Posted on 02/11/2015 5:34:07 AM PST by SJackson
This week, President Obama spoke at the National Prayer Breakfast, where he proceeded to inform an audience of Christians that they ought not judge radical Muslims currently engaged in beheading journalists, defenestrating gays, crucifying children, and engaging in mass rape of women. Why, pray tell, should Christians remain silent? Because, Obama informed them with Ivy League pride, “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.”
At some point in our collective history, our ancestors engaged in tribal warfare and cannibalized their fallen enemies. So shut up about the Nazis, you hypocrites.
Forget Obama’s historical ignorance, if you can, for just a moment. Forget that the Crusades, for all their brutality and horror, were a response to Islamic aggression; forget that the Inquisition was an attempt to systematize legal punishment for anti-Christian activity rather than leaving it to the heated mob; forget that all abolitionist leaders were devout Christians; forget that hundreds of thousands of Christians marched to their deaths during the Civil War singing the words “as He died to make men holy, so we die to make men free”; forget that the chief leaders of the civil rights movement were Christian leaders like Reverend Martin Luther King Jr.
Focus instead on the fact that President Obama felt the necessity to defend radical Islam at all. Why defend radical Islam? What is the point?
Obama defends radical Islam because he does not think in terms of ideology, but in terms of power dynamics. If radical Muslims commit terror, it is because they feel helpless and hopeless. If they feel helpless and hopeless, it is because Westerners made them feel that way.
If Westerners made them feel that way, it is because Western ideology must be exploitative and evil.
In other words, Obama cites the Crusades as justification for shutting Christians up because the Crusades caused all of this. If Christians had just kept their pieholes shut several thousand years ago, none of this would have happened. Obama’s ignorant and bigoted gloss on Christian history isn’t a throwaway line: it’s the centerpiece of his philosophy. Radical Islam isn’t the problem because Christianity is. And we know that Christianity is the problem because radical Islam is violent. In this skewed version of reality, modern Christianity’s fantastic record is a direct outgrowth of its disreputable past.
Obama extends this bizarre philosophy to every part of life. Those who murder Jews in Israel aren’t motivated by radical Islam: They were exploited by those evil, non-murdering Jews. Those who riot in Ferguson aren’t motivated by a corrupt ideology of victimhood: They were exploited long ago by those who cower in their stores, trying to prevent the looting. Those who sire children they abandon, drop out of school and refuse to hold down jobs aren’t predictable refuse of a broken philosophy: They are victims of those who get married, stay in school and hold down jobs. Success is the ultimate indicator that your philosophy is evil. Failure is the ultimate indicator that you are a victim, regardless of your ideology.
Obama’s philosophy is the philosophy of failure. No wonder radical Islam holds a cherished place in his heart, while Judeo-Christian religion find itself in his doghouse
I can’t help you. assuming you are well read (most FReepers are), keep your eyes open and you’ll notice.
bttt
The Crusades were PUSHBACK.
Self-defense, long overdue...nothing more, nothing less.
That deserves repeating.
The result is always loss of liberty, strife, and death as the devotees of Muhammad always try and take control and eradicate the native cultures and beliefs.
There is never any good result even if they are ultimately thwarted in their murderous quest for total domination.
“As has been pointed out, it’s proper British useage.”
Doesn’t matter. Slang is accepted in Britain. A Cockney
accent/dialect is accepted as proper in Britain also.
Being a surf and having to bow to a queen (can’t afford a king) is also proper in jolly ol Britain.
Still doesn’t matter.
Subject: Free Will
It’s interesting the way socialists approach theological concepts but when it comes to Islam they are not the only ones who refuse to approach the issue. That even includes leading Christian clergy including Pope Francis.
Followers of Mohammed not only claim, but truly believe that God has authorized them to kill those who refuse to submit to their version of God’s will. That is a basic tenet of that religion. A claim which goes unchallanged. While it’s understandable for atheists which most socialists are, not to approach that claim on a theological basis. It’s bewildering why any Christian clergy refuse to admit it even exists and is a basic part of Islam creed and worse yet are unable to condem its theological assertions.
The Koran which was not given to Mohammed by God but by some angel .Demanding enforcement of sharia law which draws heavily from the Torah.It is a pseudo religious concoction using monotheistic selected texts, taken and misconstrued from the old .(bible) and new tertaments. Both of which cite the Almighty has granted free will to accept or obey his laws and is the final judge not man. Sodom and Gormora , “Let he who is without sin cast the stone” are outstanding examples from both books. One deals with sin and God’s decision toward a group the other to an individual, neither is left to man.
Yet followers of Mohammed under the severest of penalties are forbidden to read either which would refute that assertion in a creed which institutionalizes disgusting arab tribal views, observances,and customs. Claiming adhearants are authorized by our Creator to demand submission to it or suffer an ignominious death administered by followers of Islam simply because they answer the call to prayer 5 times a day.
http://www.theusmat.com/islamandfreewill.htm
In direct response to Obama and his comment
“Unless we get on our high horse and think that this is unique to some other place..................”,
Our collective western civilization response is, Mr Obama, call it a high horse if you want to make excuses, but yes, we have risen above those acts you think we must, in our day, feel guilty for and feel so guilty now, after rising above them, that we are to excuse others for continuing to live that way, while we do not?? No, our moral horse does happen to be higher, higher than it once was and higher than the Islamist terrorists and the societies that breed them.
Yes Mr Obama, we can be and are proud we would not countenance slavery, or an inquisition, or racial or religious prejudice, or the lack of individual freedom of religion, or the lack of separation of church and state, or the joining of religious rules on blasphemy written into secular law, while many of those things ARE sought and practiced by the Islamists. You call it a high horse, but we simply call it progress, and its progress the Islamists are opposed to.
What utter nonsense. You are the one claiming that certain terms were frequently used. When asked to cite such examples you can’t come up with any standard sources of where they are used. And then when called on that you say sorry I need to pay attention.
Nice try. I will just go ahead and conclude that they are not in common use or frequently used
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.