Why did Obama compare Crusades to Islamic State at prayer breakfast?

[Janelle2002 3,865]

God is black, brown, yellow, red and white. Every man's the same in the good Lord's sight.

I know. But I had to pretend like I was shocked. JohnR's comment was kind of funny.

[spookyturtle 9,465]

Muhammad fought wars against those who opposed him. Jesus didn't. Jesus taught peace and love.

[Dakine10 5,452]

"The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion." -treaty of Tripoli, 1797, passed unanimously by the US senate

The Star Spangled Banner Lyrics

By Francis Scott Key 1814

Oh, say can you see by the dawn's early light

What so proudly we hailed at the twilight's last gleaming?

Whose broad stripes and bright stars thru the perilous fight,

O'er the ramparts we watched were so gallantly streaming?

And the rocket's red glare, the bombs bursting in air,

Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there.

Oh, say does that star-spangled banner yet wave

O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?

On the shore, dimly seen through the mists of the deep,

Where the foe's haughty host in dread silence reposes,

What is that which the breeze, o'er the towering steep,

As it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses?

Now it catches the gleam of the morning's first beam,

In full glory reflected now shines in the stream:

'Tis the star-spangled banner! Oh long may it wave

O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

And where is that band who so vauntingly swore

That the havoc of war and the battle's confusion,

A home and a country should leave us no more!

Their blood has washed out their foul footsteps' pollution.

No refuge could save the hireling and slave

From the terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave:

And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave

O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

Oh! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand

Between their loved home and the war's desolation!

Blest with victory and peace, may the heav'n rescued land

Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation.

Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,

And this be our motto: "In God is our trust."

And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave

O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

"The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion." -treaty of Tripoli, 1797, passed unanimously by the US senate

Try again:

The quotation is, in fact, part of Article 11 of The 1797 Treaty of Tripoli. The full text is: “As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.” The treaty was written by an American diplomat, John Barlow. It was approved by John Adams and ratified by The Senate.

Here’s where things get muddy. The English version of the treaty did contain Article 11, but the Arabic version did not. Furthermore, a treaty with The Barbary States was critically needed to protect U.S shipping interests in the area, and the U.S. government did not want to delay by arguing the finer points of an agreement. The Barbary States were at war with any nation that did not have such an agreement, and the U.S. was in no position, militarily, to deal with the threat until eighteen years later when it had the upper hand. Tribute was paid to the pirates until 1815, after the 2nd Barbary War which followed the conclusion of The War of 1812, when the treaty was renegotiated and Article 11 was dropped. It may be further noted that no such verbiage as Article 11 is found in any of the treaties with the other Muslim pirate states. This invalidates the argument that Article 11 belonged in the text and would have been welcomed by Muslims.

If you want to look at other treaties as evidence, you need not look further than The Treaty of Paris of 1783, which is a formal recognition of our independence from Great Britain, which was negotiated by Ben Franklin and John Adams. Its first words are, “In the Name of the most holy and undivided Trinity.” The words or validity of this treaty are in no way in dispute.

One final point, John Adams did write in 1798, after the first ratification of The Treaty of Tripoli, in a letter to the officers of The First Brigade of The Third Division of The Massachusetts Militia, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

https://w3nws.wordpress.com/2012/06/12/john-adams-did-not-say-this/

[Dakine10 5,452]

Try again:

Why. You included the same quote that I did. It was an extension of an ongoing pattern of men who were comprised mostly of deists. They believed in a higher power but were advocates of religious freedom and suspect of prevailing religious intolerance and dogma. They were not denying God nor were they requiring that one individual hold any specific belief.

For every quote, there is an reactant analysis. John Adams said the best possible world would be a world without religion. Detractors say that's not what he really meant. Thomas jefferson said the story of Jesus' birth would one day be held on par with Minerva springing from Zeus' head. A fable. But he must have meant something else.

They framed a 4400+ word constitution with no reference to God, Jesus, or any other deity. It's not something they threw together on a whim. What these men said or wrote and what they didn't say was done with great reason and consideration.

They wanted a wall of separation between church and state and that transcended their individual spiritual beliefs.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The primary argument of this thread is the comparison of ISIS to Crusaders as extremists. Whereas both may have been embroiled in genocide, in the context of history, the Crusaders have been shown to be quite average amongst their peers. In that light, its rather hard to label them as extreme.

The basic point is that Christianity has been used to justify questionable things. I don't think anyone can argue that that isn't the case.

What is at issue is while those things happened many centuries ago, ISIS is doing it now. It's no coincidence that this movement has taken off in a region that has been hardened by war over very many years and imo that explains a lot.

It is a religious movement to the degree that adherence to religion creates structures of power (and let's not forget that religion tends to step in in the absence of education), but it is primarily a nationalist movement imo. Their goals are nationalist - creation of a state and the removal of foreign influence.

So back to the original point which is getting lost. ISIS is a backward regime, no argument there, however you don't need to look far back in history to see that there are similarities in the way that religion is used to justify political decisions. Once again I point out that the previous POTUS actually said on TV that God had told him to invade Iraq.

If you saw that interview as an Afghan or an Iraqi what conclusions would you come to?

Edited February 9, 2015 by Hail Ming!

[LibCampFireClub 635]

[LibCampFireClub 635]

[LibCampFireClub 635]

If Andrea thinks 0bozo got it wrong, then the world has lost all meaning. Right?

Guess Which Cable News Anchor Just Berated Obama’s Controversial Prayer Breakfast Remarks (Hint: She’s Not From Fox News)

After President Barack Obama invoked the Crusades and the Inquisition and slavery from Christian history during last week’s National Prayer Breakfast, seemingly as a way of tempering present-day atrocities committed by Islamic extremists, those on the political and religious right were understandably upset by the comparison.

But now a news anchor for left-leaning MSNBC has taken a hard stance against Obama’s remarks as well.

“You don’t use the word ‘crusades,’ number one, in any context right now, it’s just too fraught,” Andrea Mitchell said on “Meet the Press” Sunday.

“And the week after a pilot is burned alive, in a video shown, you don’t lean over backwards to be philosophical about the sins of the fathers. You have to deal with the issue that’s in front of you or don’t deal with it at all,” she added. “Talk about faith.”

When host Chuck Todd mentioned that many conservative politicians invoke faith all the time in such contexts, Mitchell doubled down.

“But he’s the president and you can’t really go back to 1095,” she said.

“So you think he made a mistake?” Todd asked.

“I do,” Mitchell replied. “Because it’s so out of context and it is so much in passing. If you’re giving a major speech about theology perhaps, but this is the Prayer Breakfast and remember the context of that is very limited.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WlBrYsHb_g0

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/02/08/guess-which-cable-news-anchor-just-berated-obamas-controversial-prayer-breakfast-remarks-hint-shes-not-from-fox-news/

Edited February 9, 2015 by ExExpat

[JohnR! 5,495]

Im sorry you feel that way. We are talking about two different things.

Now you are just being petty (and trollish). Thus far my focus is on the Crusades (see thread title), whereas you are putting words in my mouth. Shame on you!

[JohnR! 5,495]

And yet so many wars were waged in the name of Jesus... Go figure!!!!

Muhammad fought wars against those who opposed him. Jesus didn't. Jesus taught peace and love.

Thanks. It was intended in jest....

I know. But I had to pretend like I was shocked. JohnR's comment was kind of funny.

[spookyturtle 9,465]

And yet so many wars were waged in the name of Jesus... Go figure!!!!

Jesus didn't advocate violence as a method to gain support or to stifle the competition. The other guy did. :smile:

[GandD 5,966]

Too bad Christianity still lugs around the old testament.

[JohnR! 5,495]

And yet so much violence was carried out in the name of Jesus by his followers....

Jesus didn't advocate violence as a method to gain support or to stifle the competition. The other guy did. :smile:

Especially when it fits their narrative...

Too bad Christianity still lugs around the old testament.

[spookyturtle 9,465]

And yet so much violence was carried out in the name of Jesus by his followers....

Those who carried out violence in the name of Jeses didn't follow his teaching. Muhammad was in favor of violence, so according to your logic his radical followers are carrying out his teaching.