by making him write essays.[7] Coates attended a number of Baltimore-area schools, including Baltimore Polytechnic Institute, before graduating from Woodlawn High School.[8] After high school, he enrolled in Howard University but dropped out to become a journalist.[9][10] He currently resides in Harlem with his wife and son.[11] He is an atheist and feminist
(http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTc3vkIP3T7zC-_5Gq_8U11Spe8ahR8wEJDJsyYwCeSxK1D2wWb)
attack the messenger much
your issue is that he calls himself a feminist (among other things)?
I guess it would more masculine if he spent his entire waking life on this board talking about his gay sex fantasies involving Obama
I don't necessarily agree with the premise that he (and Obama) are making about not blaming Islam for these nutbags. Islam (just like almost all religions are filled with intolerance and violence and I see no reason to pretend otherwise) We are all aware of Islamic nutbags but then we have violent nutbags in every religion we have a deep history in this country of using religions to justify violence.
Here's the thing. I and many others can see this distinction and that doesn't stop us from wanting to annihilate ISIS and other muslim extremist on the planet.
Adults can actually see both of those things
Children or people with child like minds cannot
-
Yesterday, President Obama gave a speech at the National Prayer Breakfast where he lectured Americans on criticizing the Islamic State. He doesn’t want Americans to wag their fingers at ISIS for executing, crucifying, and setting people on fire, because of what Christianity did over a thousand years ago during the Inquisition.
“Humanity has been grappling with these questions throughout human history. And lest we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ,” President Obama said.
Glenn did not like these comments one bit, but couldn’t blame him. After all, the President’s upbringing and own experience at church are very different than the average American.
“Mr. President, I’m tired of being lectured on who we are. You don’t know who we are. You listen to Jeramiah Wright for years and years and years and he certainly is not a preacher of love and peace and contentment. I’m tired of being lectured and told who we are. I know exactly who we are. You are the one out of touch with the mainstream of America. You have no idea who we really are. You have this weird, warped, distorted, almost ‘Grimms Fairy Tales’ of who Americans are. And it comes quite honestly from your mother, from the dreams of your father, from Frank Marshall Davis and all those that you were surrounded by growing up. It’s not your fault. I don’t know how you could have a different point of view, having the lifestyle and the friends that you have had. Your entire life.”
“You grew up offshore, then you moved to Hawaii. You were surrounded by radicals and communists your whole life. I understand. Then you — go to Jeramiah Wright’s church and you spend 10 years there being indoctrinated there and being reinforced on what an evil country we are. I get it. I know who you are. Please, Mr. President, stop telling me who I am, because you have no idea. You’ve never spent any time with people like us.”
Glenn also took issue with the way the President excused the behavior by shifting blame to other religions.
“Mr. President, I don’t know if you’ve noticed, we’ve had a reformation since then,” Glenn said. “If you’re trying to equate this and say, ‘hey, other people did this’, are you just saying we should just let it burn itself out and we shouldn’t judge? Or would you have been one of the people during the reformation standing up and saying, lead the charge against this terror? Would you have been a Martin Luther? Would you have had the balls to put up on the church doors a manifesto saying you must change? Or would you have said, ‘hey, hey, hey, hey, that has nothing to do with Christianity. Hey, hey, hey, hey, don’t — don’t — now, let’s listen to them. Where did they come from? Where did the Grand Inquisitor come from? What is his childhood like? What is he actually saying? How have we offended the Grand iInquisitor? Have we done something to make them want us, to torture us, to put us on a rack, to tear our fingernails out? What have we done? We should self-examine.'”
-
http://www.westernjournalism.com/bishop-jackson-obama-frankly-sir-try-closing-mouth/#988H5JT06FgAcQoH.97
Obama is a pos
Browse > Home / Latest News Releases / OBAMA INSULTS CHRISTIANS - Catholic League
OBAMA INSULTS CHRISTIANS
February 5, 2015 by Bill
Filed under Latest News Releases
Obama-praises-Dalai-Lama-condemns-Islamic-State-at-prayer-breakfastBill Donohue comments on remarks made today by President Obama at the National Prayer Breakfast:
In an attempt to deflect guilt from Muslim madmen, President Obama said, “Unless we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ.” Obama’s ignorance is astounding and his comparison is pernicious.
The Crusades were a defensive Christian reaction against Muslim madmen of the Middle Ages. Here is how Princeton scholar and Islamic expert Bernard Lewis puts it: “At the present time, the Crusades are often depicted as an early expansionist imperialism—a prefigurement of the modern European countries. To people of the time, both Muslim and Christian, they were no such thing.” So what were they? “The Crusade was a delayed response to the jihad, the holy war for Islam, and its purpose was to recover by war what had been lost by war—to free the holy places of Christendom and open them once again, without impediment, to Christian pilgrimage.”
Regarding the other fable, the Inquisition, the Catholic Church had almost nothing to do with it. The Church saw heretics as lost sheep who needed to be brought back into the fold. By contrast, secular authorities saw heresy as treason; anyone who questioned royal authority, or who challenged the idea that kingship was God-given, was guilty of a capital offense. It was they—not the Church—who burned the heretics. Indeed, secular authorities blasted the Church for its weak role in the Inquisition.
According to St. Louis University and Crusade scholar Thomas Madden, “All the Crusades met the criteria of just wars.” How many ISIS atrocities, Mr. President, have met the criteria of just wars? The ones where they buried people alive, stoned children, raped women, and crucified men? Moreover, according to Henry Kamen, the leading authority on the Inquisition, a total of 1,394 people were killed during the Inquisition. Today, Muslim madmen kill more than that in a few months.
The President should apologize for his insulting comparison.
Share
-
Had to leave for a while so I missed things on here. Are the libs on here still defending obama and ISIS? Lol
-
His first mistake was saying religion is a force for good, it's not, it's evil to the core. Human's controlling other humans with promises of afterlife and glory.
-
Had to leave for a while so I missed things on here. Are the libs on here still defending obama and ISIS? Lol
nope, but you're still as dumb as ever
that's one thing that never changes
-
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/398126/jihadis-14-crusaders-2-ralph-peters
Obama destroyed on the facts
-
His first mistake was saying religion is a force for good, it's not, it's evil to the core. Human's controlling other humans with promises of afterlife and glory.
Such a retard. This why I have a hard time believing you're anykind of "Dr."
-
Obama is a Devout Christian. Lmfao!
-
attack the messenger much
your issue is that he calls himself a feminist (among other things)?
I guess it would more masculine if he spent his entire waking life on this board talking about his gay sex fantasies involving Obama
I don't necessarily agree with the premise that he (and Obama) are making about not blaming Islam for these nutbags. Islam (just like almost all religions are filled with intolerance and violence and I see no reason to pretend otherwise) We are all aware of Islamic nutbags but then we have violent nutbags in every religion we have a deep history in this country of using religions to justify violence.
Here's the thing. I and many others can see this distinction and that doesn't stop us from wanting to annihilate ISIS and other muslim extremist on the planet.
Adults can actually see both of those things
Children or people with child like minds cannot
Kudos to you for citing such a brilliant source. An atheist feminist baboon who dropped out of Howard University after one semester? Wow. Hard to argue with those credentials. Keep fighting the good fight jackass. ::)
-
Kudos to you for citing such a brilliant source. An atheist feminist baboon who dropped out of Howard University after one semester? Wow. Hard to argue with those credentials. Keep fighting the good fight jackass. ::)
baboon ?
racist piece of shit much ?
great job attacking the messenger
-
Kudos to you for citing such a brilliant source. An atheist feminist baboon who dropped out of Howard University after one semester? Wow. Hard to argue with those credentials. Keep fighting the good fight jackass. ::)
;D
-
baboon ?
racist piece of shit much ?
great job attacking the messenger
I'm sorry. I meant pavement ape.
-
I'm sorry. I meant pavement ape.
I'm sure you've got a lot of them
so let's get back to attacking this guy
claims to be an atheist, feminist, has a wife and kids, published a book, has a job, etc..
what a loser
-
I'm sure you've got a lot of them
so let's get back to attacking this guy
claims to be an atheist, feminist, has a wife and kids, published a book, has a job, etc..
what a loser
That's very impressive. The part about being black and employed I mean. Even for you, this is some seriously weak shit. Do you plan on quoting Tookie Williams or Donte Stallworth in our next geopolitical discussion?
Just admit it. Your ideology is complete horseshit. Stop with the moral equivalency arguments and face reality.
-
That's very impressive. The part about being black and employed I mean. Even for you, this is some seriously weak shit. Do you plan on quoting Tookie Williams or Donte Stallworth in our next geopolitical discussion?
Just admit it. Your ideology is complete horseshit. Stop with the moral equivalency arguments and face reality.
yes, "employed"
it's interesting that you took that particular bait
I don't recall mentioning he is black but of course that is obvious
dude
seriously
I have no idea what you imagine my ideology is
-
..
-
Obama is a theologian now. Lmfao.
-
http://nypost.com/2015/02/07/de-blasio-and-obamas-lack-of-experience
Two fng dingbats
-
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/02/07/maher_on_obama_prayer_speech_the_problem_is_he_doesnt_say_that_islam_is_living_in_the_16th_century_now.html
Bingo.
-
Barack Obama is not, in any meaningful way, a Christian and I am not sure he needs to continue the charade. With no more elections for him, he might as well come out as the atheist/agnostic that he is.1 He took his first step in doing so yesterday in a speech reeking with contempt for faith in general and Christianity in particular. Saying that violent acts are not representative of Islam, the President then attacked Christians for the Crusades (started as a response to Islamic invasion), the Inquisition (a Catholic thing, not us Protestants), slavery (abolished thanks to Christians), and Jim Crow (Dr. King also had a "Reverend" in front of his name). Despite the interpretations and defenses of the President on what he meant, he gave away the game with a bit of the speech not given nearly as much play in the media. From the transcript:
I believe that the starting point of faith is some doubt -- not being so full of yourself and so confident that you are right and that God speaks only to us, and doesn’t speak to others, that God only cares about us and doesn’t care about others, that somehow we alone are in possession of the truth.
Christ said, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me." (John 14:6) Christ himself is truth. When we possess Christ, we possess truth. The President is a moral relativist. It was clear in his whole speech. He cannot condemn and attack ISIS as he should because in his mind what is truth? Truth is a nebulous concept with our post-modern President. With truth a nebulous concept, right and wrong are too. We know God cares about everyone. We know Christ came to die for sinners. But Christians know Christ is truth itself. To have truth, we must have Christ. To suggest that everyone can have some version of God and some version of truth is worldly babbling, not Christianity. The President followed up those words with these:
And so, as people of faith, we are summoned to push back against those who try to distort our religion -- any religion -- for their own nihilistic ends.
I agree. So I wish the President would stop professing himself to be a Christian if he is not going to proclaim Christ as truth and the only way to salvation. The "all paths" nonsense and moral equivalence might fit in with the present age, but the present age does not really fit with Christ. And as for doubts on whether I'm right, "the starting point of faith is some doubt" in my ability to save myself, not in whether I'm right. I know I'm a sinner. I know I cannot save myself. I have no doubt that Christ is the only way. It's not that I'm right, but that Christ is right. So, Mr. President, get off your own high horse.
-
http://viral.buzz/video-obamas-deception-the-crusades-vs-islamic-jihad/#.VNebtTNh3AQ.mailto
Obama owned into oblivion
-
Andrea Mitchell Rips Obama: After A Pilot Is Burned, "You Don't Lean Over Backwards And Be Philosophical"
(http://images.rcp.realclearpolitics.com/132594_5_.jpg)
Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Andrea Mitchell criticized President Barack Obama over his remarks at last weeks prayer breakfast saying, “You don’t use the word crusade.”
“You don’t use the word crusades number one in any context right now,” Mitchell said. “It just it’s too fraught. And the week after a pilot is burned alive, in a video shown, you don’t lean over backwards to be philosophical about the sins of the fathers. You have to deal with the issue that’s in front of you or don’t deal with it at all. Talk about faith.”
Saying she thought the comments were a mistake, Mitchell continued, “Because it’s so out of context, and it is so much in passing. If you’re giving a major speech about theology, perhaps. But this is the prayer breakfast. And remember, you know, the context of that. It’s very limited.”
-
What christians did in the past is really a moot point. Bringing up the past isn't really an argument for anything nor does it offer any insight on the present situation. Neither does it accurately predict the future path of Islam. The irony of Obama's statement is that much of the lefts doctrine is predicated on getting on the moral high horse. Obama's comments itself is a form of moral chastisement or as he phrased it getting on his high horse.
-
MSNBC's O’DONNELL CRITICIZES OBAMA PRAYER BREAKFAST SPEECH
(http://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/files/2013/03/LAWRENCEODONNELL-large300.jpg)
MSNBC host Lawrence O’Donnell criticized President Obama’s speech at the National Prayer Breakfast on Saturday’s “Up with Steve Kornacki.”
“The only comparable event in terms of religious war you can come up with is 800 years ago, and it is the Crusades, and that is correct it is a comparable event. And it is important that it was 800 years ago, and what is important about it is that Catholicism, which was running the Crusades, and Christianity, more broadly, grew out of that, and that’s what we’re looking for in terms of what’s happening with the Islamic State” he stated.
O’Donnell continued, “as far as the Jim Crow stuff is concerned, we’re talking about scale. We’re talking about numbers, and we’re talking about religion. The reason people were killed by the Ku Klux Klan was the color of their skin, not their religion…to include that in a reference to an army, an active army, that is out there in the tens of thousands and that has worldwide reach, that can assassinate cartoonists in Paris, you know, the Ku Klux Klan never assassinated a cartoonist in New York. We’re talking about a scale that makes these comparisons irrelevant.”
He added that the existence of Islamophobia “doesn’t mean that we have to absolutely be silent about the connective tissue that these people are bringing to what they’re doing, from religion, to what they’re doing.
-
That's very impressive. The part about being black and employed I mean. Even for you, this is some seriously weak shit. Do you plan on quoting Tookie Williams or Donte Stallworth in our next geopolitical discussion?
Just admit it. Your ideology is complete horseshit. Stop with the moral equivalency arguments and face reality.
Reality is this, Muslims kill people now and said its because of islam, and were like
Mouth breather: "fuck them cuz we aint mooslim"
Granola Eater: "hey bro Christians killed hella people too...like whiped out whole races of people"
Mouth breather:"Well listen here tree hugger.... Christianity is the correct religion so its all good"
Granola Eater: "But they killed like hella people bro"
Mouth breather: "it was a long time ago, that shit dont count"
Granola Eater: "Bro its never stopped...a couple of years back, in Oslo, some dude killed like 77 people and said he was a Christian Crusader"
Mouth breather: "Fuck you obama lover
-
You drunk bro
-
You drunk bro
Drunk on stupid.
-
Reality is this, Muslims kill people now and said its because of islam, and were like
Mouth breather: "fuck them cuz we aint mooslim"
Granola Eater: "hey bro Christians killed hella people too...like whiped out whole races of people"
Mouth breather:"Well listen here tree hugger.... Christianity is the correct religion so its all good"
Granola Eater: "But they killed like hella people bro"
Mouth breather: "it was a long time ago, that shit dont count"
Granola Eater: "Bro its never stopped...a couple of years back, in Oslo, some dude killed like 77 people and said he was a Christian Crusader"
Mouth breather: "Fuck you obama lover
Brevik was one guy who killed 77 people. just TODAY ISIS killed 40, boko harum dozens etc. To equate the two is nonsense
-
Drunk on stupid.
did the guy not kill 77 people?
Did he not say he was a christian crusader?
What did i say that was untrue?
I ignore a lot of your shit because im a but busy right now..
But i got a little time to go right now.... so lets go bro.
-
did the guy not kill 77 people?
Did he not say he was a christian crusader?
What did i say that was untrue?
I ignore a lot of your shit because im a but busy right now..
But i got a little time to go right now.... so lets go bro.
Typical rambling nonsense from you. Must be dat learnin from the HBCU diploma mill you attended
-
Brevik was one guy who killed 77 people. just TODAY ISIS killed 40, boko harum dozens etc. To equate the two is nonsense
Mal seems like a pretty bright guy when discussing alot of other topics.
It's almost painful to see him jump through all these ridiculous hoops to defend an ideology.
-
Mal seems like a pretty bright guy when discussing alot of other topics.
It's almost painful to see him jump through all these ridiculous loops to defend an ideology.
What other topics?
-
Mal seems like a pretty bright guy when discussing alot of other topics.
It's almost painful to see him jump through all these ridiculous hoops to defend an ideology.
bro..i dont like any Religion. Im Agnostic. I dont know.
But to dismiss the atrocities of one religion and rebuke another religion for commiting the same crimes, and the only difference being a percived difference in time (which is also false) is just inconsistant to me.
-
bro..i dont like any Religion. Im Agnostic. I dont know.
But to dismiss the atrocities of one religion and rebuke another religion for commiting the same crimes, and the only difference being a percived difference in time (which is also false) is just inconsistant to me.
Why is it inconsistent? What relevence does something that happened in the past have on the present? How does this provide any insight or solutions to the present problem?
-
Why is it inconsistent? What relevence does something that happened in the past have on the present? How does this provide any insight or solutions to the present problem?
Oslo wasnt that long ago... it was a christian terroist. It happened in the name of christianity. He killed 77 people....
Yeah its the past. But its pretty recent past bro..
Come on..if youre gonna have a go with me on here...please be equip yourself with some facts
-
Brevik was one guy who killed 77 people. just TODAY ISIS killed 40, boko harum dozens etc. To equate the two is nonsense
I swear i read this like 20 times trying to make sense of it...
I dont get what youre saying?
That the only time someone killed someone in the name of Christianity was in the case of Brevik?
I thought the issue on the table was time?
-
What other topics?
hahahaha c'mon bro I respect/like BOTH you guys!
Mal's up on his shit when it comes to lifting...some really strong posts from him over the years concerning that. Big time family guy. Goes out of his way to help the young folks in his community. I can respect that.
Archer77....that guy is just a pit bull who doesn't quit until he has utterly destroyed the other guy he is debating. Just a pile of dust left over when he's done.
-
bro..i dont like any Religion. Im Agnostic. I dont know.
But to dismiss the atrocities of one religion and rebuke another religion for commiting the same crimes, and the only difference being a percived difference in time (which is also false) is just inconsistant to me.
So going forward every time some poor bastard gets boiled alive in the name of Islam we gotta reference that isolated Oslo event, a random abortion clinic bombing in 1989, or some bullshit that popped off in 1216 A.D.?
-
Some folks are just desperate to take the focus off of Radical Islam. Why?
-
Some folks are just desperate to take the focus off of Radical Islam. Why?
liberal MENTAL disorder
-
Oslo wasnt that long ago... it was a christian terroist. It happened in the name of christianity. He killed 77 people....
Yeah its the past. But its pretty recent past bro..
Come on..if youre gonna have a go with me on here...please be equip yourself with some facts
I have to correct you.
Breivik did it to hit the "elite" the ones that allowed the huge muslim immigration and called people who opposed it nazi racist etc..
-
President Compares Islam to Christianity
By Dennis Prager - February 10, 2015
Email
Print
3
Comments
In his National Prayer Breakfast speech last week, President Barack Obama said:
"And lest we get on our high horse and think that this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ. In our home country, slavery and Jim Crow all too often was justified in the name of Christ. ... So this is not unique to one group or one religion."
It is important to analyze these words -- because the president of the United States spoke them in a major forum, and because what he said is said by all those who defend Islam against any criticism.
Referring to Islamic violence, the president accuses anyone who implies that such religious violence "is unique to some other place" -- meaning outside the Christian West -- as getting on a "high horse."
Is this true? Of course, not. In our time, major religious violence is in fact "unique to some other place," namely the Islamic world. What other religious group is engaged in mass murder, systematic rape, slavery, beheading innocents, bombing public events, shooting up school children, wiping out whole religious communities and other such atrocities?
The answer is, of course, no other religious group. Therefore massive violence in the name of one's religion today is indeed "unique to some other place." To state this is not to "get on a high horse." It is to tell the most important truth about the world in our time.
Would the president have used the "high horse" argument 30 years ago regarding Western condemnation of South African apartheid?
Of course not. Because contempt for Western evils is noble, while contempt for non-Western, especially Islamic, evils is "to get on a high horse."
The president then defends his statement that religious violence is not "unique to some other place" by providing Christian examples: first the Crusades and the Inquisition and then slavery and Jim Crow.
Before addressing the specific examples, a word about the timing. The Crusades took place a thousand years ago and the Inquisition five hundred years ago. Is it not telling that -- even if the examples are valid (which they aren't) -- the president had to go back 500 and 1,000 years to find his primary Christian examples?
Doesn't going back so far in the past render the argument a bit absurd? Imagine if the president had said, "When the Jews conquered Canaan in 1,000 B.C., they committed terrible deeds in the name of Judaism." Anyone hearing that argument would have thought that the president had lost his mind. Yet he and almost everyone else who wishes to defend Islam raise the Crusades and the Inquisition. The president also mentioned slavery and Jim Crow, but it's the Crusades and the Inquisition that are almost always used to equate Muslim and Christian evildoing.
Furthermore, it is difficult to see why comparing Muslim behavior today to Christian behavior a thousand or five hundred years ago provides a defense of Islam. On the contrary, isn't the allegation that Islamic evil at the present time is morally equivalent to Christian evil a thousand years ago a damning indictment of the present state of much of Islam?
And as regards the substance of the charge, this widespread use of the Crusades and the Inquisition is ignorant of the realities of both. The Crusades were Christian wars to retake territories in the Holy Land that Muslims had forcefully taken from Christians. Unless the question of "who started it?" is morally irrelevant, and therefore all wars are immoral, the Crusaders' war on Muslims in the Holy Land is a poor example of evil in the name of Christ.
Now, as it happens, there was terrible evil in the name of Christ during the Crusades -- the wholesale massacre of Jews in Germany by various Crusaders on their way to the Holy Land. For the record, however, in no instance did the Church order these killings and in almost every case Jews sought and received aid and support from local bishops.
In any event, other than Jews, few people know of these massacres. Almost everyone who cites the Crusades as an example of Christian evil is referring to the Crusaders' wars against Muslims.
As for the Inquisition, suffice it to say that it is now acknowledged among scholars that in its worst years -- 1480 to 1530 -- the Inquisition killed an average of 40 people a year. Each was unspeakably tragic and evil, but the Inquisition was benign compared to Boko Haram, al-Qaida, Islamic State, the Taliban, Hamas and the other Islamic terror organizations.
We live in an age of moral idiocy. Moral equivalence is the left's way of resisting fighting evil. It did it during the Cold War when the U.S. and the Soviet Union were morally equated, and it is doing it now when it morally equates all religions and societies. Take, for example, this imbecilic equation by writer Ta-Nehisi Coates in The Atlantic, defending the president's comments on Islam and Christianity by invoking slavery: "Americans have done, on their own soil, in the name of their own God, something similar to what ISIS is doing now."
There is a major moral crisis in one religion on earth today -- Islam. To say so is not to get on a high horse. It is to identify violent Islam as the greatest evil in the world since Nazism and Communism.
COPYRIGHT 2015 CREATORS.COM
-
Posted on February 10, 2015 at 10:02:51 AM EST by Kaslin
resident Barack Obama inserted a jarring note in his speech to the annual Prayer Breakfast by insulting Christians with an inappropriate reference to the Crusades and charging that people "committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ."
He ignited a firestorm by comparing the ISIS outrages to medieval history of a thousand years ago. By drawing such simplistic analogies, it sounded like he was trying to excuse or whitewash the recent acts of Islamic terrorism, including the beheading and incinerating of hostages.
Obama didn't acknowledge that it was Muslim aggression that prompted the first Crusade. There would not have been any motivation for the Crusades if Muslims had not been attacking Christian pilgrims who were traveling to the Holy Land for peaceful prayer and worship.
Obama's insults to Christians weren't any slip of the tongue. His aides confirmed that his words were deliberately chosen.
Deputy press secretary Eric Schultz said that Americans "need to be honest with ourselves." The problem with Obama is that he needs to be honest with the fact that Islam is at war with us, and he just won't admit it.
"Lest we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ. In our home country, slavery and Jim Crow all too often was justified in the name of Christ."
The Crusades were 800 to 900 years ago; the Inquisition was 500 to 600 years ago; and slavery in the United States ended 150 years ago. Even Jim Crow, which means not letting blacks and whites eat at the same lunch counter, ended 50 years ago.
Former Virginia Gov. Jim Gilmore called Obama's remarks "the most offensive I've ever heard a president make." Gilmore charged that Obama "has offended every believing Christian in the United States."
In the first week of February, the Islamic State released a video showing a Jordanian pilot being burned alive in a steel cage. The next day, the United Nations issued a report describing horrific details of the Islamic State's "mass executions of boys, as well as reports of beheadings, crucifixions of children and burying children alive."
And the next day after that, President Obama publicly and deliberately criticized the "terrible deeds" committed "in the name of Christ." Quite a week, wasn't it?
Obama presumed to lecture us how to react to Islamic atrocities. He urged us to get off "our high horse" and "remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ" and "justified" slavery and Jim Crow "in the name of Christ."
It makes no sense to try to downplay the horrific act of burning someone alive in a steel cage by analogizing it to other conduct that Americans rejected long ago. But that's how he is trying to excuse, or at least minimize, ISIS atrocities.
According to Bernard Lewis, a reliable historian of Islam, the Crusades were an attempt to recover territories that had been taken from the Christians by the Muslims. The crusaders risked their lives to save Christian people and regain Christian lands that the Muslims had stolen.
The Spanish Inquisition killed a couple of thousand people in the aftermath of a war to drive out Muslim invaders 500 years ago. That's fewer than the number put to death by Muslim killers today in only a few months.
Speaking on the Fox News Channel last week, the African-American Bishop E. W. Jackson called out the president: "Sir, you just gave them a gigantic propaganda tool. They called us Crusaders, and you've just confirmed it. ... He's basically justified exactly what Osama bin Laden was saying."
Continuing, Bishop Jackson said: "Mr. President, we're not on our 'high horse.' What we are on is high alert, and the American people would like for once to know that you're willing to defend Christianity and defend America instead of defending Islam."
Bishop Jackson, who served in the Marine Corps and earned a law degree from Harvard Law School before entering the ministry, concluded that "this president does everything he possibly can to defend Islam and does almost nothing to defend the honor of this country. And yes, once again he's giving them exactly what they want. And they're laughing at us, because they see it as a sign of weakness."
Christianity is not the problem today, and Jim Crow's not around anymore. Islamic Jihad, and its political manifestation in Sharia law, is the present-day threat to individual and civil liberties all over the world.
-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contentions
Get Off Your High Horse, Mr. Obama
Peter Wehner
02.09.2015 - 10:30 AM
Part of the problem with President Obama’s recent National Prayer Breakfast speech, as Michael Rubin has pointed out, is that it provides a simplistic and incomplete understanding of the Crusades. (You might also read this First Things review, “Inventing the Crusades,” by Thomas F. Madden.)
But the president’s remarks also demonstrate a simplistic and incomplete understanding of Christianity. By that I mean when Mr. Obama, in warning Christians not to get on their “high horse” when talking about the problems in Islam, said, “In our home country, slavery and Jim Crow all too often was justified in the name of Christ.”
True enough–but it’s also true that slavery and segregation were overthrown by those who justified their actions in the name of Christ. And if the president insists on making comparisons between Christianity and Islam, then it needs to be said that while Christianity has struggled with religious intolerance in its past, it has almost everywhere made its inner peace with religious tolerance and pluralism. On the other hand, true religious freedom has been quite rare in Muslim-majority communities throughout history. That doesn’t mean it can’t happen. It doesn’t mean that most Muslims embrace the version of Islam being practiced by ISIS. And it certainly doesn’t mean that individual Muslims can’t assimilate themselves in America. Millions do, and they are wonderful contributors to our nation.
But it does mean that in the here and now, the problems we see are emanating not from within Christianity but from within Islam. Even Islamic leaders, like Egypt’s General Sisi, admit as much. Yet the president of the United States, alas, does not. He continues to act as if he’s an Islamic scholar, declaring what is and what is not “true” Islam. Mr. Obama is clearly no theologian, so it’s best he drop the pretense. His core argument–that Islamism has nothing at all to do with Islam–is utterly detached from reality. Let’s just say it’s not happenstance that the Islamic State is not called the Reformed Presbyterian State. “Allahu Akbar” isn’t Yiddish.
Then there’s the matter of timing. The president went to the National Prayer Breakfast to call attention to the long-ago sins of Christianity in the aftermath of a particularly savage and brutal killing by the Islamic State, in which they doused a Jordanian pilot in flammable liquid and put him in a cage before burning him to death. Beheadings, it appears, are passé for jihadists. Decapitation isn’t vivid enough for them. Yet Barack Obama, being Barack Obama, decided it’s his job to insist on moral equivalence–or, to be more precise, to insist on immoral equivalence.
I do believe that if President Obama and his administration weren’t so clueless in his understanding of Islamism–remember that the Ft. Hood massacre was referred to as “workplace violence” and jihadist attacks were examples of “man-caused disasters”–and if he wasn’t so reticent in his fight against it, Mr. Obama’s slip-shod detours into the history of the Crusades and the Inquisition might have been more tolerable. As it is, the president was clearly using his speech to the National Prayer Breakfast not only to justify his own imaginary world, but to try to put those who are speaking the truth about militant Islam on the defensive. If that’s what Mr. Obama was hoping to achieve–well, he achieved the opposite. For goodness’s sake, even NBC’s Andrea Mitchell is criticizing him. Memo to Barack Obama: When you’ve lost Andrea Mitchell, you’re losing the debate.
One final observation: President Obama likes to portray himself as a man who is unusually self-reflective and self-critical. The contrary is the case. As Ross Douthat points out, Mr. Obama is a partisan and a progressive who takes to “highlighting crimes that he doesn’t feel particularly implicated in (how much theological guilt does our liberal Protestant president really feel about the Inquisition?) and the sins of groups he disagrees with anyway (Republican Cold Warriors, the religious right, white conservative Southerners).” That is to say, Obama is engaging in a dishonest and cynical game in which he relishes putting himself above his country or his professed faith and then likes to peddle that as humility.
A friend wrote me and said that if Mr. Obama wanted to have performed a real act of humility and self-criticism during his National Prayer Breakfast speech, he could have said something like this:
Lest we get on our high horse, let’s be more honest about where we have allowed ourselves to be misled in the name of religion. I myself worshipped for years in a church that distorted the Gospel of Christ in the name of a racialist message of hatred and intolerance towards my brothers and sisters of other races. It was not until I started campaigning for President that I realized just how misguided Reverent Wright was, and how far he had distorted religion to serve his political purposes.
That statement would have been far more honest, far more self-reflective, and far less cynical. Which may explain why there was no chance Mr. Obama would utter these words.
It’s long past time Mr. Obama get off his high horse. Vanity is difficult to take in anyone–but it’s especially difficult to take in a person of such staggering incompetence and intellectual shallowness.
-
President Compares Islam to Christianity
By Dennis Prager - February 10, 2015
Email
Print
3
Comments
In his National Prayer Breakfast speech last week, President Barack Obama said:
"And lest we get on our high horse and think that this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ. In our home country, slavery and Jim Crow all too often was justified in the name of Christ. ... So this is not unique to one group or one religion."
It is important to analyze these words -- because the president of the United States spoke them in a major forum, and because what he said is said by all those who defend Islam against any criticism.
Referring to Islamic violence, the president accuses anyone who implies that such religious violence "is unique to some other place" -- meaning outside the Christian West -- as getting on a "high horse."
Is this true? Of course, not. In our time, major religious violence is in fact "unique to some other place," namely the Islamic world. What other religious group is engaged in mass murder, systematic rape, slavery, beheading innocents, bombing public events, shooting up school children, wiping out whole religious communities and other such atrocities?
The answer is, of course, no other religious group. Therefore massive violence in the name of one's religion today is indeed "unique to some other place." To state this is not to "get on a high horse." It is to tell the most important truth about the world in our time.
Would the president have used the "high horse" argument 30 years ago regarding Western condemnation of South African apartheid?
Of course not. Because contempt for Western evils is noble, while contempt for non-Western, especially Islamic, evils is "to get on a high horse."
The president then defends his statement that religious violence is not "unique to some other place" by providing Christian examples: first the Crusades and the Inquisition and then slavery and Jim Crow.
Before addressing the specific examples, a word about the timing. The Crusades took place a thousand years ago and the Inquisition five hundred years ago. Is it not telling that -- even if the examples are valid (which they aren't) -- the president had to go back 500 and 1,000 years to find his primary Christian examples?
Doesn't going back so far in the past render the argument a bit absurd? Imagine if the president had said, "When the Jews conquered Canaan in 1,000 B.C., they committed terrible deeds in the name of Judaism." Anyone hearing that argument would have thought that the president had lost his mind. Yet he and almost everyone else who wishes to defend Islam raise the Crusades and the Inquisition. The president also mentioned slavery and Jim Crow, but it's the Crusades and the Inquisition that are almost always used to equate Muslim and Christian evildoing.
Furthermore, it is difficult to see why comparing Muslim behavior today to Christian behavior a thousand or five hundred years ago provides a defense of Islam. On the contrary, isn't the allegation that Islamic evil at the present time is morally equivalent to Christian evil a thousand years ago a damning indictment of the present state of much of Islam?
And as regards the substance of the charge, this widespread use of the Crusades and the Inquisition is ignorant of the realities of both. The Crusades were Christian wars to retake territories in the Holy Land that Muslims had forcefully taken from Christians. Unless the question of "who started it?" is morally irrelevant, and therefore all wars are immoral, the Crusaders' war on Muslims in the Holy Land is a poor example of evil in the name of Christ.
Now, as it happens, there was terrible evil in the name of Christ during the Crusades -- the wholesale massacre of Jews in Germany by various Crusaders on their way to the Holy Land. For the record, however, in no instance did the Church order these killings and in almost every case Jews sought and received aid and support from local bishops.
In any event, other than Jews, few people know of these massacres. Almost everyone who cites the Crusades as an example of Christian evil is referring to the Crusaders' wars against Muslims.
As for the Inquisition, suffice it to say that it is now acknowledged among scholars that in its worst years -- 1480 to 1530 -- the Inquisition killed an average of 40 people a year. Each was unspeakably tragic and evil, but the Inquisition was benign compared to Boko Haram, al-Qaida, Islamic State, the Taliban, Hamas and the other Islamic terror organizations.
We live in an age of moral idiocy. Moral equivalence is the left's way of resisting fighting evil. It did it during the Cold War when the U.S. and the Soviet Union were morally equated, and it is doing it now when it morally equates all religions and societies. Take, for example, this imbecilic equation by writer Ta-Nehisi Coates in The Atlantic, defending the president's comments on Islam and Christianity by invoking slavery: "Americans have done, on their own soil, in the name of their own God, something similar to what ISIS is doing now."
There is a major moral crisis in one religion on earth today -- Islam. To say so is not to get on a high horse. It is to identify violent Islam as the greatest evil in the world since Nazism and Communism.
COPYRIGHT 2015 CREATORS.COM
Nailed it. Great commentary.