President Obama has never been one to go easy on America.
As a new president, he dismissed the idea of American exceptionalism, noting that Greeks think their country is special, too. He labeled the Bush-era interrogation practices, euphemistically called “harsh” for years, as torture. America, he has suggested, has much to answer given its history in Latin America and the Middle East.
His latest challenge came Thursday at the National Prayer Breakfast. At a time of global anxiety over Islamist terrorism, Obama noted pointedly that his fellow Christians, who make up a vast majority of Americans, should perhaps not be the ones who cast the first stone.
“Humanity has been grappling with these questions throughout human history,” he told the group, speaking of the tension between the compassionate and murderous acts religion can inspire. “And lest 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. In our home country, slavery and Jim Crow all too often was justified in the name of Christ.”
Some Republicans were outraged. “The president’s comments this morning at the prayer breakfast are the most offensive I’ve ever heard a president make in my lifetime,” said former Virginia governor Jim Gilmore (R). “He has offended every believing Christian in the United States. This goes further to the point that Mr. Obama does not believe in America or the values we all share.”
I suppose I am not easily offended. I happen to agree with the President. I have believe we have to ask ourselves why people were annoyed by the President’s words. First we need to look at the purpose of the National Prayer Breakfast.
Is the NPB a political bully pulpit for whomever is in office at the time or is it a function where people of faith can come together seeking direction and leadership from their Higher Power. Let’s take a look. According to Wikipedia:
The National Prayer Breakfast is a yearly event held in Washington, D.C., on the first Thursday of February each year. The founder of this event was Abraham Vereide.[1] The event—which is actually a series of meetings, luncheons, and dinners—has taken place since 1953 and has been held at least since the 1980s at the Washington Hilton on Connecticut Avenue NW.
The breakfast, held in the Hilton’s International Ballroom, is typically attended by some 3,500 guests, including international invitees from over 100 countries. The National Prayer Breakfast is hosted by members of the United States Congress and is organized on their behalf by The Fellowship Foundation, a Christ-centered organization. Initially called the Presidential Prayer Breakfast, the name was changed in 1970 to the National Prayer Breakfast.
It is designed to be a forum for the political, social, and business elite to assemble and build relationships. Since the inception of the National Prayer Breakfast, several U.S. states and cities and other countries have established their own annual prayer breakfast events.
Every U.S. president since Dwight D. Eisenhower has participated in the annual event.[2]
Well, who would have thunk it. I certainly had the wrong idea of what this event was for. Certainly Christianity compels us to be humble and to be reflective of our own behavior. President Obama has certainly done that. No one likes a braggart. No one likes someone who comes to the table with nothing but suggestions about how the other guy can improve.
I don’t think the National Prayer Breakfast is the time to lash out at ISIS. Surely no one in attendance supports what that vile extremist group does. Obviously no one feels that is the way to behave in a world where all different faiths exist.
Humility has never made us weaker. As a nation, we certainly have exhibited behaviors that need close scrutiny. We have driven the aboriginal people of the United States to remote places in our great nation and have kept them on land no one else wanted (until gold and oil were discovered). We have trampled on others in the name of Manifest Destiny. We have enslaved other human beings and have fought each other over the right to do practice this abomination. We have used weapons of mass destruction on human populations to win wars. We have certainly not treated all of our citizens equally nor have we been the greatest of hosts to those who simply reside here. We institutionally kill some of our people who commit heinous acts to other human beings.
Some can criticize our country for those far-from-perfect behaviors, others can make compelling arguments and justifications for those same behaviors. What are perceived by some as our national faults, others can rationalize, defend and pardon from many different points of view.
I support the President’s words at the National Prayer Breakfast. A little national introspection makes us think and certainly taking a look at the history of Christianity in general is somewhat humbling. We have not always behaved as we are instructed to do by the Good Book. We certainly, as Christians, have not “done unto others as we would have them do undo us” at times. I certainly wasn’t offended.
Let us not forget that more people have been killed in the name of God than for any other reason.
Find something else to pick on the President over. At some point we need to be able to leave or red or blue shirts at home. This is one of those times.
I like it that he stuck it to the Chinese, despite their warnings, with an effusive welcome to the Dalai Lama.
I never care if someone sticks it to the Chinese.
I thought the comments showed a distinct lack of “situational awareness”. The Crusades and the Inquisition? Seriously? The a Crusades were a western response to the spread of Islam…a spreading “By the Sword”, or Jihad. The Caliphate had conquered North Africa, and was threatening Constantinople, then the center of the Eastern Orthodox fate. This, after Christians who had existed in the Holy Land since 33 AD were forced to convert or die by the Caliphate. This was a war against an existential outside threat. And yes, wars are brutal, especially during medieval times.
The Spanish Inquisition was also a result of the Muslim conquest of Spain. Once the Caliphate’s hold on Spain broken, the Church did reassert itself in the area, and used some brutal techniques.
These things happened CENTURIES AGO. ISIS/ISIL IS BEHEADING AND BURNING PEOPLE TODAY!
What the President fails to grasp is both of cases he cited happened prior to the Renaissance, the enlightenment, and the end of the Feudal system. Western culture evolved, nation-states arose and the power of the Roman Catholic Church declined. All of these things occurred before a nation like no other came to be…the nation which elected him to be their president.
And in case the President has forgotten, He is the President of the United States, first and foremost. Exactly how many Americans participated in the Crusades or the Inquisition?
Another shining example of someone who is not capable of leadership. A leader “Knows the way. Shows the way. Goes the way.”
@Steve Thomas
I believe he was talking about Christianity and not the United States. I didn’t feel like he was making a political speech nor did I feel he was comparing Christianity to Islam. I think he was just trying to de-high horse Christianity.
Perhaps what I heard left out parts, but I don’t think so. Joe Scarborough actually threw a temper tantrum over what he said. I had already put the post up so I went back and listened again. I still didn’t hear it.
Now…back to the Crusades. I don’t disagree with why they went. I do think you left out some things that people feel isn’t too cool. The Christian Crusaders also purged towns of Jews along the way. Additionally, children were involved. but you are right. Christians cleaned up their act. The Spanish Inquisition that wasn’t just in Spain was horrible. It was like Religious McCarthyism on steroids. People were killed and tortured. Jews also caught it once again and were made to convert to Christianty. Nah…I am not giving any passes there. The Salem Witch Trials also weren’t a bright beacon on the hill either. The Conquestadores were also nasty as all hell.
As Christians we have a few really tarnished halos on our side of the score card. But you knew that. I don’t have a problem with it. I have often said similar things. Would Gilmore have thought I was one of the most offensive people he had ever heard? I doubt that I am.
As you know, I also do not agree with you on leadership but…that is each of our opinions and opinions are just that…opinions. They aren’t right or wrong.
I don’t find the Prez’s speech offensive, but then I’m not a member of the perpetually perturbed party.
@Moon-howler
“I believe he was talking about Christianity and not the United States.”
And he was doing so at the National Prayer Breakfast. National. Not international. Not the Vatican prayer breakfast. Shows a lack of situational awareness.
“I didn’t feel like he was making a political speech nor did I feel he was comparing Christianity to Islam.”
What he was doing was trying to make a moral equivalency argument between Christianity and Islam, and he did it poorly. ISIS Terrorists had just burned a fellow muslim to death, for propaganda purposes. They’ve beheaded hostages who were aid workers and journalists…hardly combatants. If he was trying to ease the vengeful passions of the world, his choice of the National Prayer Breakfast was piss-poor…IMHO.
“Additionally, children were involved.”
The Children’s Crusade never made it to the Holy Land to fight. They were mostly captured and sold into slavery somewhere in Asia Minor. But while we are on the topic of children, how many 9 yearold have been forcibly married to ISIS fighters? Recall the Fatwa issued by the ISIS Imam that prescribed how females in the captured territories can be treated, as wives or concubines.
“Nah…I am not giving any passes there.”
Wait, some 15th 16th and 17th century religious zealots don’t get a pass? Moon, guess what the Muslims were doing at that time? Sacking, raping and pillaging Constantinople. This is the 21st century. Are there any Christians, or even Jews who are raping, pillaging, beheading, or immolating men, woman, or children in the name of Jesus or Jehovah? If the President wanted to make a statement at the National Prayer breakfast, he shouldn’t start out by knocking the major religious faith in this country, the one whose principles founded this country. Surprised that he didn’t bash the Jews too, citing the “atrocity at the battle of Jericho”.
What was outrageous was this crapola from one of the perpetually petulant:
Calling Jon Stewart…..
@Censored bybvbl
Censored, you really should get caught up here. There’s a civil, grown-up debate going on. If you want to engage, please do so in a grown-up fashion. No one here is making this a partisan issue, except for you. We are debating whether or not the president’s remarks were A) Historically accurate, and B) appropriate for the setting in which they were delivered, and lastly C) demonstrate leadership in the face of an existential threat to the US and her allies.
But if you want to wallow in the mud…we can talk about how radical Islam has exploded since the Dems have been running foreign policy, and how we are losing ground to the extremists on every front.
Your Choice.
@Steve Thomas
Were Gilmore’s comments “grown-up”?
Breath in….breathe out…. calm down ….let the need to control slip away….
But the Executive is right, as usual. Christians can never criticize the wrongdoings of any other religion because 400-1000 years ago some co-religionists did things that we now consider bad. That they were par for the course of life in the middle ages doesn’t matter. That the religions powers at the time condemned many of them doesn’t matter either.
Christians certainly can’t criticize Islam, because as the Executive has told us repeatedly, the Islamic State has nothing to do with Islam. Christians also can’t expect “moderate” Muslims to criticize the Islamic State either, because again, the Islamic State has nothing to do with Islam. The writing on those catchy black flags that al Qaeda and the Islamic State use has nothing to do with Islam either. The book they get all their creative ideas for executing people has nothing to do with Islam either.
Remember, the real danger is Islamophobia. We need to get off our high horse and stop worrying about being blown up, beheaded, burned alive, stoned, crucified, raped or mutilated. The danger is that people might wrongly think that 90%+ of terrorist acts anywhere in the world in the last 40 years have one thing in common. From Canada, to Russia, to Argentina, to New York, to London, to Paris, and it’s not the Crusades.
Let’s just be blunt and stop pussy footing around with this. You have to specifically attack ISIS rather than “Muslim.” Do you want the entire middle east pissed off at you? I actually wouldn’t blame them. There are plenty of decent, kind Muslims. I wouldn’t want to be one but live and let live.
Let’s face it. There is no Christian equivalent of ISIS that I am aware of. Why are we even having this conversation?
Any president with aa brain has to be careful about maligning members of the mainstream faith.
I think Gilmore’s comments were Gilmore’s. I don’t know if they were intended to express genuine outrage as being a Christian who felt insulted, a partisan reaction, or as a means to cause some buzz around a potential presidential bid.
What I do know is the President’s comments offended me, mostly because I have been a life-long student of history, and I find his attempt at moral equivalence outrageous, in light of where he made the comments, and that the comments were made right after ISIS immolated a Jordanian pilot, and beheaded two Japanese non-combatants.
And censored…I am very much in control over that which I have control, particularly my patience when it involves responding to your pabulum.
I just didn’t feel the moral equivalence. I didn’t see it, hear it or feel it. I thik you are being overly sensitive because you don’t like Obama.
@Furby McPhee
+1 and 2 “thumbs-up”, plus a few Retro “Huzzahs!” for good measure.
Those who are outraged would be outraged regardless of what Obama said – simply because he’s a bi-racial Prez or a Democrat.
I find it ironic that those who like to wrap themselves in the cloak of “Christianity” are some of our community’s biggest bullies. They were there doing the dirty work of HSM during the immigration debates/debacles in PWC, and they were there trying to regulate businesses in the City under the cloak of religiosity. They are a small example of the larger issue raised by Obama… and they won’t see that forest for the trees.
I have no idea what Obama was trying to accomplish with his rather obtuse comments. Why does he need to wade into this mess and give his critics more ammo, somewhat deserved in this case?
He has a bad habit of engaging his mouth before his brain sometimes.
More pabulum that has nothing to do with the discussion at hand, or are you trying to make a moral equivalence between standing up for the rule of law or protesting pornography with the rape and murder of those classified as “infidels”? When last I checked, no one from my church was looking to behead anyone.
@middleman
“He has a bad habit of engaging his mouth before his brain sometimes.”
Egads! You mean that Joe Biden’s terminal “Foot in Mouth Disease” is contagious, and our President is showing signs of infection?
At least Obama attended this years breakfast. If my memory serves, He’s skipped a few before.
From wiki:
Every U.S. president since Dwight D. Eisenhower has participated in the annual event.
@Steve Thomas
I think Obama’s lecture could be viewed as being about more than ISIS, the Crusades, and Jim Crow. Acting as barbarians in the mideast is many notches up from acting like bigots and control freaks locally, but it’s got a bit of the same origin – religious zealotry and I’d venture to say that political partisanship has many of the same roots.
I think it was a rather generic speech – nothing to get really upset over unless one is a partisan. You get bent out of shape over what he said or didn’t say that you wanted to hear. I find that humorous because you just stated that he had skipped a few. My, my, missed opportunities to criticize…
There would be no pleasing you as you’ve decided that your history degree has set you up as some sort of expert on all things political/historical. I’m not so sure that even in that field that you see the forest for the trees.
The happiest persons in this whole episode should be the PR chiefs for ISIS and al-Qaeda. Jihadists often refer to the Crusades in their criticism of those in the West who oppose their contemporary radicalism. Now POTUS has given them a prime video clip for future “I told you so! Even they admit it!” recruitment and other productions.
@Wolve
Intentional. This White House is one giant sleeper cell.
Art imitating life? http://ryanbarrett.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8345259a469e200e553bb1ad08834-pi
I found this lecture a bit odd coming from a man who’s ‘spiritual mentor’ is/was Jeremiah Wright. He sat in this anti-Semitic church for 20+ years listening to some of the most offensive and vile things Rev. Wright had to say about Jews. But now he is going to talk about Christians getting on their high horse when it comes to Islam?
Keep in mind that Rev. Wright was a big supporter of the very anti-Semitic Nation of Islam and Louis Farrakhan throughout the years Obama was attending this church.
Old news. Keep it moving. Very misstated news.
One more thing I found confusing… Obama said, and has said for some time now, that ISIS isn’t a Muslim led group because no religion condones the killing of innocents. But in the same breath says that Christians shouldn’t get on their high horse because Christians let the crusades 1000+ years ago.
I think you seriously misunderstood him.
While factually accurate that was the wrong place to make those remarks. The president has done this at least one other time at the NPB. He seems to enjoy poking the bear at that assembly for some reason….
I probably would also. Why do you feel it was the wrong setting, Andy?
@Moon-howler
Actually, Jackson Bills seems to have understood The Executive perfectly:
“ISIL is not ‘Islamic.’ No religion condones the killing of innocents, and the vast majority of ISIL’s victims have been Muslim. And ISIL is certainly not a state; it was formerly al Qaeda’s affiliate in Iraq and has taken advantage of sectarian strife and Syria’s civil war to gain territory on both sides of the Iraq-Syrian border. It is recognized by no government nor by the people it subjugates.”
http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/10/politics/obama-isil-not-islamic/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/09/11/obama-says-the-islamic-state-is-not-islamic-americans-are-inclined-to-disagree/
So how does The Executive justify getting on his high horse to attack Christianity if his standard for absolving Islam of ISIS is that “No religion condones the killing of innocents”?
You obviously dislike the president. ISIL isn’t real Islamic any more than Warren Jeffs was real Mormon or Westboro is real Baptist. (or Christian, in my opinion)
I didn’t take his words as an attack on Christianity. All religions pretty much have their rough spots. It’s good to admit those imperfections in a pluralistic group where all religions are present. Who wants to set themselves up as perfect perfect perfect.
He wasn’t solving the problem of ISIS. He was NOT absolving ISIS of anything.
I’m sorry but the President sat in Rev. Wright’s pews for 20+ years and referred to him as his ‘spiritual advisor’, not my words, President Obama’s own words. How is that misstated?
The anti-Semitic Rev. Wright has never been shy about his fondness for the Nation of Islam or his views on Jews. How is that misstated?
“The Salem Witch Trials also weren’t a bright beacon on the hill either.”
kinda like these witch trials going on today?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2945684/Beheaded-WITCHCRAFT-Latest-ISIS-execution-Syria-echoes-Dark-Ages-man-killed-invoking-magic.html
Do you in any way think that the President is defending ISIS? He is not. If nothing else, he is defending Islam by saying they and other extremists have defiled and bastardized the faith.
@Moon-howler
Ah yes, expecting consistency from The Executive is obviously a sign that I hate him. Undoubtedly because of his race, right?
I agree that all religions have had their rough spots in history. But The Executive gives Islam a free pass because “ISIS has nothing to do with Islam” while not giving the same free pass to ancient rough spots in Christianity.
And for the record, I’m pretty certain the mullahs that support ISIS know a love more about Islam and if it is Islamic than you or The Executive. For a group that isn’t Islamic, they sure seem to have a lot of Muslim supporters. Must just be a coincidence, because after all ISIS has nothing to do with Islam, right?
No one is saying Christians should hold themselves up as perfect. But a sense of proportion is useful. I’m not aware of Warren Jeffs (don’t know who he is) crucifying or beheading anyone. Have the Westboro Baptists stoned anyone lately? No, then maybe it’s appropriate to criticize the groups that are beheading, stoning, crucifying, and mutilating today. Not 500 years ago.
The Executive wants to draw a false equivalence between Christianity and Islam. But in the real world of 2015, it’s like comparing a knife to an ICBM. The Executive apparently can’t see the beam in ISIS’ eye because Christianity had a mote in its eye a long time ago.
I have no clue why you hate the President. I was no fan of George Bush but I didn’t hate him.
No equivalence was ever drawn except in your mind.
Actually YOU have perverted what was said so badly I am not even going to discuss it with you.
BTW, Warren Jeffs in in prison for a number of crimes against children and young people. He was the head of the FUNDAMENTALIST LDS Church.
@Furby McPhee
You should know by now Furby….
Obama criticism = your just a hater
OR
Obama criticism = your just a racist (simply because he’s a bi-racial Prez. – censored)
You can’t criticize President Obama for any other reason, you know know by now silly 🙂
@Jackson Bills
I know that if you criticize one of The Executive’s policies, you are a racist. That’s easy. But are subtleties that someone on the Left needs to explain:
Suppose Hillary Clinton wins in 2016 and she has the same position as The Executive on an issue. Now I’m sexist, right? But am I still racist?
What happens if The Executive’s position ‘evolves’ on the issue and he now supports my position. Do I stop being racist?
Suppose my criticism is to the left of The Executive (Because that’s the only valid criticism of course) Say on the subject of LGBT. Does that make The Executive homophobic or at least hetero-normative? Or am I still racist? Or both?
Lastly, suppose my car has one of those Bush-era “Dissent is patriotic” bumper stickers, did I automatically become a racist on January 20, 2008?
You have never been called a racist here for that. I have no idea what motivates you to close off you mind.
All I know is you must have spent a miserable past 6 years. I didn’t like Bush but I didn’t allow myself to dwell on it.
I remember the same vitriol towards Clinton. I guess that’s just how some folks act.
Furbie, you are a whiner with victim mentality.
This thread could have had some discussion…but people like you choose to whine. I think I will just start putting up Pablum.
Want to discuss Kenye West and his Kardashian wife? How about his stupid ignorant behavior again at the Grammies?
@Jackson Bills
If you’re going to quote me, don’t censor the quote. Feel free to add “or a Democrat”.
My bad censored…
Obama criticism = your just a racist *or just hate Democrats* (simply because he’s a bi-racial Prez. *or a Democrat*– censored)
Better?
@Moon-howler
I’m not the one closing off my mind. I’m just stating fact about the Presidents spiritual advisor for which you dismiss as me simply ‘misstating’. Odd thing is I’ve yet to hear one thing I misstated.
Also, the deflection just avoids my main point on this subject… The president says Islam isn’t to be blamed for ISIS but at the same time blames Christianity for everything from the crusades to the racist democrat led segregated south during the civil rights era. How is one religion not to blame for current atrocities but a different religion can be so easly blamed for past atrocities?
Still have yet to hear an answer for that…
Jackson, your summarizing isn’t what was really said. He just said his own religion wasn’t without fault. In no way is he giving a pass to ISIS.
Why don’t you put his entire speech out here and let’s parse it. You just walked away with something I sure didn’t hear. Actually, please don’t plant it here. I am not that bored and don’t need to interact with humans that much.
@Moon-howler
I think we will have to agree to disagree on that Moon. Which is cool, at least it’s a healthy debate. 🙂
I will ask though… Your comment #4 seemed to attribute the Salem witch trials to Christianity. Am I mistaken? If I’m not how would you then describe the witch trials going on today which I linked to in post #34?
The Puritans were Christians–granted a weird brand. Cause-Effect. I don’t blame Christianity for the Salem Witch Trials any more than I blame Christianity for the Crusades or the Spanish Inquisition. I blame the men who chose Christianity to justify their behavior. These are things that have stuck to Christianity because man chose to misuse it. Notice the similarities?
The problem here is that you are wasting so damn much time trying to poke at the President that you are actually giving a pass to a group who performs vile, despicable acts under some perverted form of Islam. That religion has been robbed and had its image distorted.
Furthermore, as the head of the most powerful nation in the world, you do not sit in a room full of religious people of all faiths and … if I might borrow a quote, get on your superior “high horse” and look down your nose at everyone else, especially when you own faith, like other faiths, has been grabbed and usurped for various nefarious political actions, enslavement, power grabs and down-right theft. That would be just stupid.
Lastly, Kayla Mueller’s family has released a statement about her death. President Obama (or Bush or Clinton or Bush again…) speaks for not only this country but also for the free world. He has to weigh his words carefully and he knows details we do not know. Just let him do his job. Do you not think that he factors in captives when he makes these pronouncements?
I have never seen people so quick to parse every word, so quick to criticize. It made me sick when it was done to Bush and it makes me sick now.
Yes, I do notice the similarities… but our President doesn’t apparently. He attributed said atrocities to Christianity but doesn’t attribute current attrocities to another religion. Which was my point as to being confused by his speach and apparently you agree?
Cause/effect
Did Christianity cause the crusades or human beings cause the Crusades? Let’s talk about what was so bad about the Crusades.
Was there anything wrong with them? They seemed noble enough on paper.
The past two presidents have been very consistent in their public statements that the murderous thugs in the Middle East should not be able to wrap their deeds and themselves in the cloak of Islam. This is the only correct and intelligent position to take. For US officials to imply that Islam itself is the issue plays stupidly into the hands of Al-Qua’eda and ISIS propaganda, lies that enlist young fighters with the idea that Westerners hate Muslims and disrespect Islam. I’m not sure why Obama gets more hear for this than Bush – at least I don’t remember Bush being excoriated in spaces like these for saying the same things that Obama is saying.
As for Christians confessing error when making the point that religion can be abused for secular political, and even murderous acts, such confessions are factually accurate and they add credibility to our position that we oppose perversion of religion because we have historic experience with the harm it has done in our name and the name of our religion.
@Scout,
Thank you for very eloquently stating what I was trying to say.
I wish presidents wouldn’t go to these pseudo-religious events. Nothing a president says about religion is pertinent to one’s religious beliefs and has nothing to do with policy. Why confuse people by showing up.
I don’t disagree. Can you imagine the heat the first person who didn’t go would take?