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

Al Mohler addressed this issue this morning in his daily podcast. He also provided links to the text of his remarks, a column in the NY Times by Ross Douthat, and his own personal reply to the issue.
I’m also coming out to object to the denigration of our President. Acts 23 comes to mind here:

And looking intently at the council, Paul said, “Brothers, I have lived my life before God in all good conscience up to this day.” And the high priest Ananias commanded those who stood by him to strike him on the mouth. Then Paul said to him, “God is going to strike you, you whitewashed wall! Are you sitting to judge me according to the law, and yet contrary to the law you order me to be struck?” Those who stood by said, “Would you revile God’s high priest?” And Paul said, “I did not know, brothers, that he was the high priest, for it is written, ‘You shall not speak evil of a ruler of your people.’”

Whether you like it or not, or whether the President lied or not, he is still due the respect and honor that we would and must accord to any leader, as I Peter commands.

Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good. For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people. Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God. Honor everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor.

Furthermore, to openly denigrate the President puts the author of that comment under the just condemnation of both God and civil authority, even though we do enjoy the privileges of free speech.

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

As my mom taught me, just because it’s true doesn’t mean it needs to be said. And there is a massive difference between noting an untruth and attacking the person who said it as a liar.

Jay, I interpret Acts 23 somewhat differently than does Dr. Mohler for a simple reason; 12 years in rabbinical school, and Paul doesn’t recognize the high priest’s garments, and the seat he’s sitting in, when he’s called before the Council? I have trouble believing that. So I think that’s a subtle poke at the fact that the high priest at the time was not a true Cohen at all, but rather a pet of the Romans.

Now I would agree with your point if it were restrained simply to the point that we ought not simply be throwing insults at the President. However, you’re seeming to go to the point where we could condemn Christ for calling Pilate “that fox.” I can’t go there.

Jesus is God. He can do things I can’t, and it doesn’t mean that I can do all the things he did…not with the selfish, sinful, pride filled heart that I possess. I already have enough problems respecting him and his position - I don’t need to feed those issues by trying to defend what was said.

The latter half of I Peter 2 is my guidance here:

20 For what credit is it if, when you sin and are beaten for it, you endure? But if when you do good and suffer for it you endure, this is a gracious thing in the sight of God. 21 For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you might follow in his steps. 22 He committed no sin, neither was deceit found in his mouth. 23 When he was reviled, he did not revile in return; when he suffered, he did not threaten, but continued entrusting himself to him who judges justly. 24 He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed.

Here are some stats from the Pew Forum that seem to back up Greg’s assertion: http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics…

[GregH]

Chip Van Emmerik wrote:

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.

Jay, does one really have to indulge selfishness and the like to point out something as obvious as the fact that large numbers of politicians lie a lot? I appreciate your caution and share it to a degree, but at a certain point, refusing to state an obvious truth is in itself false witness, is it not?

Yes, don’t make it excessively obnoxious—in part for the simple reason that a calmly stated truth is rhetorically more powerful—but let’s remember that when we indulge a lot of navel-gazing to make sure our motives are right before we point out something that’s pretty obvious, we’re just as self-centered as when we explode in passionate insults.

Joel, thanks for the data—but I still note that support for violent extremism seems to be around 10%, or something like 100 million people. This would explain, per an earlier comment I made, why a lot of Muslims aren’t terribly eager to confront it. It’s a big deal in their culture. And I really don’t like the 80% or so support for Sharia. Lots of barbarity in that one….

[GregH]

Greg Long wrote:

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.

It’s strange that the founding fathers who you say avoided giving favor to Christianity in the Constitution did just that with their actions. It is indisputable. Perhaps you have a different understanding of the First Amendment than they did, the ones who actually wrote it.

[Greg Long]

It’s strange that the founding fathers who you say avoided giving favor to Christianity in the Constitution did just that with their actions. It is indisputable. Perhaps you have a different understanding of the First Amendment than they did, the ones who actually wrote it.

Um, I am still waiting for where the place in the Constitution where special consideration is given to Christianity. You say it exists. Show me where please.

[Joel Shaffer]

Here are some stats from the Pew Forum that seem to back up Greg’s assertion: http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-…

GregH wrote:

Chip Van Emmerik wrote:

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.

1. North Korea
2. Somalia (98.6)
3. Syria (92.8)
4. Iraq (98.9)
5. Afghanistan (99.8)
6. Saudi Arabia (97.1)
7. Maldives (98.4)
8. Pakistan (96.4)
9. Iran (99.7)
10. Yemen (99.0)
11. Sudan (71.4)
12. Eritrea
13. Libya (96.6)
14. Nigeria (47.9)
15. Uzbekistan (96.5)
16. Central African Republic
17. Ethiopia
18. Vietnam
19. Qatar (77.5)
20. Turkmenistan (93.3)
21. Laos
22. Egypt (94.7)
23. Myanmar
24. Brunei
25. Colombia
26. Jordan (98.8)
27. Oman (87.7)
28. India
29. Sri Lanka
30. Tunisia (99.8)
31. Bhutan
32. Algeria (98.2)
33. Mali (92.4)
34. Palestinian Territories (97.5)
35. United Arab Emirates (76.0)
36. Mauritania (99.2)
37. China
38. Kuwait (86.4)
39. Kazakhstan (56.4)
40. Malaysia (61.4)
41. Bahrain (81.2)
42. Comoros (98.3)
43. Kenya
44. Morocco (99.9)
45. Tajikistan (99.0)
46. Djibouti (97.0)
47. Indonesia (88.1)
48. Bangladesh (90.4)
49. Tanzania
50. Niger (98.3)

Do you notice a pattern here?

[GregH]

Greg Long wrote:

It’s strange that the founding fathers who you say avoided giving favor to Christianity in the Constitution did just that with their actions. It is indisputable. Perhaps you have a different understanding of the First Amendment than they did, the ones who actually wrote it.

Um, I am still waiting for where the place in the Constitution where special consideration is given to Christianity. You say it exists. Show me where please.

The point is, by their words and actions they didn’t seem to agree with how you think they should have viewed the First Amendment that they wrote.

[Greg Long]

GregH wrote:

Greg Long wrote:

It’s strange that the founding fathers who you say avoided giving favor to Christianity in the Constitution did just that with their actions. It is indisputable. Perhaps you have a different understanding of the First Amendment than they did, the ones who actually wrote it.

Um, I am still waiting for where the place in the Constitution where special consideration is given to Christianity. You say it exists. Show me where please.

I know the text of the First Amendment. I think I also know it’s actual intent, based on what the Founding Fathers said and did. Can you explain to me why the founding fathers did what they did if they weren’t supposed to give any special status to Christianity?

The point is, by their words and actions they didn’t seem to agree with how you think they should have viewed the First Amendment that they wrote.

Got it. You have nothing from the Constitution to prove your point so you want to throw the burden of proof on me to prove a negative by trying to read minds of people that have been dead 200 years. No, I think it is more simple than that:

1) The founding fathers largely claimed Christianity as their religious affiliation.

2) There were other religions in the US at that time.

3) The founding fathers could have explicitly given Christianity favored status over those religions but chose not to.

4) That they chose not to is significant.

It is absolutely bewildering that we are now so polarized as a country that these kinds of arguments even exist. I would have never guessed I would even have to have this argument though I know your position is becoming more popular. A crazy judge in AL (Roy Moore) is now running around saying that the first amendment does not apply to religions other than Christianity.

Bert,

I’m going to disagree with you on this and move on. Thanks for interacting.

P.S. There is a difference between an established state religion/church, which of course the First Amendment prevented, and expressions and promotion of the dominate or favored religion, which the Founding Fathers did not intend to prevent.

If you don’t care to answer my questions, Greg, that’s fine. The fact is, if the Founding Fathers understood their own First Amendment in the same way you do, they would never have done the things I listed in a previous post because that would have been “favoring a religion.” Either that, or they would have also needed to have prayers and religious services for other gods/religions.

You can keep name calling and expressing incredulity and associating me with David Barton, Roy Moore, and “Obama-bashers” if you want to. I don’t listen to or follow those people (or Fox News or whatever other right-wing bogeyman you want to list). I’m just trying to deal with facts here.

I think the issue here is that Christ provided Christianity a decoupling of religion from politics and war. In the OT, we have a form of jihad, blessed by Jehovah. After Christ, we have personal grace, repentance, and forgiveness. BC, annihilate the Canaanites. AD, we go into the world and preach. Unfortunately, under Constantine, Christianity was hijacked back into the Roman empire as a tool. It was then recoupled with politics and war. It lasted this way (with wars, murder, burnings, etc.) until the enlightenment, when we finally realized that human liberty and agency are moral imperatives. Only hearts at liberty (including the hearts of people of all ethnic backgrounds) can truly trust Christ.

Islam does not have a Christ. Islam has not had an enlightenment. In Islam, Sharia ties doctrine to politics, law, crime, and punishment. Therefore, Islam cannot coherently argue for liberty. Islam needs Christ to set its people free. It needs the concepts of tolerance and liberty to separate the state from the faith.

I think President Obama was trying to speak peace to moderate Muslims. He was trying to help them see that progress can be made from Sharia and Jihad to tolerance and peace. He was not trying to insult the Christianity of 21st century America, but he was calling us to remember our history, and act and think in humility. These are valid and noble goals. There is enough wrong with his policy. We should not waste our time being offended by a reasonably decent speech.