Obama at National Prayer Breakfast: "people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ".

[righteousmomma]

Thanks Valin. I enjoyed watching and listening to Waltrip and thanks, Nickdog, for telling us .

[NCTexan]

Bishop Jackson's response sure got me going....

 

http://www.westernjournalism.com/bishop-jackson-obama-frankly-sir-try-closing-mouth/#0pQ7eQmfURGZYkJw.97

[Draggingtree]

Let’s Face ISIS Reality And Drop The Sophomoric Armchair Theologizing

By Mollie Hemingway FEBRUARY 6, 2015

“‘Lest we get on our high horse’ is a comic piece of rhetorical construction, as it actually signals the speaker is getting on his high horse,” writes John Podhoretz.

Yesterday, President Obama used the phrase during his speech at the National Prayer Breakfast, an interfaith gathering of political leaders. He said people of all faiths have been willing to “hijack religion for their own murderous ends… 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.”

 

Its not like the “Muslims were taking a stroll through Europe, minding their own business, when Charles Martel attacked them for no reason!”

http://thefederalist.com/2015/02/06/lets-face-isis-reality-and-drop-the-sophomoric-armchair-theologizing/

[Draggingtree]

6Feb

Bobby Jindal to Obama: “The Medieval Christian Threat Is Under Control.”

Ace:

Now. About the threats which Obama has permitted to flourish and fructify.

“It was nice of the President to give us a history lesson at the Prayer breakfast,” Jindal [wrote in a statment]. “Today, however, the issue right in front of his nose, in the here and now, is the terrorism of Radical Islam, the assassination of journalists, the beheading and burning alive of captives. We will be happy to keep an eye out for runaway Christians, but it would be nice if he would face the reality of the situation today. The Medieval Christian threat is under control, Mr. President. Please deal with the Radical Islamic threat today.”

 

Speaking of this, you will remember that Obama said a couple of years ago he was happy that he would soon be politically free to drop #Truthbombs on the country and “go Bullworth.”

http://floppingaces.net/most_wanted/bobby-jindal-to-obama-the-medieval-christian-threat-is-under-control/

[Draggingtree]

February 6, 2015

Whose history and whose talking points are these?

By James Longstreet

This is the same president who in Cairo declared himself a student of history and flaunted the “golden age” of Islam and its great contributions to European development. Actual historians have a contrary view.

 

And we keep getting garbled history from this president, history that anyone who studied history in this country understands. He falls short. His formative years out of the country apparently left a gap in his knowledge.

 

Though public speaking is his strong suit, the president constantly gets untethered in historical contexts. He was confused about his family history, declaring that his father served in WWII. He did not. His authorized autobiography is rife with people who were initially portrayed as “real,” but upon discovery were reduced to “composite” personalities. Fast and loose with history, even personal history, is not uncommon.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/02/whose_history_and_whose_talking_points_are_these_.html

[Draggingtree]

POSTED ON FEBRUARY 6, 2015 BY SCOTT JOHNSON IN BARACK OBAMA, ISLAM, TERRORISM

 

MAN ON A HIGH HORSE

 

Barack Obama speech to those assembled at the National Prayer Breakfast yesterday represents the nadir of his presidency. The White House has posted the text of the speechhere.

 

John and Paul have provided devastating assessments of Obama’s speech here and here, respectively. I can’t improve on them. I want only to add this note.

 

We see events spinning out of control in the Middle East. We see our efforts in Iraq thrown away by the president. We see the slaughter in Syria. We see the rise of the Islamic State. We see the flourishing or al Qaeda. We see mad mullahs of Iran on the march. We see Obama facilitating the mullahs’ efforts and enhancing their power. He seems not to care or to understand that they have never given up the fight against the United States since their ascension to power in 1979. We see the president and his subordinates going to ludicrous extremes to avoid mention of the devil that drives our enemies. We see that the president has become a laughingstock and an object of contempt around the world.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/02/man-on-a-high-horse.php

[mozartlover]

[SrWoodchuck]

The Real History Of The Crusades http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=4461

 

With the possible exception of Umberto Eco, medieval scholars are not used to getting much media attention. We tend to be a quiet lot (except during the annual bacchanalia we call the International Congress on Medieval Studies in Kalamazoo, Michigan, of all places), poring over musty chronicles and writing dull yet meticulous studies that few will read. Imagine, then, my surprise when within days of the September 11 attacks, the Middle Ages suddenly became relevant.

 

As a Crusade historian, I found the tranquil solitude of the ivory tower shattered by journalists, editors, and talk-show hosts on tight deadlines eager to get the real scoop.

 

What were the Crusades?, they asked.

 

When were they?

 

Just how insensitive was President George W. Bush for using the word "crusade" in his remarks? With a few of my callers I had the distinct impression that they already knew the answers to their questions, or at least thought they did. What they really wanted was an expert to say it all back to them. For example, I was frequently asked to comment on the fact that the Islamic world has a just grievance against the West. Doesn't the present violence, they persisted, have its roots in the Crusades' brutal and unprovoked attacks against a sophisticated and tolerant Muslim world? In other words, aren't the Crusades really to blame?

 

Osama bin Laden certainly thinks so. In his various video performances, he never fails to describe the American war against terrorism as a new Crusade against Islam. Ex-president Bill Clinton has also fingered the Crusades as the root cause of the present conflict. In a speech at Georgetown University, he recounted (and embellished) a massacre of Jews after the Crusader conquest of Jerusalem in 1099 and informed his audience that the episode was still bitterly remembered in the Middle East. (Why Islamist terrorists should be upset about the killing of Jews was not explained.) Clinton took a beating on the nation's editorial pages for wanting so much to blame the United States that he was willing to reach back to the Middle Ages. Yet no one disputed the ex-president's fundamental premise.

 

Well, almost no one.

 

Many historians had been trying to set the record straight on the Crusades long before Clinton discovered them. They are not revisionists, like the American historians who manufactured the Enola Gay exhibit, but mainstream scholars offering the fruit of several decades of very careful, very serious scholarship. For them, this is a "teaching moment," an opportunity to explain the Crusades while people are actually listening. It won't last long, so here goes.

 

Misconceptions about the Crusades are all too common. The Crusades are generally portrayed as a series of holy wars against Islam led by power-mad popes and fought by religious fanatics. They are supposed to have been the epitome of self-righteousness and intolerance, a black stain on the history of the Catholic Church in particular and Western civilization in general. A breed of proto-imperialists, the Crusaders introduced Western aggression to the peaceful Middle East and then deformed the enlightened Muslim culture, leaving it in ruins. For variation on this theme, one need not look far. See, for example, Steven Runciman's famous three-volume epic, History of the Crusades, or the BBC/A&E documentary, The Crusades, hosted by Terry Jones. Both are terrible history yet wonderfully entertaining.

 

So what is the truth about the Crusades?

 

Scholars are still working some of that out. But much can already by said with certainty. For starters, the Crusades to the East were in every way defensive wars. They were a direct response to Muslim aggression — an attempt to turn back or defend against Muslim conquests of Christian lands.

 

Christians in the eleventh century were not paranoid fanatics. Muslims really were gunning for them. While Muslims can be peaceful, Islam was born in war and grew the same way. From the time of Mohammed, the means of Muslim expansion was always the sword. Muslim thought divides the world into two spheres, the Abode of Islam and the Abode of War. Christianity — and for that matter any other non-Muslim religion — has no abode. Christians and Jews can be tolerated within a Muslim state under Muslim rule. But, in traditional Islam, Christian and Jewish states must be destroyed and their lands conquered. When Mohammed was waging war against Mecca in the seventh century, Christianity was the dominant religion of power and wealth. As the faith of the Roman Empire, it spanned the entire Mediterranean, including the Middle East, where it was born. The Christian world, therefore, was a prime target for the earliest caliphs, and it would remain so for Muslim leaders for the next thousand years.

***********************************************************************************************

Great synopsis.

 

 

CatholicCultureLibrary via WeaselZippers

[NCTexan]

The video of the O-Hole making these statements has been played a hundred times on the radio and TV since the prayer breakfast. Every time that I hear it my rage flares up again.

Besides the obvious slap at Christians and Christianity... the total arrogance of his words sets me off. Of course the "high horse" was offensive... but listening again I noticed the very first word in his lecture... "Lest we get on our high horses..."

 

How many people except for self important arrogant and self proclaimed intellectual elites use the word "Lest"?

 

I'm sure that I'll hear it another hundred times in the coming days and I'm sure that there will be something else that sets my teeth on edge.

[Valin]

Getting Medieval
Let’s leave the Middle Ages out of discussions of modern Islam.
Thomas F. Madden

February 7, 2015

 

Medieval historians like myself can’t help wincing when the period that we study finds its way into modern political discourse. That is, unfortunately, just what happened on Thursday when President Obama decided to inform the attendees of the National Prayer Breakfast about the Crusades and the Inquisition. According to the president, Christians should avoid mounting their “high horse” when it comes to “faith being twisted and distorted,” since “during the Crusades and Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ.”

 

Well, yes. That’s true. But people commit terrible deeds in the name of everything. The question isn’t whether humans can be evil, but whether those acts are consistent with their religious beliefs. What I find most unsettling about the president’s remarks is not his poor understanding of medieval history, but his apparent certainty that he can discern when someone is twisting, distorting, or “hijack[ing] religion for their own murderous ends.” How is it that the president of the United States, or any other world leader for that matter, is able to separate true from perverted religion?

In any case, the Crusades and the Inquisition were in no way a distortion of medieval Christianity. Indeed, they were mainstream ideas with virtually no detractors. Both were initiated by popes, the unquestioned leaders of Western Christianity. Both were supported by generations of religious scholars and a complex infrastructure of canon law. The greatest kings of the Middle Ages, men like Richard the Lionheart of England and St. Louis IX of France, were ardent Crusaders and as a result were hailed as heroes.

 

Part of the problem here is that the president knows little, perhaps nothing, about the Crusades or the Inquisition. He is not alone in that, of course. Medieval historians have long lamented the gulf between fact and popular perceptions when it comes to these events. The Crusades were not brutal wars of colonial oppression or zealous attempts to spread Christianity by the sword. The First Crusade was called in 1095 by Pope Urban II in response to desperate appeals from the Christians of the Middle East, who had lately been conquered and continued to be persecuted by the Turks. And these were only the latest in more than four centuries of attacks on Christian peoples by Muslim powers. At some point Christianity as a faith and as a culture had to defend itself or else be subsumed by Islam. The work of the Crusader, who put his life at risk and underwent enormous expense, was to save Christian people and restore Christian lands. This was no perversion of Christianity. Christ had commanded his followers to be like the Good Samaritan, hurrying to bind up the wounds of their brother who had been robbed and beaten. This was the same Christ who said, “Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.” That is how Crusaders honestly saw themselves following their Christian faith.

 

(Snip)

 

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

 

The problem is (and this is one of my Hot Button issues) Presentism. Taking modern attitudes and applying them to earlier ages. Example Vlad the Impaler, by modern standards he was a really bad guy impaling 1,000's of enemy soldiers, but by the standards of the day...it was slightly over the top. When you are studying history Context is really really important.

 

 

If I May

 

Professor Philip Daileader Now these courses are really expensive, even on sale, but your local library may have them. Highly Recommended!

[Draggingtree]

Emperor Barack I On His High Horse And The Horse You Rode In On, Mr. President!

By: Repair_Man_Jack (Diary) | February 7th, 2015 at 10:00 AM

Not The Guy To Beckon Others Off Their High Horse

Ah, the rhetorical horse-trading that just took place at The National Prayer Breakfast. It was an event where good people of faith went to be maliciously slandered by His Majesty Barack I.

Unless 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.

http://www.redstate.com/2015/02/07/emperor-barack-high-horse/

[Draggingtree]

The Glamor of Evil

by Mark Steyn • Feb 5, 2015 at 4:42 pm

On Tuesday the Islamic State released a 22-minute video showing Flight Lieutenant Muath al-Kasasbeh of the Royal Jordanian Air Force being doused in petrol and burned to death. It is an horrific way to die, and Flt Lt al-Kasasbeh showed uncommon bravery, standing stiff and dignified as the flames consumed him. And then he toppled, and the ISIS cameras rolled on, until what was left was charred and shapeless and unrecognizable as human.

 

King Abdullah's response to this barbaric act was to execute two ISIS prisoners the following morning, including the evil woman who was part of the cell that blew up the lobby of my favorite hotel in Amman, the Grand Hyatt.

 

President Obama's response was to go to the National Prayer Breakfast and condescendingly advise us - as if it's some dazzlingly original observation rather than the lamest faculty-lounge relativist bromide - to "remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ".

http://www.steynonline.com/6793/the-glamor-of-evil

[SrWoodchuck]

In the sphere of relevance.....what do the Crusades have to do with the United States of America? It wasn't an entity at the time.

[Draggingtree]

February 8, 2015

POTUS: Burning the Jordanian Pilot Avenges the Crusades

By Fay Voshell

At least the Nazis tried to keep their atrocities under cover.

 

Secret photographs and films of mass shootings, roundups of Jews, and scorched earth policies were sneaked out to a disbelieving West. The Holocaust itself was top-secret while it took place. Even Hitler privately rather than publicly watched the torturously slow death of the conspirators involved in Operation Valkyrie, the failed plot to overthrow him. According to witnesses, Hitler watched the film of the executions with fascination and enjoyment.

 

But for the contemporary SS known as ISIS, there are no secret executions. There are no deeds done in darkness, be they rapes of women and children, crucifixions of captives, the attempted elimination of ethnic groups, or the grisly execution of downed pilot Moa’ath al-Kassasbeh by burning him alive in a cage.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/02/potus_burning_the_jordanian_pilot_avenges_the_crusades.html

[SrWoodchuck]

LISTEN: An Islam scholar politely unloads on President Obama’s ‘terrible deeds in the name of Christ’ remarks http://www.theblaze.com/blog/2015/02/09/listen-an-islam-scholar-politely-unloads-on-president-obamas-terrible-deeds-in-the-name-of-christ-remarks/

 

 

In light of America’s ongoing nuclear negotiations with Iran, and the continued conflagration of jihadism throughout the world, we sat down with prolific Islam scholar Andrew Bostom, author of several books including “Iran’s Final Solution for Israel: The Legacy of Jihad and Shi’ite Islamic Jew-Hatred in Iran,” and “Sharia Versus Freedom: The Legacy of Islamic Totalitarianism,” to discuss everything from the doctrinal basis of Iranian policy to his take on General Sisi in Egypt (full interview at bottom).

 

But it was during a question on President Obama’s recent National Prayer Breakfast remarks in particular that Bostom provided one of his most contrarian and compelling responses, stating:

 

"Let me start with the Civil War — I mean this is a president who — we can excuse him for his ignorance of Islamic theology and Islamic history, you know despite his nominal background in Islam as a child. But excuse me, but the abolitionists were Christians, and the United States literally went to war with itself, unlike any other society before, to extirpate the longstanding, thousand year longstanding evil of slavery in virtually every human civilization. It’s just appalling that he doesn’t even grasp that fundamental decency about this country.

 

"…f you look at what he’s [President Obama's] referring to in terms of the Crusades…if I could just share with you something that I wrote ten years ago [from Bostom's "Jihad Begot the Crusades," parts 1 and 2]…"

 

"The jihad is intrinsic to the sacred Muslim texts, including the divine Qur’anic revelation itself, whereas the Crusades were circumscribed historical events subjected to (ongoing and meaningful) criticism by Christians themselves. Unlike the espousal of jihad in the Qur’an, the constituent texts of Christianity, the Old and New Testaments of the Bible, do not contain a form fruste [incomplete] institutionalization of the Crusades. The Bible sanctions the Israelites conquest of Canaan, a limited domain, it does not sanction a permanent war to submit all the nations of humanity to a uniform code of religious law. Similarly, the tactics of warfare are described in the Bible, unlike the Qur’an, in very circumscribed and specific contexts. Moreover, while the Bible clearly condemns certain inhumane practices of paganism, it never invoked an eternal war against all of the world’s pagan peoples [for example like Koran 9:5 does...]."

 

"The Crusades as an historical phenomenon were a reaction to events resulting from over 450 years of previous jihad campaigns."

 

"So I just did what I could back then to put some of this…blather in context. And then of course he [President Obama] goes on and talks about the Inquisition."

 

"Well…Islam too has had its inquisitions. It’s had its inquisitions against other Muslims dating back to the 9th century…and it also had a horrific inquisition…in the 12th century, imposed upon the Jews in particular, who were massacred, pillaged and enslaved by the tens of thousands, and then forcibly converted to Islam. And some practiced crypto-Judaism, and they were subjected to the same practices curiously that were adopted by the inquisitioners in the same region, so you could argue this might have even been a historical prototype, just within a couple centuries later."

 

 

 

 

 

 

TheBlaze via FaceBook

[Draggingtree]

Why Compare the Crusades to Al-Qaeda?

By PATRICK J. BUCHANAN • February 10, 2015, 12:46 AM

A steady patriot of the world alone,

The friend of every country — but his own.

George Canning’s couplet about the Englishmen who professed love for all the world except their own native land comes to mind on reading Obama’s remarks at the National Prayer Breakfast. After listing the horrors of ISIS, al-Qaeda, and Boko Haram, the president decided his recital of crimes committed in the name of Islam would be unbalanced, if he did not backhand those smug Christians sitting right in front of him.

And lest we get on our high horse … 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.

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/buchanan/why-compare-the-crusades-to-al-qaeda/

[Pepper]

Two thoughts:

 

One thousand years ago.....Muslims & Christians freely killed in the name of their God. Today.....only Muslims freely kill in the name of their God.

 

The Old Testament has been used as an example of comparison to the Quran, in terms of violence & killing. Today's Christians, believe the Old Testament was a recording of History, but more importantly it was a foretelling of delivery from death, by the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the Cross. Therefore, we accept the New Testament as our life guide. It tells that submission to Love conquers all....not submission to religious belief or death. The Quran? Not so much.

 

 

Why - unless the secret service prohibits this when the Prez is speaking - didn't religious leaders at the prayer breakfast walk out in disgust when the Grand Imam uttered these words?

[SrWoodchuck]

 

Two thoughts:

 

One thousand years ago.....Muslims & Christians freely killed in the name of their God. Today.....only Muslims freely kill in the name of their God.

 

The Old Testament has been used as an example of comparison to the Quran, in terms of violence & killing. Today's Christians, believe the Old Testament was a recording of History, but more importantly it was a foretelling of delivery from death, by the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the Cross. Therefore, we accept the New Testament as our life guide. It tells that submission to Love conquers all....not submission to religious belief or death. The Quran? Not so much.

 

 

Why - unless the secret service prohibits this when the Prez is speaking - didn't religious leaders at the prayer breakfast walk out in disgust when the Grand Imam uttered these words?

 

 

@Pepper

 

I can only think that they were honoring the office of the President & not the "man."

 

Something he would never do....but, if you are a religious leader.....something that would be innate.

[Pepper]

 

 

Two thoughts:

 

One thousand years ago.....Muslims & Christians freely killed in the name of their God. Today.....only Muslims freely kill in the name of their God.

 

The Old Testament has been used as an example of comparison to the Quran, in terms of violence & killing. Today's Christians, believe the Old Testament was a recording of History, but more importantly it was a foretelling of delivery from death, by the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the Cross. Therefore, we accept the New Testament as our life guide. It tells that submission to Love conquers all....not submission to religious belief or death. The Quran? Not so much.

 

 

Why - unless the secret service prohibits this when the Prez is speaking - didn't religious leaders at the prayer breakfast walk out in disgust when the Grand Imam uttered these words?

 

 

@Pepper

 

I can only think that they were honoring the office of the President & not the "man."

 

Something he would never do....but, if you are a religious leader.....something that would be innate.

 

 

Would you not have stood up and shouted - You Lie or What the * Are you Trying to Imply?

[SrWoodchuck]

 

 

 

Two thoughts:

 

One thousand years ago.....Muslims & Christians freely killed in the name of their God. Today.....only Muslims freely kill in the name of their God.

 

The Old Testament has been used as an example of comparison to the Quran, in terms of violence & killing. Today's Christians, believe the Old Testament was a recording of History, but more importantly it was a foretelling of delivery from death, by the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the Cross. Therefore, we accept the New Testament as our life guide. It tells that submission to Love conquers all....not submission to religious belief or death. The Quran? Not so much.

 

 

Why - unless the secret service prohibits this when the Prez is speaking - didn't religious leaders at the prayer breakfast walk out in disgust when the Grand Imam uttered these words?

 

 

@Pepper

 

I can only think that they were honoring the office of the President & not the "man."

 

Something he would never do....but, if you are a religious leader.....something that would be innate.

 

 

Would you not have stood up and shouted - You Lie or What the * Are you Trying to Imply?

 

 

@Pepper

 

Yes. I've already shouted, "F**k Obama" .......out loud, with the slider open & through the screen door......that my neighbors have asked Sweet E if she was OK.

 

I now have to add, ".......love this woman!"