Nota bene: typesetting errors in the headline — the system keeps defaulting as such anytime the words “more” “on” and “Obama” are used.
While this good Jewish boy Jonah Goldberg says it well, maybe Humble Pope Francis will want to weigh in with some comments on the pertinence and balance of Obama’s lecture and “your another” speech at the National Prayer breakfast, in defense of the faith and all.
The Pope could take the opportunity . . . maybe at the UN, or at the White House meeting with his fellow spiritual leader, “Pope Barack”, or at the joint session of Congress. Nah, Christendom shouldn’t hold its breath.
Via National Review – Horse Pucky from Obama (excerpts)
President Obama seized the opportunity of the National Prayer Breakfast to forthrightly criticize the “terrible deeds” . . . committed “in the name of Christ.” . . .
But, as odd as it may sound for a guy named Goldberg to point it out, the Inquisition and the Crusades aren’t the indictments Obama thinks they are. For starters, the Crusades — despite their terrible organized cruelties — were a defensive war . . .
As for the Inquisition, it needs to be clarified that there was no single “Inquisition,” but many. And most were not particularly nefarious. For centuries, whenever the Catholic Church launched an inquiry or investigation, it mounted an “inquisition,” which means pretty much the same thing.
Historian Thomas Madden, director of the Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies at Saint Louis University, writes that the “Inquisition was not born out of desire to crush diversity or oppress people; it was rather an attempt to stop unjust executions.”
. . . Christianity, even in its most terrible days, even under the most corrupt popes, even during the most unjustifiable wars, was indisputably a force for the improvement of man.
Similarly, while some rationalized slavery and Jim Crow in the U.S. by invoking Christianity, it was ultimately the ideals of Christianity itself that dealt the fatal blow to those institutions.
It is perverse that Obama feels compelled to lecture the West about not getting too judgmental on our “high horse” over radical Islam’s medieval barbarism in 2015 because of Christianity’s medieval barbarism in 1215. . . .
The entire Goldberg article is very worthwhile.
Still more commentary on President Obama’s National Prayer Breakfast insult to Christianity is contained in this critique of Obama’s non-sequiturs, conflations and evasions in order to obscure culpability. The article was written by Carol Brown for American Thinker. The information provided in the links therein are frightening in their delineation of the brutal history of war and conquest by Islam.
Given Obama’s comments regarding Christianity and Islam, and the history of his foreign policy performance, is it unreasonable to debate where Obama’s sentiments lie? We can see that his historic understanding is ridiculously one of equivocation.
Excerpts from Obama Points the Finger at Christians When Talking About Terrorism:
“In the name of religion.”
Hmm. I wonder which religion that might be? Obama dare not say which one, so desperate is he to protect Islam while smearing Christianity. And so he feels comfortable making vague and ambiguous statements, as if any religion has been committing genocide in the Middle East and committing savage acts of torture and murder around the world.
Mark Levin summarized Obama’s double standard of vagueness vs. specificity when he noted:
“Notice, by the way, how easily the name Jesus passes his lips. Genocide in the name of Jesus. Has he ever said genocide in the name of Mohammed? Does he ever say Mohammed’s name? Never.”
Levin went on to observe that Obama paints Christians with a broad brush, but cherry picks terrorists as those who are extremists. In other words, all Christians are culpable for evil deeds, while Islam is never to blame because it is only those who distort the religion who are committing violent acts.
Obama sounded like a mash up of Islamic propaganda, a person going off the rails, an immature man-child with a massive chip on his shoulder, and someone who allows his mask to slip off bit by bit unable to fully control revelations of his true self.
DLH with R Mall
