Obama: "remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ"

11076 reads

There are 72 Comments

Jim's picture

Jindal to Obama: ‘Medieval Christian Threat is Under Control’

Bobby Jindal on Friday released a statement responding to the president’s remarks on Thursday at the National Prayer Breakfast in which he cautioned Americans from getting on a “high horse” when taking a stance against radical Islam because people have committed “terrible deeds” in the name of Christianity, too.

“It was nice of the President to give us a history lesson at the Prayer breakfast,” Jindal said. “Today, however, the issue right in front of his nose, in the here and now, is the terrorism of Radical Islam, the assassination of journalists, the beheading and burning alive of captives. 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.”

AND

What about the Crusades?

GregH's picture

Seriously, Christians need to get thicker skin. Since when should the truth bother us so much? Obama is exactly right in what he said. Atrocious acts have been committed and still are being committed in the name of Christ. What is ISIS doing that Christianity has not been guilty of in the past? Burning people? Ransacking towns in the Middle East? Oh wait....

Some would say that it was largely the Catholic church that sanctioned those atrocities and that is true to an extent but the Protestants do not have clean hands either and you can't expect the world at large to really differentiate between the two anyway. 

Now it is true that Christianity has renounced those things for the most part and today, we are more civilized than to do that kind of stuff. At least, for the most part: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/africa/tens-of-thousands-of-muslims-flee-christian-militias-in-central-african-republic/2014/02/07/5a1adbb2-9032-11e3-84e1-27626c5ef5fb_story.html

TylerR's picture

Editor

You wrote:

Seriously, Christians need to get thicker skin. Since when should the truth bother us so much? Obama is exactly right in what he said.

Well said. Many times, Fox and Todd Starnes are too eager to paint Christians as martyrs. I would dispute that many of atrocities committed in the name of Christ were actually committed by real Christians (a sentiment that moderate Muslims today can appreciate, given the warpath of the radicals in their midst!) but that's besides the point.

Here is an excerpt from President Obama's speech:

Humanity has been grappling with these questions throughout human history. 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,” he said. “In our home country, slavery and Jim Crow all too often was justified in the name of Christ.”

I agree. The justification of slavery on religious grounds is a shameful period in Christian history. What the President said is right. Get over it. 

Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and an Investigations Manager with a Washington State agency. He's the author of the book What's It Mean to Be a Baptist?

josh p's picture

I agree with the above but I still say The President's statement was pretty lame. Is that the way morality should be approached? Can we denounce something without having to qualify it with everything we have ever done wrong that is similar? Granted if a person is trying to draw some kind of a comparison (as some Chritians apparently do) that is problematic. But really chopping someone's head off is wicked no matter if someone I identify with has done it in the past or not.  I'm pretty sure we can denounce modern slavery without having to temper our words with, "although my relatives did it so who am I to get on a high horse?"

Greg Long's picture

No, what the President said may have been historically accurate, but its timing and not-so-subtle meaning was offensive and deplorable. Russell Moore of the ERLC said it best when he said (I'm paraphrasing), "It would be like Dwight Eisenhower saying after the attack on Pearl Harbor, 'Yes, this was a day of infamy, but let's remember that we also conducted a surprise attack on the British as they made their way back to Boston after the skirmishes at Lexington and Concord.'"

The point is, there is an agenda behind President Obama's statement. If he were actually willing to make any kind of a connection between terrorism and Islam, I might be more receptive to hearing his comments about the connection between atrocities and Christianity.

-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)

Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA

Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University

GregH's picture

Andrew K wrote:

" Obama is exactly right in what he said."

Historians don't seem to agree.

https://gma.yahoo.com/historians-weigh-obamas-comparison-isis-militants-...

Oh sure you can always find a historian or two who will say anything, especially a historian with an agenda. It is absurd to start going down that road though in this case because the evidence is overwhelming and not just with the Crusades. I find it interesting that no one addresses the article I linked to earlier that suggests that Christian militia are killing Muslims in this era.

Look, I can accept that Obama's timing might could have been better. But what I don't get is all the uproar. Maybe just say "I wish Obama could have handled that better" and move on. But no, it is the normal tired "Obama hates America and Obama hates Christians" rhetoric. It is really not a big deal folks. Time to find something important to worry about.

And by the way, here is what Obama said in 2011 at a prayer breakfast. 

"The triumph of Palm Sunday. The humility of Jesus washing the disciples’ feet. His slow march up that hill, and the pain and the scorn and the shame of the cross. And we’re reminded that in that moment, he took on the sins of the world – past, present and future – and he extended to us that unfathomable gift of grace and salvation through his death and resurrection."

Andrew K's picture

GregH wrote:

 

Andrew K wrote:

 

" Obama is exactly right in what he said."

Historians don't seem to agree.

https://gma.yahoo.com/historians-weigh-obamas-comparison-isis-militants-...

 

 

Oh sure you can always find a historian or two who will say anything, especially a historian with an agenda. It is absurd to start going down that road though in this case because the evidence is overwhelming and not just with the Crusades. I find it interesting that no one addresses the article I linked to earlier that suggests that Christian militia are killing Muslims in this era.

Look, I can accept that Obama's timing might could have been better. But what I don't get is all the uproar. Maybe just say "I wish Obama could have handled that better" and move on. But no, it is the normal tired "Obama hates America and Obama hates Christians" rhetoric. It is really not a big deal folks. Time to find something important to worry about.

And by the way, here is what Obama said in 2011 at a prayer breakfast. 

"The triumph of Palm Sunday. The humility of Jesus washing the disciples’ feet. His slow march up that hill, and the pain and the scorn and the shame of the cross. And we’re reminded that in that moment, he took on the sins of the world – past, present and future – and he extended to us that unfathomable gift of grace and salvation through his death and resurrection."

These are major historians at important secular universities. Hardly just a couple of oddballs with an agenda.

No one has addressed the article because nobody disputes that evil things have happened/are happening in the name of Christ. Frankly, that's irrelevant. The point is that Obama's statements were ignorant and inappropriate, and it doesn't take a bias or an agenda to see that. Just a modicum of historical knowledge.

No, when it comes to Obama, I don't think he's an evil, anti-Christian ideologue. I think he's a true pop-President. He's probably the President most in touch with popular culture that we've ever had. He may know that much of what he says is inaccurate, but it doesn't really matter. Because it's considered part of the "common store" of knowledge, and most people who consider themselves at all "with it" believe it. This is how he's been so successful. He recognizes the currents of the time and navigates them with remarkable finesse.

Mark_Smith's picture

during the Fourth Crusade? The only link I can find on the fly is wikipedia, but I remember reading about in college (20 years ago). Was that a group a Christians acting to capture Jerusalem from the godless muslims? Or a group of rampaging thugs acting in the name of "God" to eliminate the Orthodox heretics?

Obama wasn't completely wrong. I'm not going to say he was right either though.

Look at BJUs history to see a group of people convinced God told them to discriminate against people for no reason other than color (ie no racial dating and who knows what else).

I have personally met several "southern Baptists" in Alabama (this cost me a good friendship when I was in the Marine Corps), that are convinced that God cursed all black people (the whole Shem, Ham, Japheth thing).

Even further back many Southerners and Northerners were convinced (and reinforced from the pulpit) that "negros" were inferior.

There is no ducking this. People have lied, stolen, injured, murdered and deceived in the name of Christ, and it is a terrible tragedy.

josh p's picture

GregH wrote:

 

Andrew K wrote:

 

" Obama is exactly right in what he said."

Historians don't seem to agree.

https://gma.yahoo.com/historians-weigh-obamas-comparison-isis-militants-...

 

 

Oh sure you can always find a historian or two who will say anything, especially a historian with an agenda. It is absurd to start going down that road though in this case because the evidence is overwhelming and not just with the Crusades. I find it interesting that no one addresses the article I linked to earlier that suggests that Christian militia are killing Muslims in this era.

Look, I can accept that Obama's timing might could have been better. But what I don't get is all the uproar. Maybe just say "I wish Obama could have handled that better" and move on. But no, it is the normal tired "Obama hates America and Obama hates Christians" rhetoric. It is really not a big deal folks. Time to find something important to worry about.

And by the way, here is what Obama said in 2011 at a prayer breakfast. 

"The triumph of Palm Sunday. The humility of Jesus washing the disciples’ feet. His slow march up that hill, and the pain and the scorn and the shame of the cross. And we’re reminded that in that moment, he took on the sins of the world – past, present and future – and he extended to us that unfathomable gift of grace and salvation through his death and resurrection."

Greg, who said this? 

GregH's picture

josh p wrote:

 

GregH wrote:

 

Look, I can accept that Obama's timing might could have been better. But what I don't get is all the uproar. Maybe just say "I wish Obama could have handled that better" and move on. But no, it is the normal tired "Obama hates America and Obama hates Christians" rhetoric. It is really not a big deal folks. Time to find something important to worry about.

And by the way, here is what Obama said in 2011 at a prayer breakfast. 

 

Greg, who said this? 

Here? Nobody really. But watch Fox News or get on Facebook and it has been a prevalent theme the past week.

This is just a perfect example of how ideology skews reality and I am really shaking my head right now. We really have people denying whether the Crusades were evil and other things done in the name of Christianity are evil? And yes, if you say Obama did not speak accurately, that is what you are saying. It is just mind numbing.

Greg Long's picture

No, Greg, did you read what I wrote? I do not deny the evils of the Crusades, etc. In fact, when I had lunch with a Muslim man who set up a group from our church to tour a local Islamic Center, observe a time of prayer, and explain to us the basics of Islam, I said that very thing to him--that Christians have been guilty of atrocities "in the name of Christ."

THAT IS NOT THE POINT. The point is Obama's agenda is making this statement. He is unwilling to make ANY connection between Islam and terrorism, yet he is more than happy to do so with Christianity. That is what is so outrageous.

-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)

Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA

Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University

Greg Long's picture

Additionally, it is outrageous for the Commander-in-Chief to be making moral equivalency type statements about our country's enemy (which is the point of Russell Moore's comment).

-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)

Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA

Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University

GregH's picture

I wonder how many people complaining have actually read the speech other than the 26 seconds from it. Here it is: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/02/05/remarks-president-national-prayer-breakfast

Yes it is absurd that people would first of all make conclusions from 26 seconds of a long speech and then secondly, object to what he said in context. But long ago, I learned that when it comes to politics and Obama in particular, many Christians throw logic and fairness go right out the window. Ideology reigns instead.

It is sad.

Greg L, I was not referring to you. But there are other people on this thread trying to claim that Obama was wrong and ignorant in what he said. It is mind blowing that anyone could read the speech above and come away with the vehement objections. No, it is not a Christian speech but guess what? This is not a Christian country and Christianity does not have favored status here. The speech did not single out Christians negatively. He was positive about many religions but talked about how people of all religions have the tendency to twist them into evil.

Andrew K's picture

GregH wrote:

I wonder how many people complaining have actually read the speech other than the 26 seconds from it. Here it is: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/02/05/remarks-president-national-prayer-breakfast

Yes it is absurd that people would first of all make conclusions from 26 seconds of a long speech and then secondly, object to what he said in context. But long ago, I learned that when it comes to politics and Obama in particular, many Christians throw logic and fairness go right out the window. Ideology reigns instead.

It is sad.

Greg L, I was not referring to you. But there are other people on this thread trying to claim that Obama was wrong and ignorant in what he said. It is mind blowing that anyone could read the speech above and come away with the vehement objections. No, it is not a Christian speech but guess what? This is not a Christian country and Christianity does not have favored status here. The speech did not single out Christians negatively. He was positive about many religions and talked about how people of all religions have the tendency to twist them into evil.

That would be me, I guess.

And because I do not agree with Obama's understanding of the Crusades and consider him ignorant on this matter, I'm "throwing logic and fairness out the window."

The speech, although not necessarily objectionable in itself, operates within a larger context in which it appears, as others have noted here, that there is a moral equivalency between the Crusades and Islamic terrorism.

There isn't.

And to allow that evil actions occurred on both sides during the Crusades while still maintaining that the Crusades themselves were not evil as they were born in response to Islamic conquest and aggression is apparently too nuanced a distinction for some here. It's much easier to paint those with whom you disagree as denying that evil ever happens in the name of Christ--a ridiculous straw man if ever there were one.

Islam has been a religion of violence and conquest from the very beginning and is inherently so--in it's full-flowered form. If you know anything at all about it, you know that much.

GregH's picture

And that is why I just shake my head and once again resolve not to try to talk about these things.

No moral equivalency between the two.... So the countless murders that happened during the Crusades were not as bad as ISIS murders. The burning of who knows how many people during the Inquisition was not as bad as ISIS burning one pilot. The slavery in the US was not as bad as the ISIS enslaving of women.

Got it....

Andrew K's picture

GregH wrote:

And that is why I just shake my head and once again resolve not to try to talk about these things.

No moral equivalency between the two.... So the countless murders that happened during the Crusades were not as bad as ISIS murders. The burning of who knows how many people during the Inquisition was not as bad as ISIS burning one pilot. The slavery in the US was not as bad as the ISIS enslaving of women.

Got it....

Yep. And WW2 was an evil war of Allied aggression: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_war_crimes_during_World_War_II

Because the Allies did some awful things too.

In fact, you know, I'm almost tempted to believe that every war includes atrocities...

And I thought I was talking about the Crusades. Not sure how slavery and the Inquisition got dragged into it.

jimcarwest's picture

A little fact should be added to this discussion, and who better to do so than an expert on Islam and all such matters.  I strongly recommend the viewing of this video, which puts the Crusades question into historical perspective.  Let's not forget that the President brought up this subject because he is a meddler in questions of race and religion.  He interjects moral equivalency into the debate for political purposes.  His tactics are designed as not-so-subtle attacks on Christianity and obvious justification of Islam.  This is a pattern.  By bringing up an historical  event called the Crusades, which was minor in comparison with the Islamic bludgeoning of the West, and which was defensive in nature, the President diminishes the acts of terrorism that are occurring on his watch to which he is showing a tepid response.  He fails to note the measures taken by Christians to correct those mistakes.  He ignores the corrections to slavery that were led by Christians (both white and black).  He also gives moderate Muslims a pass so that they feel no urgent need to expunge the criminal element from their own religion and bring their religion into the twentieth century.  Do watch this video for some perspective. 

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=388852641276340&set=vb.269652879862...

jimcarwest's picture

GregH wrote:

And that is why I just shake my head and once again resolve not to try to talk about these things.

No moral equivalency between the two.... So the countless murders that happened during the Crusades were not as bad as ISIS murders. The burning of who knows how many people during the Inquisition was not as bad as ISIS burning one pilot. The slavery in the US was not as bad as the ISIS enslaving of women.

Got it....

Methinks, Greg, that you are exaggerating the Crusades in comparison to Islam.  I can't imagine why you would do this.  The Crusades were generally a miserable failure and unsuccessful in comparison to the Muslim onslaught of western civilization.  To try to make them equal in any sense of the word is what moral equivalancy means.  It also just happens to give credence to the Liar-in-Chief.

 

Greg Long's picture

"Getting Medieval: Let’s leave the Middle Ages out of discussions of modern Islam"

I DISAGREE with the author minimizing or whitewashing the terrible nature of the Crusades and the Inquisition (note that he is a Catholic historian). However, I AGREE with his main point regarding the President's comments.

Protestants and Catholics follow different versions of Christianity, but we would strongly reject a president who tried to tell us which was right. By the same token, the president has even less authority to discern true from distorted Islam. ISIS is barbaric, but there is no denying that its adherents believe they are true followers of Islam. And they can point to medieval Muslim rulers who were just as bloody. The Egyptian leader Baybars, for example, captured the Christian city of Antioch in 1268 and massacred its entire population. Even Saladin, who is generally well regarded today, estimated that he had killed or executed 40,000 European Christians after the Battle of Hattin in 1187. Were these men, who were universally hailed as champions of Islam, perverters of the faith? And, if so, is it the president’s job to decide that?

In general, world leaders would do better to focus on their own age, which they tend to understand better. Judging the purity of modern terrorists’ Islamic faith will not make them less dangerous. Let’s leave the Middle Ages out of it.

-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)

Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA

Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University

Bert Perry's picture

It strikes me that the whole notion of long speeches at prayer breakfasts tells us how seriously our culture takes Matthew 6.,.....  :^)

And it strikes me as well that what's really obnoxious about Obama's speech is his reference to the Dalai Lama--who would have been enslaving the Tibetans right now if the Communist Chinese hadn't gotten in his way--as "His Holiness."   That is quite frankly nauseating to me.  Not that Communism isn't nauseating in itself, but let's put things in perspective here.

But since we must discuss the issue of moral equivalency of ISIS to the Crusaders, I agree with Greg when he points out that it's really a rhetorical dodge to the imperative to act on what we know now.  Obama is correct that the Middle Ages were brutal times when petty theft was often punished by death, dissent from Rome (or the Caliph) by burning at the stake.  It's rather silly to pretend otherwise--one can quibble about justifications or degrees of offense, but let's be serious here.

But if we recognize what Obama is trying to do--obscure the fact that it is Islamic terrorism and dilute the drive to avenge it--that is where Obama's real moral offense occurs.  It's a lot like when one child is caught hitting the other, and he says "but Bobby hit me three years ago!", as if that explains everything.  "OK, Billy, I'll cancel the air strikes on ISIS bases, then.  Sorry about that."

And if you think I've just suggested that many world leaders, including our own, have the moral understanding of five year olds, you're almost there.  I'd say probably three years old, tops.

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

Jim Welch's picture

This President's remarks were wrong because the context was not right.  The world, the entire world is in a struggle with Islam as it is practiced by those who literally read the Koran.  ISIS is evil.  To make any comparison as the American president (correct me those who would agree w/this man, but was the USA even around during the Crusades?  Not that I can remember studying.)

As far as slavery and other wrongs, yes they were justified by people (some sincere, some selfish; but all wrong) misusing the Bible BUT no one has pointed out that slavery was ended because of the name of Christ in this nation and other Christianized nations.  

Islam conquers be the sword.  And not the sword of the Spirit.

It is imperative that our nation's leaders speak with firm resolve against the horrors of ISIS.  Glad that Jordan's leader has done so.  

Steve Newman's picture

It seems to me that a lot of the outrage is due to the expectation that the President is trying to be an apologist (in the best sense) for Islam. It strikes evangelicals as being tone deaf, but is boilerplate liberalism (all religions are the same, we should coexist). However, I sure hope he sees that ISIS really doesn't want to coexist with anyone but themselves. Because ISIS, Boko Haram, etc. wish to seize rule by violence, they must be met with violence. It is the only language they will respond to. The Crusades were butchery at times, but there was also a clear need to "fight fire with fire", and it may also be so today. Does anyone have the fortitude for such a fight?

It's time for us to know the Koran and what the most literal interpretations of Islam are up to.

GregH's picture

In all the bashing of Muslims that goes on, a few little facts get conveniently glossed over. Just like fundamentalists Christians make up a tiny fraction of Christianity, fundamentalist Muslims make up a tiny part of Muslims. The vast majority of Muslims are struggling with a literal interpretation of Islam just like we see in Christianity with the Bible. And a vast majority of Muslims condemn the violence of groups like ISIS. Furthermore, the trend is in the right direction.

Could it just be that Obama knows a bit more than some of you about what is going on and just might not want to alienate all those Muslims who are our friends by continually trying to paint all Muslims as ISIS-type radicals?

In regards to the President engaging in boilerplate liberalism (all religions are the same), here is a thought: he is engaging in what we believe as a country. In this country, all religions are indeed the same. Read the Constitution. Do people really want him to get up and say that Christianity is the best religion?

It is clear that what many conservative Christians really want is a theocracy rather than the government we have. Fine. They can go change the Constitution. But until you do, it is entirely appropriate for the President to not take sides in religions. 

 

Sean Fericks's picture

"Liberalism" (rightly understood) is freedom.  President Obama was right to point out that all religions are welcome in the USA until they attack our lives and freedoms.  Christianity is welcome, but not at the point of a sword (KKK, southern slavery, etc.).  Islam is welcome, but not at the point of a sword (the current Islamic fundamentalist jihad against the West).  God be praised that we no longer lynch our black brothers.  God be praised that we no longer burn our brothers at the stake.  But God also grant us wisdom to lead our Islamic friends to freedom, to liberty, to "liberalism".  Sometimes, we should speak softly, but carry a big stick.  Blessed are the peacemakers.  Hopefully, the President's speech demonstrates a desire for peace with our more "liberal" Muslim neighbors.

And yes, there is a moral equivalence between the Inquisition, the Conquistadors, and Islamic jihad.  Just ask the Central and South American native peoples.  Just ask Tyndale and Huss.  From Constantine to the Enlightenment, "Christianity" has murdered the innocent.  I would no more want to live in 15th century Spain than I would want to live in modern day Iran.

Even in our OT Scriptures, the promised land is conquered by the sword, and genocide is inflicted on the inhabitants of the land.  Violence is celebrated in the OT, and God blesses the warriors who kill men, women, and children.  Fortunately, we are past that time.  We speak of grace, repentance, and forgiveness.  Perhaps with some well-timed and well-placed words, we can, with God's help, lead our Islamic friends toward repentance and forgiveness as well.

Jim Welch's picture

I do recommend Erwin Lutzer's, "The Cross in the Shadow of the Crescent."  No one can accuse this godly man of being one of those wild-eyed fundamentalists.  Without "hating", he reveals why Islam, historically, has never been able to co exist with other religions.  

Greg H, I have read the Constitution.  I am wondering where in it does it say that all religions are equal?

Greg H you said, "It is clear that what many conservative Christians really want is a theocracy rather than the government we have. Fine. They can go change the Constitution. But until you do, it is entirely appropriate for the President to not take sides in religions."  I am a conservative Christian and I have NO desire for a theocracy for our nation.  I am fine with our Constitution and Bill of Rights as written. 

GregH's picture

Jim Welch wrote:

Greg H, I have read the Constitution.  I am wondering where in it does it say that all religions are equal?

Are you serious? Did you miss the first amendment?

This is my ongoing beef with conservative Christians. They want to have their cake and eat it to. If you want freedom of religion in the US, guess what? Muslims get it to. Want the ten commandments hanging in schools? Guess what? Satanists can pass out their coloring books.

That is our Constitution. And if it was actually written by Christians (a highly dubious suggestion), they went to great lengths to hide that. There is not a hint that one religion is to be considered superior to another in the Constitution.

jimcarwest's picture

 

That "tiny part" you mentioned happens to be near 10% of all Muslims by conservative accounts.  Since the total of Muslims is 1.3 billion, that means over 100 million sympathize with the terrorists and support their violence, meaning they hate America and our way of life.  These are NOT "struggling with a literal interpretation of Islam.  And, unfortunately, you do not hear a "vast majority of Muslims" condemning the violence.  If you look at Western Europe, you wouldn't conclude that the "trend is in the right direction." In a couple of decades some of those countries will be facing a majority of Muslims.   Obama does not give us any comfort that he knows more than those who work in the military, the Defense Dept., the F.B.I. and the C.I.A., and a host of retired military who are now free to enlighten us on the real nature of the enemy.  What Obama shows us is a deference towards Islam and a repudiation of what America is.  Yes, in America we have freedom of religion, BUT this does not permit any religion to practice violence on another.  If Obama believed this, he would be more aggressive in his defense of America.  And, as for conservative Christians desiring a "theocracy," this parrots the attack by liberals.  It is incumbent on the President to defend the values upon which America rests.  You would think that includes the 86% of Americans who confess to be Christians.

 

GregH wrote:

In all the bashing of Muslims that goes on, a few little facts get conveniently glossed over. Just like fundamentalists Christians make up a tiny fraction of Christianity, fundamentalist Muslims make up a tiny part of Muslims. The vast majority of Muslims are struggling with a literal interpretation of Islam just like we see in Christianity with the Bible. And a vast majority of Muslims condemn the violence of groups like ISIS. Furthermore, the trend is in the right direction.

Could it just be that Obama knows a bit more than some of you about what is going on and just might not want to alienate all those Muslims who are our friends by continually trying to paint all Muslims as ISIS-type radicals?

In regards to the President engaging in boilerplate liberalism (all religions are the same), here is a thought: he is engaging in what we believe as a country. In this country, all religions are indeed the same. Read the Constitution. Do people really want him to get up and say that Christianity is the best religion?

It is clear that what many conservative Christians really want is a theocracy rather than the government we have. Fine. They can go change the Constitution. But until you do, it is entirely appropriate for the President to not take sides in religions. 

 

Pages