Obama - Terrible deeds in the name of Christ

[sawoobley]

"...remember that during the Crusades and Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ..."

President Obama used the National Prayer Breakfast Thursday as an opportunity to remind religious leaders that radical Islamists are not the only group in history to enact violence in the name of religion. Citing Jim Crow laws and the Crusades, Obama specifically directed his remarks to Christianity, which he suggested had its own extremists too.

In his remarks on religious extremism, the president said that though religion can be a source for good, adherents of all faiths have at times been willing to "hijack religion" to rationalize "their own murderous ends." To illustrate his point, Obama pointed to past abuses of Christianity:

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. 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. There is a tendency in us, a simple tendency that can pervert and distort our faith.

Obama instructed religious leaders that we need to be humble about our respective faiths and not assume "God speaks only to us and doesn't speak to others."

Regarding freedom of speech, the president provided an equivocal response. Though he said there was a "connection between freedom of speech and freedom of religion," Obama declared that "infring[ing] on one right under the pretext of protecting another is a betrayal both."

...in modern, complicated, diverse societies, the functioning of these rights, the concern for the protection of these rights calls for each of us to exercise civility and restraint and judgment. And if, in fact, we defend the legal right of a person to insult another’s religion, we’re equally obligated to use our free speech to condemn such insults— (applause) —and stand shoulder-to-shoulder with religious communities, particularly religious minorities who are the targets of such attacks. Just because you have the right to say something doesn’t mean the rest of us shouldn’t question those who would insult others in the name of free speech.

http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/obam...bout-extremism



See 5:40 to 14:10

thoughts?

[YuMadThough]

thoughts?

[jacklambert58]

Religion O' Peace

the God of the Bible commanded the Israelites to “destroy all the inhabitants of the land” of Canaan (Joshua 9:24). They were to conquer, kill, and cast out the Hittites, Girga****es, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites (Exodus 23:23; Deuteronomy 7:1-2; Joshua 3:10). After crossing the Jordan River, we learn in the book of Joshua that the Israelites “utterly destroyed all that was in the city [of Jericho], both man and woman, young and old, ox and sheep and donkey, with the edge of the sword…. [T]hey burned the city and all that was in it with fire” (Joshua 6:21,24). They also “utterly destroyed all the inhabitants of Ai” (Joshua 8:26), killing 12,000 men and women and hanging their king (8:25,29). In Makkedah and Libnah, the Israelites “let none remain” (Joshua 10:28,30). They struck Lachish “and all the people who were in it with the edge of the sword” (10:32). The Israelites then conquered Gezer, Eglon, Hebron, Debir, and Hazor (10:33-39; 11:1-1). “So all the cities of those kings, and all their kings, Joshua took and struck with the edge of the sword. He utterly destroyed them, as Moses the servant of the Lord had commanded” (Joshua 11:12). God had the Israelites kill countless thousands, perhaps millions, of people throughout the land of Canaan.

[anonymous]

Religion O' Peace

the God of the Bible commanded the Israelites to “destroy all the inhabitants of the land” of Canaan (Joshua 9:24). They were to conquer, kill, and cast out the Hittites, Girga****es, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites (Exodus 23:23; Deuteronomy 7:1-2; Joshua 3:10). After crossing the Jordan River, we learn in the book of Joshua that the Israelites “utterly destroyed all that was in the city [of Jericho], both man and woman, young and old, ox and sheep and donkey, with the edge of the sword…. [T]hey burned the city and all that was in it with fire” (Joshua 6:21,24). They also “utterly destroyed all the inhabitants of Ai” (Joshua 8:26), killing 12,000 men and women and hanging their king (8:25,29). In Makkedah and Libnah, the Israelites “let none remain” (Joshua 10:28,30). They struck Lachish “and all the people who were in it with the edge of the sword” (10:32). The Israelites then conquered Gezer, Eglon, Hebron, Debir, and Hazor (10:33-39; 11:1-1). “So all the cities of those kings, and all their kings, Joshua took and struck with the edge of the sword. He utterly destroyed them, as Moses the servant of the Lord had commanded” (Joshua 11:12). God had the Israelites kill countless thousands, perhaps millions, of people throughout the land of Canaan.

Yes yes, we know all that. And we all know that the Old Testament had stuff about stoning your son if he talked back and murdering homosexuals too.

But apart from some backwards African "Christians" pretty much no one actually , literally , does any of that in
Gods name anymore (and millions of their fellow believers don't support it, either)

Obama using the classic forum muzzie tactic of "this Islamic terrorism is actually unislamic and hey, what about them jews"

[jacklambert58]

Yes yes, we know all that. And we all know that the Old Testament had stuff about stoning your son if he talked back and murdering homosexuals too.

But apart from some backwards African "Christians" pretty much no one actually , literally , does any of that in
Gods name anymore (and millions of their fellow believers don't support it, either)

Obama using the classic forum muzzie tactic of "this Islamic terrorism is actually unislamic and hey, what about them jews"

Yeah, exactly. Pretty much the reason I don't demand nor place any duty upon "good christians" to apologize & publicly condemn each and every instance of cross burning. Joel Osteen & Rick Warren are good people who are against criminal acts.

[sawoobley]

Religion O' Peace

the God of the Bible commanded the Israelites to “destroy all the inhabitants of the land” of Canaan (Joshua 9:24). They were to conquer, kill, and cast out the Hittites, Girga****es, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites (Exodus 23:23; Deuteronomy 7:1-2; Joshua 3:10). After crossing the Jordan River, we learn in the book of Joshua that the Israelites “utterly destroyed all that was in the city [of Jericho], both man and woman, young and old, ox and sheep and donkey, with the edge of the sword…. [T]hey burned the city and all that was in it with fire” (Joshua 6:21,24). They also “utterly destroyed all the inhabitants of Ai” (Joshua 8:26), killing 12,000 men and women and hanging their king (8:25,29). In Makkedah and Libnah, the Israelites “let none remain” (Joshua 10:28,30). They struck Lachish “and all the people who were in it with the edge of the sword” (10:32). The Israelites then conquered Gezer, Eglon, Hebron, Debir, and Hazor (10:33-39; 11:1-1). “So all the cities of those kings, and all their kings, Joshua took and struck with the edge of the sword. He utterly destroyed them, as Moses the servant of the Lord had commanded” (Joshua 11:12). God had the Israelites kill countless thousands, perhaps millions, of people throughout the land of Canaan.

Yes, they killed their enemies. Many of which made a blood oath against them and God and who sought to destroy them. They acted well within the cultural norms and laws of war of ancient Near Eastern societies. The Babylonians treated the Jews the same way when Jerusalem and Judea was conquered (2 Kings 24-25; Jeremiah 52). The atrocities of the biblical people were considered justifiable acts according to the contemporary laws of war. None of their contemporaries faulted them for their behavior. Understood in the context of the time in which these things occurred they aren't anything to get rustled about. It says something though when people have to reach back into the bronze age to find "atrocities" by modern standards to compare to modern day Muslim extremists.

Yet, Christians have somehow found a way to modernize and progress with the times.

[newtothelift]

I actually think the comparison of medieval Christians to modern Muslims is actually very appropriate.

Accidentally Obama does something right

[Igmann]

The inquisition and the crusades were actually among the few highlights of the Christian faith.

[Tekkendo]

Obozo.. failing since 2008...

[DennisR1977]

I actually think the comparison of medieval Christians to modern Muslims is actually very appropriate.

Accidentally Obama does something right

No.

We are talking about what happens this century. If the Christians were doing this now, then it'd be correct.

[Bosscoo]

He is technically correct and his reasons for making the comparison are obvious. I don't think the world would be a more harmonious and peaceful place if he came out and called Islam and Muslims a bunch of barbaric savages compared to Christians.

All religions can be twisted to create inhumanity and suffering, some are just slightly more susceptible than others. Let him who is without sin...

[40ozDrank]

No.

We are talking about what happens this century. If the Christians
were doing this now, then it'd be correct.

Christians are modern and civilized now. except for some baptists "praise God for dead soldiers" etc.

Extreme Muslims are still very primitive in their jihad ways.

Obama loves muzzies

[lasher]

The inquisition and the crusades were actually among the few highlights of the Christian faith.

Agreed.

[Bushmaster]

I actually think the comparison of medieval Christians to modern Muslims is actually very appropriate

Sure Christians were bad a thousand years ago, and the crusades sucked really really bad. Got it.

But what... is that supposed to be some sort of justification for anything that's done today? Should we give ISIS a pass for making heads literally roll, simply because some christians did it during the crusades?

The funny thing is, if some bratty child tried to dredge up shiit that his brother did once as an excuse, I doubt very seriously if anybody would fall for it.

[NiceBoat]

The inquisition and the crusades were actually among the few highlights of the Christian faith.

Doesn't that also require supporting what the Teutonic order did in Prussia and Lithuania against the Pagans as it was a part of the greater spirit of the crusades.

[Bushmaster]

Yeah, exactly. Pretty much the reason I don't demand nor place any duty upon "good christians" to apologize & publicly condemn each and every instance of cross burning. Joel Osteen & Rick Warren are good people who are against criminal acts.

Cross burning... that happens a lot, huh.

lulz

[carnivore74]

This is the standard liberal tactic, which attempts to conflate all extremist violence as equally represented amongst the various religions and ideologies, but everyone knows that is bullchit. I can't even look at this guys face anymore.

[Chowboy]

Obama caught walking a delicate line.



Appeasing his Muslim Brotherhood advisors while pretending to abhor what he started.

[tsbalr120]

GJ obama.

Muslims of today seem very similar to Christians of thousands of years ago. Hopefully their lag to becoming a modern entity ends soon.

[VinnyPazRules]

"...remember that during the Crusades and Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ..."





http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/obam...bout-extremism



See 5:40 to 14:10

thoughts?

It's the truth right?

[Bushmaster]

It's the truth right?

Right.

Point is though... so what? It doesn't justify or excuse anything that happens today.

[JoshSP1985]

Difference is the crusades were 800-1000 years ago. The entire world was less civilized then.

If extremist Muslims want to keep acting like it's the year 1000 I say we treat them that way.

[Brdprey]

Difference is the crusades were 800-1000 years ago. The entire world was less civilized then.

If extremist Muslims want to keep acting like it's the year 1000 I say we treat them that way.

nice

[Fedex01]

I actually think the comparison of medieval Christians to modern Muslims is actually very appropriate.

Accidentally Obama does something right

Obama didn't compare modern Muslims with Modern Christians.

He compared Muslim criminals of today with Christian criminals of similar nature throughout history.

99.99% of Muslims worldwide are modern twenty-first century people and aren't some crazy ISIS-type maniacs.

[Fedex01]

Difference is the crusades were 800-1000 years ago. The entire world was less civilized then.

If extremist Muslims want to keep acting like it's the year 1000 I say we treat them that way.

Many uncivilized christians still exist in today's world.

In Africa, Christian militias are burning villages and fighting for their god.

Good "Lord Resistance Army" for example...

[Fedex01]

GJ obama.

Muslims of today seem very similar to Christians of thousands of years ago. Hopefully their lag to becoming a modern entity ends soon.

Muslims are already a modern entity. You, from inside know this. You can't do much so you just bash Muslims/Islam online...

[TheJimmyRustler]

The inquisition...(was) actually among the few highlights of the Christian faith.

How d'you figure that? My knowledge of the Inquisiton isn't that great, wasn't it basically "you don't believe in our version of Christianity/might actually be a Muslim, pepper your angus for torture."

[homicidal_misc]

Thank God for the crusades

[ONtop888]

Religion O' Peace

the God of the Bible commanded the Israelites to “destroy all the inhabitants of the land” of Canaan (Joshua 9:24). They were to conquer, kill, and cast out the Hittites, Girga****es, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites (Exodus 23:23; Deuteronomy 7:1-2; Joshua 3:10). After crossing the Jordan River, we learn in the book of Joshua that the Israelites “utterly destroyed all that was in the city [of Jericho], both man and woman, young and old, ox and sheep and donkey, with the edge of the sword…. [T]hey burned the city and all that was in it with fire” (Joshua 6:21,24). They also “utterly destroyed all the inhabitants of Ai” (Joshua 8:26), killing 12,000 men and women and hanging their king (8:25,29). In Makkedah and Libnah, the Israelites “let none remain” (Joshua 10:28,30). They struck Lachish “and all the people who were in it with the edge of the sword” (10:32). The Israelites then conquered Gezer, Eglon, Hebron, Debir, and Hazor (10:33-39; 11:1-1). “So all the cities of those kings, and all their kings, Joshua took and struck with the edge of the sword. He utterly destroyed them, as Moses the servant of the Lord had commanded” (Joshua 11:12). God had the Israelites kill countless thousands, perhaps millions, of people throughout the land of Canaan.

All of that fascinating chit, however one reads it, was part of the Mosaic Law which, according to the NT, has been fulfilled and replaced by the new covenant; hence why, as HalfLife said, aside from some backwater Sudanese Christians, we aren't stoning homos and whores in masses, for instance.

This speech is typical Obama tomfoolery, skirt the real issue, which is millions of Islamic jihadis and supporters of their putrid cause by reminding us evil, homicidal Christians of the Crusades which the best historians of that time period would NEVER dream of comparing to ISIS.

[kennyr87]

Right.

Point is though... so what? It doesn't justify or excuse anything that happens today.

Don't think is the point either. Obama is a politician, and politicians always have a political reason for saying what they say. They're always trying to persuade someone to side with or vote for them. So what's the political reason for this speech?

If you read the speech in its entirety, I think that you'll see that this was really a foreign policy speech. The President here is trying to sway domestic and foreign public opinion to support his foreign policy positions.

The point of mentioning the Crusades was not to excuse terrorism but to persuade American and foreign public to agree with his views on freedom of speech and religion. And you have to remember that the Dalai Lama was at this event. Why was the Dalia Lama there? Because Obama wanted to make this a foreign policy speech. A lot of this speech was geared towards trying to sway Chinese public opinion on freedom of speech and religion.

I imagine the President knew he would take a hit from the Conservative Christian base with the speech. Case and point.

This speech is typical Obama tomfoolery, skirt the real issue, which is millions of Islamic jihadis and supporters of their putrid cause by reminding us evil, homicidal Christians of the Crusades which the best historians of that time period would NEVER dream of comparing to ISIS.

But he probably really did not care as he would never get their votes anyway. Politicians are always trying to persuade.