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

Since when do Christians get the same freedoms in schools, curricula, etc. as Muslims do today. We could wish! The schools are not now teaching children to say Christian prayers, to practice Christian festivals, etc. The school systems are the arm of government now. They are teaching religion: darwinism, humanism, and all sorts of anti-Christian beliefs. It is strange that the writers of the Constitution held that Christianity was the religion that was taught and practiced in our schools. The Bible was read daily. Christian prayers were said daily. They envisioned the protection of all religions, but they incorporated the practice and beliefs of Christianity until humanists like John Dewey gained control of our educational system. So much for those “hints” you failed to see in our system of government. So, instead of opposing the actual trend to give special recognition to Islam in our schools, you would rather find in the Constitution reasons for excluding Christianity from any government activity.

[GregH]

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.

[GregH]

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.

Obviously it is technically true that the vast majority of individual Muslims have never and never intend to commit personal acts of violence. Most Muslims are peaceful people. But that’s not the issue. The issue is, is there anything inherent in the Islamic faith that leads to religious violence? Obviously there is debate within the Muslim community on that very point. My Muslim acquaintance that I mentioned earlier told me point blank that if there is a true Islamic state, then anyone who is a Muslim who renounces the Muslim faith or coverts to another religion should be executed. He also said that those who are already in another religion would be allowed to worship and practice peacefully, but that they would have to pay a tax to the Islamic government (this is known as ahl al-dhimma).

However, this seems to me to be a sanitized, rose-colored perspective on the true Islamic faith. Why do I say that? Well, the proof is in the pudding. Look around the world at nations where Islam is the majority religion and/or the official religion. Fareed Zakaria says this on the Washington Post site (note this is NOT Glenn Beck or some other “right-wing crazy,” and that it is NOT Fox News or some other “right-wing” news source):

But let’s be honest. Islam has a problem today. The places that have trouble accommodating themselves to the modern world are disproportionately Muslim.

In 2013, of the top 10 groups that perpetrated terrorist attacks, seven were Muslim. Of the top 10 countries where terrorist attacks took place, seven were Muslim-majority. The Pew Research Center rates countries on the level of restrictions that governments impose on the free exercise of religion. Of the 24 most restrictive countries, 19 are Muslim-majority. Of the 21 countries that have laws against apostasy, all have Muslim majorities.

Now, Zakaria goes on to argue that these are Muslim extremists who are in the minority (!), and that historically Islam has been a peaceful religion. But again I say, the proof is in the pudding. Do you REALLY believe that if a true Islamic state were set up today, there would be freedom of religion? You will never convince me of that. I would encourage you to read Shariah — The Thread to America (free PDF download) by the Center for Security Policy. (Before you dismiss it again as some right-wing evangelical screed, look at the individuals who make up the team who composed the document.) It is absolutely eye-opening.

But again, Greg, you continue to distract from the real issue by defending Obama and Islam from attacks that no one is making on this thread and by refusing to address the actual issue. Let me ask you to answer these questions, if you would:

• Do you think it is appropriate for the Commander-in-Chief to in essence say we shouldn’t be so quick to judge our military enemy (who is slaughtering men, women, and children) because we’ve had our own problems?
• Do you find any problem with the fact that Obama is never willing to make any connection between Islam and violence, but explicitly did so with Christianity?

[GregH]

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.

(Sources: Scalia, J. Antonin. McCreary County, KY v. ACLU of KY [Supreme Court 2005] , Farah, Joseph. “Stark, Raving Atheist.” WND Commentary, March 28, 2007. http://www.wnd.com/2007/03/40797/).

I don’t look to Obama to evangelize the Muslims. But it is his responsibility to lead us when we are faced with violence. Instead he looks back a thousand years to argue for understanding of the current crisis by equating what happened in the Crusades with what is happening today. Christians have long since dealt with those issues, and in the current situation within Christianity, at least 400 million Christians had nothing to do with the Crusades. Even a statistical comparison between the Crusades and what Islam was doing at the same period of history reveals that Islam was bludgeoning all Europe while Catholicism was simply trying to take back the Holy Land. It is a comparison between 99% (Islamic offensive military activty) and 1% (Christian defensive military activity). Obama is like a drowning man reaching for even a straw to save his sinking influence.

[Sean Fericks]

“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.

I just want to raise an objection to the use of the term “Liar-in-Cheif” in reference to our President. It strikes me as a violation of Romans 13 and other scriptures, and inconsistent with Christian charity.

[Greg Long]

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.

Greg, again I really, really wish you would engage with what is actually being said on this thread. But since you seem to think Islam is such a benign religion, let me address that.

Obviously it is technically true that the vast majority of individual Muslims have never and never intend to commit personal acts of violence. Most Muslims are peaceful people. But that’s not the issue. The issue is, is there anything inherent in the Islamic faith that leads to religious violence? Obviously there is debate within the Muslim community on that very point. My Muslim acquaintance that I mentioned earlier told me point blank that if there is a true Islamic state, then anyone who is a Muslim who renounces the Muslim faith or coverts to another religion should be executed. He also said that those who are already in another religion would be allowed to worship and practice peacefully, but that they would have to pay a tax to the Islamic government (this is known as ahl al-dhimma).

However, this seems to me to be a sanitized, rose-colored perspective on the true Islamic faith. Why do I say that? Well, the proof is in the pudding. Look around the world at nations where Islam is the majority religion and/or the official religion. Fareed Zakaria says this on the Washington Post site (note this is NOT Glenn Beck or some other “right-wing crazy,” and that it is NOT Fox News or some other “right-wing” news source):

But let’s be honest. Islam has a problem today. The places that have trouble accommodating themselves to the modern world are disproportionately Muslim.

In 2013, of the top 10 groups that perpetrated terrorist attacks, seven were Muslim. Of the top 10 countries where terrorist attacks took place, seven were Muslim-majority. The Pew Research Center rates countries on the level of restrictions that governments impose on the free exercise of religion. Of the 24 most restrictive countries, 19 are Muslim-majority. Of the 21 countries that have laws against apostasy, all have Muslim majorities.

Now, Zakaria goes on to argue that these are Muslim extremists who are in the minority (!), and that historically Islam has been a peaceful religion. But again I say, the proof is in the pudding. Do you REALLY believe that if a true Islamic state were set up today, there would be freedom of religion? You will never convince me of that. I would encourage you to read Shariah — The Thread to America (free PDF download) by the Center for Security Policy. (Before you dismiss it again as some right-wing evangelical screed, look at the individuals who make up the team who composed the document.) It is absolutely eye-opening.

But again, Greg, you continue to distract from the real issue by defending Obama and Islam from attacks that no one is making on this thread and by refusing to address the actual issue. Let me ask you to answer these questions, if you would:

• Do you think it is appropriate for the Commander-in-Chief to in essence say we shouldn’t be so quick to judge our military enemy (who is slaughtering men, women, and children) because we’ve had our own problems?
• Do you find any problem with the fact that Obama is never willing to make any connection between Islam and violence, but explicitly did so with Christianity?

A few quick thoughts for you Greg L.

1) I have not intentionally taken this thread off topic. I was merely responding that the current attacks on Obama are the normal conservative reaction every time he opens his mouth. They ignore quotes like the one I gave above, but they whine and mock because he misspeaks about how long ago the crucifixion was (a few years ago), and they grab a 26 second of a speech in this case, ignoring the rest of the speech and the context. I consider it profoundly unfair in how Obama is treated. I am a moderate conservative (have never voted anything but Republican in my life) but I am absolutely disgusted by how conservatives act these days, especially with Obama. So I do believe that my defense of Obama is on track.

2) The Bible and the Quran both could easily be interpreted as promoting genocide and holy wars. It is something that Christians need to wrestle with rather than just ignore while pointing the finger at Islam. As far as I can tell, the only significance difference between the two falls in whether those actions are condoned today. The NT clearly establishes a different paradigm while the Koran might suggest that the old paradigm should continue indefinitely. But Christians that ignore the genocide of the OT and rail against Islam can rightly be called hypocrites.

3) I would not want to live in a Muslim state. The civilizations heavily influenced by Christianity have been brutal in the past but at least progressed faster than those of Islam. The Middle East today basically reminds one of Europe a few centuries ago. That being said, I would not want to live in a Christian state either based on what history teaches us would happen.

4) I believe in valuing expert opinion. I think Obama probably understands the political consequences of things more than you and I and I also know that Muslims for the most part do not want to be associated with ISIS any more than you and I want to be associated with Fred Phelps. So for heaven’s sake, why not give him a little leeway to do what he thinks is best. There are issues of diplomacy that come into play.

So in summary, I understand why people are upset. But I just think it is a typical overreaction driven by ideology. Not a big deal really. That is how I see it. I hope that answers your questions.

I have read the first amendment, where does it use the word equal?

I am totally in support of each person’s freedom to worship freely or to not worship freely in our nation.

I do not believe that there should be a test of religion for those who serve in public office.

Greg H., I recommend that you read Roger Williams on freedom of religion. He was radical and I agree w/what he says.

Do I as a follower of Jesus Christ believe that all religion are equal? Of course not, but I will do all in my power to make sure that others are free to worship or not worship as their conscience dictates.

Now, in which Muslim nation does a Christian have this same kind of liberty of conscience?

Greg H., I just read your most recent post. I will defend your right to defend President Obama. Will you defend my right to question him?

[GregH]

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.

This is simply wishful thinking. The vast majority of Muslims refuse to speak out against the atrocities of the terrorists perpetrating murder, rape, kidnapping, torture and other wickedness under the umbrella of their shared religion. Instead, the vast majority of Muslims world wide are repeatedly seen taking to the streets to celebrate Muslim atrocities. Every single nation with a Muslim majority and Muslim leadership has followed the path of the so-called radicals because the radical Islam is the true Islam. The only Muslims who back away from this true understanding of Islam are portions of the minorities in Western nations that have bastardized Islam in the same way that mainline Protestants have bastardized Christianity.

Furthermore, there is a vast difference between not taking sides in religion and refusing to identify terroristic threats and dealing with them forcefully to protect America.

David, I understand your position, but keep in mind that Christ referred to Pilate as a “fox”, meaning worthless or insignificant person. I don’t think that we can assume that the position held by President Obama ought to insulate him from such criticism, Biblically speaking. Certainly the Scripture says some unpleasant things about Pharaoh, Ahasuerus, Ahab, and a host of other kings.

Now we ought to make sure we’re being factual about the matter, and that we’re not simply throwing insults around to see what will stick (e.g. “Bushitler” about eight years back among the left), but I don’t believe that Biblically speaking, Christians are bound to “hold their fire” when a leader consistently shows himself to be dishonest and such.

Now in this case, I think the President was uncharacteristically honest—though with I think a duplicitous motive—but given Obama’s history, I don’t think “Liar-in-Chief” is needlessly harsh or lacking charity.

[DavidO]

I just want to raise an objection to the use of the term “Liar-in-Cheif” in reference to our President. It strikes me as a violation of Romans 13 and other scriptures, and inconsistent with Christian charity.

It does not violate scripture or charity when it is demonstrably true.

[Greg Long]

GregH wrote:

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.

Greg, the founding fathers disagree with you (and no, I don’t believe that most of them were born-again Christians). Have you read George Washington’s Thanksgiving proclamation? Did you know that George Washington added to the form of Presidential oath prescribed by Art. II, §1, cl. 8, of the Constitution, the concluding words ‘so help me God’? That Thomas Jefferson attended church inside the House of Representatives? That Thomas Jefferson endorsed the use of federal funds to build churches and to support Christian missionaries working among the Indians? That the Supreme Court under John Marshall opened its sessions with the prayer, ‘God save the United States and this Honorable Court’? That the First Congress instituted the practice of beginning its legislative sessions with a prayer? (Christian prayer, mind you) That the same week that Congress submitted the Establishment Clause as part of the Bill of Rights for ratification by the States, it enacted legislation providing for paid chaplains in the House and Senate? That the day after the First Amendment was proposed, the same Congress that had proposed it requested the President to proclaim ‘a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed, by acknowledging, with grateful hearts, the many and signal favours of Almighty God’?

(Sources: Scalia, J. Antonin. McCreary County, KY v. ACLU of KY [Supreme Court 2005] , Farah, Joseph. “Stark, Raving Atheist.” WND Commentary, March 28, 2007. http://www.wnd.com/2007/03/40797/).

You miss my point. Whether the founding fathers went to church or not is not the issue. Whether they had services in the capital is not the issue. What is the issue is that in the entire Constitution, there is NOT A HINT that Christianity is the favored religion of the land, that it should have freedoms other religions should not. That is my point and my only point. I am not interested in Dave Barton propaganda about who said what about God. Ironically, it sort of proves my point. Yes, they believed in God and yes, their religious affiliation was Christian. And yet, they STILL DID NOT write a single word in the Constitution that would give Christianity favored status.

[Chip Van Emmerik]

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.

Greg,

This is simply wishful thinking. The vast majority of Muslims refuse to speak out against the atrocities of the terrorists perpetrating murder, rape, kidnapping, torture and other wickedness under the umbrella of their shared religion. Instead, the vast majority of Muslims world wide are repeatedly seen taking to the streets to celebrate Muslim atrocities. Every single nation with a Muslim majority and Muslim leadership has followed the path of the so-called radicals because the radical Islam is the true Islam. The only Muslims who back away from this true understanding of Islam are portions of the minorities in Western nations that have bastardized Islam in the same way that mainline Protestants have bastardized Christianity.

Furthermore, there is a vast difference between not taking sides in religion and refusing to identify terroristic threats and dealing with them forcefully to protect America.

That is the most absurd thing I have read on this entire thread. Chip, two minutes on Google will get you all the stats you need to demonstrate that you are wrong. The majority of Muslims worldwide condemn violence under the name of Islam. Study after study shows it. Get your facts right.

[Jim Welch]

Greg H., I just read your most recent post. I will defend your right to defend President Obama. Will you defend my right to question him?

Of course you have the right to question him. And I have the right to think that much of that questioning is ridiculous.

GregH, I think that the crux of the debate over the impact of radical Islam vs. moderate/sensible Islam is the simple question of whether they disapprove in private, or whether they take on risk to confront it publicly. Kinda along the lines of an acid test for churches vs. racism; it is one thing to disapprove of it privately, and yet another to discipline a deacon found to be a member of the Klan or some such thing.

Or, closer to home—and not to incite a flame war or anything—what do our churches do with the issue of sexual assault by members, pastors, and the like?

Going back to the topic of radical Islam, my take is that I would agree that most—I’d guess 90-95%—Muslims privately reject violent jihad. There are also encouraging signs, like Jordan and others taking on a role in attacking ISIS. On the flip side, Yemen, Pakistan, and Afghanistan aren’t doing so hot in that regard, and the presence of “no go” zones in Muslim-dominated neighborhoods in Europe is also a bad sign.

And to me, that’s why President Obama’s obvious feint is troubling. One can even suggest that it’s only a group of “1%ers” (the Jihadist cycle club?), but with a billion Muslims out there, 1% is still ten million people, more than enough to cause a few problems for the rest of us. Pointing at the Crusades instead of aligning troops and incentives (e.g. foreign aid) with the need to help ISIS members assume room temperature can be a very dangerous game to play.