Obama wasn't lambasting Christians
Perhaps you and I have very different understanding of what getting on ones "high horse" means, but implying that folks have got on their "high horse" about an issue is a criticism. Perhaps if you want to quibble on the semantics of whether or not it was "harsh" criticism or not, that could be argued. But to suggest he wans't criticizing christians for getting "on their high horse" over radical islam leaves me scratching my head regarding how you came to such a conclussion.
Obama's point is very clearly that the actions of ISIS do NOT represent the religion of Islam
It does not "represent" Islam, however neither is it
seperate from Islam. Just as the Crusades my not have "represented" Christianity in the turn of the 20th century, it was absolutely not
seperate from Christianity. It is undeniable that those acting within the Crusades (especially leadership) were, by and large, acting in the name of their Religion. Just as it is undeniable, despite the administrations attempts, to suggest that those acting within ISIS (especially their leadership) are, by and large, acting in the name of their Religion.
and no religion can claim to be free of such associations.
Which is a rather sophmoric and empty notion, a prayer breakfast strawman if you will, considering there seems to be few if any that are suggesting that any religion...especially christianity...does not have any instances where the religion has been used in the name of violence. Who are these people, suggesting Christianity has never been used for wrongful purposes before. I can't say I've ran into many such people in my life. So why make such a point, and not just make it but focus so much time on it?
Well, when you go on and make a comparison to something at turn of the previous century, and equate it as the same that is happening with a group in the modern day, without any deference to context, as a means of lecturing Christians to not get on their "high horse", then a potential ansewr becomes more clear. Was the focus on such a sophmoric and widely understood point simply there to provide cover to lambast and critize Christians upset over Radical Islam, and to attempt to paint the state of Islam in the modern day as similar to that of Christianity because Christainity had Radicals taking similar actions 700+ years ago (but ignoring that the Islamic Radicals were doing it then too, and are still doing it TODAY).
Why do I focus on the Crusades? Two reasons. The first, because that's the first instance he brought up and is the far more ridiculous one in terms of the shockingly different context between the two. Second, if you're going to grab historical analog, the Crusades are a far better one to ISIS, as both were instances of individuals using the their religious beliefs as justifications for attempts to conquer land. Such was the not the case with Jim Crow or the KKK.