Obama absolves Islam, rebukes Christianity

[Carrikature]

Wait...are you denying that Christianity faces persecution and danger in the world?

Of course not. I deny that it's anywhere on the level it's claimed to be, and I claim that the justifications for such a view are very weak. Every religion faces persecution and danger in the world. Christianity isn't special in that regard, and if you read the actual study that Rogue references, that's pretty clear. The claim, though, is that 'Muslim ideology' is specifically fighting against Christians, which is pretty much nonsense.

Considering that a recent report from the Pew Research Center concluded that Christians are the most persecuted religion in every region of the world outside the Americas perhaps there is something to that

[ATTACH=CONFIG]3921[/ATTACH]

This has been corroborated by studies conducted by the International Society for Human Rights (a secular group not known for possessing a pro-Christian bias) that claims that up to 80% of all acts of religious discrimination in the world today are directed at Christians. A group that does have a pro-Christian bias, the Massachusetts-based Center for the Study of Global Christianity estimates that 100,000 Christians now die every year, targeted because of their faith – that works out to be 11 every hour.

It has been estimated that 200 million Christians (approximately 10% of Christians worldwide) are openly harassed or actively oppressed for their beliefs.

A number of countries doesn't mean much when we're talking about large quantities of tiny countries which actively repress the handful of Christians living in them. If you want to look at an actual trend, see the graph where they're separated by year. Christianity's persecution is about the same as it always was, while Islam has seen a steady rise in the number of countries since 2009. It's not as if 'number of countries' is a useful metric anyway. In point of fact, the study you're referencing specifically states that religious hostilities increased in every major region except the Americas (so much for the legal/social persecution that's been growing steadily). Let's look at the whole study and not try to take things out of context. By the way, for those interested, the study can be found here: http://www.pewforum.org/2014/01/14/r...six-year-high/

[Sam]

Yeah because saying something bad about Christianity might result in getting a stern letter whereas saying something bad is liable to get someone's head lopped off.

Even granting the assumption, we know this has not been history ally the case. The citizens of these nominally Christian countries only became "peaceful" when they developed standing armies, regional stability, and wealth. It's not like Christianity deterred violence among Christian nations when it was a big part of the power structure during Luther's day,after all.

Point being that there are many causes of violence, war, and terrorism. While religion can play, and has played, an outsized role in justifying violence, that's not the function of any particular religion. We've got the same kind of blood on our hands as Christians. From a moral standpoint, then, we shouldn't play at double standards when it comes to Islam - like how numerous people on this very forum have argued that Islam is - inherently- a violent religion while Christianity is an inherently peaceful one. On top of that, we should interpret a president's remarks on this topic principally through the lens of national security rather than as an audition for a Norm Geisler debate.

[rogue06]

And yet I've seen it stated repeatedly on these forums, by Christians, that what 'we' are at war with is an ideology (Islam). Such extremists are touted as further evidence for the supposed persecution and danger Christianity faces in the world.

Considering that a recent report from the Pew Research Center concluded that Christians are the most persecuted religion in every region of the world outside the Americas perhaps there is something to that

harassed religions_0.jpg

This has been corroborated by studies conducted by the International Society for Human Rights (a secular group not known for possessing a pro-Christian bias) that claims that up to 80% of all acts of religious discrimination in the world today are directed at Christians. A group that does have a pro-Christian bias, the Massachusetts-based Center for the Study of Global Christianity estimates that 100,000 Christians now die every year, targeted because of their faith – that works out to be 11 every hour.

It has been estimated that 200 million Christians (approximately 10% of Christians worldwide) are openly harassed or actively oppressed for their beliefs.

[Zymologist]

And yet I've seen it stated repeatedly on these forums, by Christians, that what 'we' are at war with is an ideology (Islam). Such extremists are touted as further evidence for the supposed persecution and danger Christianity faces in the world.

Wait...are you denying that Christianity faces persecution and danger in the world?

[Carrikature]

And no Christian that I know personally has ever said that. Do you think it is only Christians who would do such a thing? Because that is what you seem to be implying.

And yet I've seen it stated repeatedly on these forums, by Christians, that what 'we' are at war with is an ideology (Islam). Such extremists are touted as further evidence for the supposed persecution and danger Christianity faces in the world.

[Paprika]

And no Christian that I know personally has ever said that.

No Christian you know personally considers terrorists real Muslims?

Do you think it is only Christians who would do such a thing? Because that is what you seem to be implying.

That is certainly not what I am implying. I imply nothing about my own position; I only offer a suggestion as to what Obama's intent could have been.

[rogue06]

What folks have to remember, also, is that the president is responsible for the interests and security of the country. He therefore has a very large and rational incentive, as the previous president before him, to do his absolute best to maintain that military conflicts with these groups are not military contexts against Islam. My old history prof put it well on FB the other day: military conflicts increase religious fervor among the victims. We saw it with al Qaeda, we saw it after 9/11 and, yes, we saw it during the Crusades. If Bush or Obama were to stand at the podium and say even a watered-down version of what a lot of hawkish pundits want them to say -- that we are at war with only radical Islam, that will only help serve to radicalize the religious element on both sides of the conflicts.

While that may make people feel better, it won't do anything to advance the interests or security of the country. Therefore, in addition to being an important reminder of human depravity, regardless of sect, it's just good sense for a president to swear up and down that Islam is practiced peacefully by the vast majority of adherents and we are in no way "at war" with Islam.

--Sam

Yeah because saying something bad about Christianity might result in getting a stern letter whereas saying something bad is liable to get someone's head lopped off.

[Adrift]

I'm going to have to listen to the speech again before I can respond in full but it seems he is talking about folks who committed atrocities a hundred to a thousand years ago "in the name of Christ" and comparing it to what is going on today by folks who aren't actual Muslims. I do not see this as the same and as moral equivalency and excuse making at best

No, he's a lot more recent than that. He mentions Jim Crow and the killing of Muslims and Christians in Nigeria.

[rogue06]

Perhaps Mr. O should have qualified his comments about Christianity by saying that those who have done atrocities in the name of Christ were/are not really Christians, just like he has said about Muslim terrorists.

But, he didn't do that.

That in a very round about way was what I was trying to say. Thank you for doing so far more succinctly.

[mossrose]

Perhaps his point was precisely to omit it to bring this point home: as conservative Christians rush to exclude those who committed atrocities from being 'real Christians', they should not rush to consider the terrorists 'real Muslims'.

And no Christian that I know personally has ever said that. Do you think it is only Christians who would do such a thing? Because that is what you seem to be implying.

[Adrift]

Perhaps Mr. O should have qualified his comments about Christianity by saying that those who have done atrocities in the name of Christ were/are not really Christians, just like he has said about Muslim terrorists.

But, he didn't do that.

But he implies it all throughout the speech. He literally uses the phrase "in the name of Christ", not "Christian" or "Christianity". This is a direct correlation to his previous phrasing "those who profess Islam". You almost have to come at the whole video from the frame of mind that you don't like Obama to read it any other way. As a relatively neutral observer, it did not at all occur to me that he was doing something like blaming Christians or Christianity for the Crusades, slavery, and Jim Crow. He was expounding on the fact that all ideologies, misappropriated through sinful behavior, can cause evil.

[Paprika]

Perhaps Mr. O should have qualified his comments about Christianity by saying that those who have done atrocities in the name of Christ were/are not really Christians, just like he has said about Muslim terrorists.

But, he didn't do that.

Perhaps his point was precisely to omit it to bring this point home: as conservative Christians rush to exclude those who committed atrocities from being 'real Christians', they should not rush to consider the terrorists 'real Muslims'.

[Sam]

What folks have to remember, also, is that the president is responsible for the interests and security of the country. He therefore has a very large and rational incentive, as the previous president before him, to do his absolute best to maintain that military conflicts with these groups are not military contexts against Islam. My old history prof put it well on FB the other day: military conflicts increase religious fervor among the victims. We saw it with al Qaeda, we saw it after 9/11 and, yes, we saw it during the Crusades. If Bush or Obama were to stand at the podium and say even a watered-down version of what a lot of hawkish pundits want them to say -- that we are at war with only radical Islam, that will only help serve to radicalize the religious element on both sides of the conflicts.

While that may make people feel better, it won't do anything to advance the interests or security of the country. Therefore, in addition to being an important reminder of human depravity, regardless of sect, it's just good sense for a president to swear up and down that Islam is practiced peacefully by the vast majority of adherents and we are in no way "at war" with Islam.

--Sam

[KingsGambit]

Perhaps Mr. O should have qualified his comments about Christianity by saying that those who have done atrocities in the name of Christ were/are not really Christians, just like he has said about Muslim terrorists.

But, he didn't do that.

This is a troublesome double standard indeed. I understand Adrift's point and the fact that he is mediating a balance in representing a pluralistic nation... but that is all the more reason not to put harder standards on one religion (Christianity) than another (Islam).

[mossrose]

Perhaps Mr. O should have qualified his comments about Christianity by saying that those who have done atrocities in the name of Christ were/are not really Christians, just like he has said about Muslim terrorists.

But, he didn't do that.