Obama absolves Islam, rebukes Christianity

[rogue06]

Yes, he says "From a school in Pakistan to the streets of Paris, we have seen violence and terror perpetrated by those who profess to stand up for faith, their faith, professed to stand up for Islam, but, in fact, are betraying it.", and then he goes right from there to talking about ISIS (which he calls ISIL in the video). The context is very very clear that this is a continuation of the previous though..."professed to stand up for Islam".



If that's really the case, then, again, that's very diplomatic. In the same way I would deny the Crusades, the treatment of the native Americans by the Conquistadors, US chattel slavery, the Troubles in N. Ireland, the bombing of abortion clinics, the anti-balaka fighting in the Central African Republic, and the idiots at Westboro Baptist are Christian. Even if they did all claim to be acting in the name of Christ.



Again, I don't get why you're saying this, or why you don't understand the larger point he's making. When someone does a horrible thing in the name of Christ, we don't say that what they were doing was Christian. And the whole speech was centered on the atrocities committed in the name of Islam. He literally says that at one point. Of course he's not going to condemn all of Islam for those who would commit evil in the name of Islam. He can't do that.

I honestly think that maybe your reaction to this is tainted by your general dislike of this person. Perhaps he has an overall negative record when it comes to talking about these issues. I don't know enough about the subject to speak authoritatively to that, but in this one particular case, what he's saying isn't that off. Its nothing for Christians to get distressed about. I mean, even the fact that he brought up India (and the obvious Hindu vs. Muslim implication) indicates that he's referring to an issue endemic to religious extremism in general, and not Islam and Christianity specifically.

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

[rogue06]

There is a spectrum of insult ranging from letting someone sit unserved in the restaurant an extra half hour, to psychologal violance. There isn't much physical violence. And indeed we ARE barraged with daily reports of American Muslims suffering slights and insults because they are associated with extremists and presumed to take the side of extremists.

Anyway, what I said stands despite your denial. Muslims in the US aren't as badly mistreated as Christians in Iran, but they are a suspect group in many ways.

So you've backtracked from "often of the violent persuasion" to "psychologal violance" [sic] to being "a suspect group in many ways." Here you probably can use this



It'll help as you move those goalposts.

[phank]

If that's really the case, then, again, that's very diplomatic. In the same way I would deny the Crusades, the treatment of the native Americans by the Conquistadors, US chattel slavery, the Troubles in N. Ireland, the bombing of abortion clinics, the anti-balaka fighting in the Central African Republic, and the idiots at Westboro Baptist are Christian. Even if they did all claim to be acting in the name of Christ.

I think sometimes that it works the other way around - that people do horrible things because they want to for reasons of personal conviction, however demented. And only THEN do they attach a rationalization for doing it other than "because I felt like it". Religion is usually, but by no means always, the proferred "reason", but it was tacked on after the fact. The truly devout do everything "in the name of Christ", in their view. If they are not religious, the next most common is in the name of politics. Like Rogue, they have demonized the political opposition, such that the most prominent demons simply can't say anything right, and are wrong for saying it even if they don't say it at all.

These bombers, of all faiths, really and truly sincerely believe they are acting as commanded by their god. Those who condemn them are equally sincere in their belief that the same nominal god opposes such behaviors. Do you think they believe in different gods?

[phank]

Yup we are barraged daily with reports of Muslims being savagely attacked here in the U.S. Oh wait. That is almost nonexistent.

There is a spectrum of insult ranging from letting someone sit unserved in the restaurant an extra half hour, to psychologal violance. There isn't much physical violence. And indeed we ARE barraged with daily reports of American Muslims suffering slights and insults because they are associated with extremists and presumed to take the side of extremists.

Anyway, what I said stands despite your denial. Muslims in the US aren't as badly mistreated as Christians in Iran, but they are a suspect group in many ways.

[Adrift]

At the moment I can't view the video to confirm but does he ever once says that Islamic extremists are responsible for those atrocities that he lists?

Yes, he says "From a school in Pakistan to the streets of Paris, we have seen violence and terror perpetrated by those who profess to stand up for faith, their faith, professed to stand up for Islam, but, in fact, are betraying it.", and then he goes right from there to talking about ISIS (which he calls ISIL in the video). The context is very very clear that this is a continuation of the previous though..."professed to stand up for Islam".

And IIRC his Administration has repeatedly expressed the opinion that ISIS (which they sometimes call ISIL) isn't Islamic. In fact I distinctly remember Obama saying just that before the U.N. last summer.

If that's really the case, then, again, that's very diplomatic. In the same way I would deny the Crusades, the treatment of the native Americans by the Conquistadors, US chattel slavery, the Troubles in N. Ireland, the bombing of abortion clinics, the anti-balaka fighting in the Central African Republic, and the idiots at Westboro Baptist are Christian. Even if they did all claim to be acting in the name of Christ.

And saying that people did terrible things "in the name of Christ" is not very different than blaming Christianity especially since I don't recall him ever coming close to saying that folks have done terrible things "in the name of Allah" except perhaps when he is asserting that they are not True Muslims™

Again, I don't get why you're saying this, or why you don't understand the larger point he's making. When someone does a horrible thing in the name of Christ, we don't say that what they were doing was Christian. And the whole speech was centered on the atrocities committed in the name of Islam. He literally says that at one point. Of course he's not going to condemn all of Islam for those who would commit evil in the name of Islam. He can't do that.

I honestly think that maybe your reaction to this is tainted by your general dislike of this person. Perhaps he has an overall negative record when it comes to talking about these issues. I don't know enough about the subject to speak authoritatively to that, but in this one particular case, what he's saying isn't that off. Its nothing for Christians to get distressed about. I mean, even the fact that he brought up India (and the obvious Hindu vs. Muslim implication) indicates that he's referring to an issue endemic to religious extremism in general, and not Islam and Christianity specifically.

[rogue06]

At the moment I can't view the video to confirm but does he ever once says that Islamic extremists are responsible for those atrocities that he lists? And IIRC his Administration has repeatedly expressed the opinion that ISIS (which they sometimes call ISIL) isn't Islamic. In fact I distinctly remember Obama saying just that before the U.N. last summer. And saying that people did terrible things "in the name of Christ" is not very different than blaming Christianity especially since I don't recall him ever coming close to saying that folks have done terrible things "in the name of Allah" except perhaps when he is asserting that they are not True Muslims™

[Adrift]

I think that the problem for may folks is how he is willing to not only bend over backwards but twist himself into a pretzel avoiding saying Islamic extremists were responsible for any of a long list of barbarous acts we continue to witness and goes out of his way to exonerate Islam^[1] but seems to have no problem going back up to a millennium to find things to fault Christianity by name for.

And how he can bring up slavery without mentioning how it was in large part if not mostly due to opposition from Christian groups that brought it to an end in the west in contrast to many Muslim controlled areas where it is still being practiced. The double standard was palpable.

I don't understand why you're saying that. In that video, he directly does go into a number of barbarous acts that Islamic extremists are responsible for. He says that from the school in Pakistan to the streets of Paris violence and terror are perpetuated by "those who profess Islam, but are in fact betraying it". He calls ISIS a brutal vicious death cult committing unspeakable acts of barbarism by terrorizing religious minorities, and subjecting women to rape as a weapon of war. He talks about a rise of anti-semitism and hate crimes in Europe often perpetrated in the name of religion. And then he doesn't directly call out Christianity, he simply states the fact that during the Crusades, people did terrible things "in the name of Christ", and while of course the anti-slavery and Civil Rights movement was Christian led, those who fought for slavery and Jim Crow also did so by misappropriating scripture. He also refers to India and the religious violence there (obviously between Muslim and Hindus). And the reason he brings these points up is because he's trying to bring home his larger message that extremism, no matter its form, is the enemy, not religion. It would be political suicide for him to blame Islam itself for the atrocities committed by its extremist followers.

Again, he's not a Pastor, or any sort of religious official. He's a secularist attempting to come to terms with the fact that people can do terrible things in the name of religion without it being the fault of religion. I'll repeat, I don't really care for the guy one way or the other. I'm not someone who has strong feelings about either side of the political spectrum. I didn't jump into this thread to defend him in general. I don't know enough or care enough to want to defend him. But the claim that he's some sort of monster going after Christians and ignoring Islam in this instance, is really...weird. That's not what he's doing.

[rogue06]

Yeah poor muslims, someone somewhere is being mean to them. Meanwhile when Muslims are mean to others they just behead or shoot you.

After the few incidents of Muslim-instigated violence here since 9/11 the reaction of the police more often than not has been to rush to local mosques and protect them from being retaliated upon -- something that hadn't happened.

[rogue06]

Sexy Young Thing?

Sweet Young Thing. Jed is a leading defender of the myth that mossy isn't as old as time itself when in fact the Big Bang was caused by her falling outta bed. She remembers the day when Adam and Eve were created and immediately told them to get a job and stay off of her lawn.

[rogue06]

Imagine if you had the misfortune to be a Muslim in the US. Believe me, you would face bigotry and prejudice, often of the violent persuasion, almost daily.

Yup we are barraged daily with reports of Muslims being savagely attacked here in the U.S. Oh wait. That is almost nonexistent.

[rogue06]

He's a politician. Isn't it his job to say things like that? By pointing out that all ideologies can be abused and taken to their extreme he attempts to add perspective to the situation.

He has to constantly find a middle ground so that while he condemns ISIS and extremist Muslim acts on one hand, on the other hand, the non-extremist, minority Muslim population in the US isn't put into a situation where they are threatened by those who would seek vengeance. Also it holds out an olive branch to the US' Muslim majority allies, and tells them that he knows this isn't necessarily endemic to their faith (whether that's truly the case is another matter of course).

Here's the speech for context,

In it, he reminds the audience that human sinfulness is at the root of that sort of behavior, and he's right.

I don't know, I don't really follow politics much, and I'm no fan of Obama, but I do keep in mind that the guy is not Pastor. He calls himself a person of faith in the video, but meh, I don't know if that's a front or not. What I do know is that he's a secular government official, talking to an increasingly secular nation, and as a diplomat for the most powerful nation on earth, every single word he utters is scrutinized around the world. There's almost nothing he can say that can't be taken out of context and made to offend someone. All things considered, as a Christian, I think this is one of the lesser offensive statements he made. It doesn't fill me with joy or anything, but its nothing to pull my hair out over either.

I think that the problem for may folks is how he is willing to not only bend over backwards but twist himself into a pretzel avoiding saying Islamic extremists were responsible for any of a long list of barbarous acts we continue to witness and goes out of his way to exonerate Islam^[1] but seems to have no problem going back up to a millennium to find things to fault Christianity by name for.

And how he can bring up slavery without mentioning how it was in large part if not mostly due to opposition from Christian groups that brought it to an end in the west in contrast to many Muslim controlled areas where it is still being practiced. The double standard was palpable.









1. And don't get me wrong the Bush Administration had the same unsettling habit though to a slightly less extent

[Darth Executor]

He's a politician. Isn't it his job to say things like that?

It's his job to attack Christians with unhistorical drivel whenever some Muslim pacifies somebody?

[Darth Executor]

Imagine if you had the misfortune to be a Muslim in the US. Believe me, you would face bigotry and prejudice, often of the violent persuasion, almost daily.

I'm always amused at people who represent 85% of the population, complaining that they are somehow the victims of bigotry and prejudice. I guess the other 15% of the people must be pretty awful.

Yeah poor muslims, someone somewhere is being mean to them. Meanwhile when Muslims are mean to others they just behead or shoot you.

[pancreasman]

I am with you SYT.

Sexy Young Thing?

[Jedidiah]

I am not here to argue, I only posted this as information, and then I gave an opinion.

My panties are not in a bunch, at least they weren't until somebody suggested they shouldn't be.

I don't like Obama. I don't like his policies, and I don't like him sniping at Christians in an attempt to lighten up on Islam.

I thank God that Obama is not the leader of my country.

Now, ya'll carry on defending him all you want. That is your prerogative.

I am with you SYT.