Obama condemns those who seek to 'hijack religion'

Cryptic · Feb 11, 2015

Boo Radley said:
There are those out there killing, yes.

This was done by a Christian extremist: Wisconsin Sikh Temple massacre, Aug. 5, 2012.

No, the shooter was not acting on religous motivations.

Rather, he was of nominally Christian background and stated that his motivation was racial / nationalistic, (shooter perceived all muslims as being a different race and therefore, not part of the US nation). It is much the same way with terror acts committed by various Kurdish groups in Turkey. Sure, the usually leftist Kurds are of nominal muslim background. They are not, however, "muslim" extremists. Rather, they are socio poltical extremists who attack Turks.

apdst · Feb 11, 2015

Objective Voice said:
Alright...fair enough.

Here's a timeline from the Latin Library that covers Islam in Europe from 359-1291, AD. A few key dates of note that may be of interest to readers:

614: Persians sack Jerusalem. damaging the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in the process.

624: Muhammad broke with his Jewish supporters because they refused to recognize him as a prophet and adopt Islam.

632: Death of Muhammad. His father-in-law, Abu-Bakr (first Caliph), and Umar devised a system to allow Islam to sustain religious and political stability. Accepting the name of caliph ("deputy of the Prophet"), Abu-Bakr begins a military exhibition to enforce the caliph's authority over Arabian followers of Muhammad. Abu-Bakr then moved northward, defeating Byzantine and Persian forces.

633: Muslims conquer Syria and Iraq.

637: Jerusalem falls to invading Muslim forces.

668: First Siege of Constantinople: This attack lasts off and on for seven years, with the Muslim forces generally spending the winters on the island of Cyzicus, a few miles south of Constantinople, and only sailing against the city during the spring and summer months. The Greeks are able to fend off repeated attacks with a weapon desperately feared by the Arabs: Greek Fire.

August 23, 676: Birth of Charles Martel (Charles the Hammer) in Herstal, Wallonia, Belgium, as the illegitimate son of Pippin II. Serving as Mayor of the Palace of the kingdom of the Franks, Charles would lead a force of Christians that turn back a Muslim raiding party near Poitiers (or Tours) which, according to many historians, would effectively halt the advance of Islam against Christianity in the West.

677: Muslims send a large fleet against Constantinople in an effort to finally break the city, but they are defeated so badly through the Byzantine use of Greek Fire that they are forced to pay an indemnity to the Emperor.

714: Birth of Pippin III (Pippin the Short) in Jupille (Belgium). Son of Charles Martel and father of Charlemagne, in 0759 Pippin would capture Narbonne, the last Muslim stronghold in France, and thereby drive Islam out of France.

722: Battle of Covadonga: Pelayo, (690-737) Visigoth noble who had been elected the first King of Asturias (718-0737), defeats a Muslim army at Alcama near Covadonga. This is generally regarded as the first real Christian victory over the Muslims in the Reconquista.

October 10, 732: Battle of Tours: With perhaps 1,500 soldiers, Charles Martel halts a Muslim force of around 40,000 to 60,000 cavalry under Abd el-Rahman Al Ghafiqi from moving farther into Europe. Many regard this battle as being decisive in that it saved Europe from Muslim control.

750 - 850: The Four Orthodox Schools of Islamic Law were established.

850: Perfectus, a Christian priest in Muslim Cordova, is executed after he refuses to retract numerous insults he made about the Prophet Muhammed. Numerous other priests, monks, and laity would follow as Christians became caught up in a zest for martyrdom.

851: Abd al-Rahman II has eleven young Christians executed in the city of Cordova after they deliberately seek out martyrdom by insulting the Prophet .Muhammed.

Thank you for posting that. It will come as a shock to some of your Libbo buddies, then they'll ignore it.

What it shows, is centuries of Muslim agression, showing that the Crusades were defensive actions in response to that aggression. Now, here is where one your favorite Liberal arguments works against you: if the Muslims hadn't attacked Europe, the Crusades might not have taken place. The first crusade--not the 1sr Crusade--was the Reconquista, which was waged in Spain against the Muslims.

Objective Voice · Feb 11, 2015

j-mac said:
Looks to me like the Crusadrs were a response to Muslim aggressions.

I don't deny that one bit nor have I ever stated they (radical Muslims) weren't the aggressors then or now. However, despite stating the obvious I noticed you didn't answer the question posed. So, I'll ask it again...

Objective Voice said:
For those interested, pay very close attention to events from the following timeframes: 632, 850, 1026, 1050, 1088, and 1098. What's the connection between each event in time according to the (above) timeline? http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/imper...slamchron.html

Objective Voice · Feb 11, 2015

apdst said:
Thank you for posting that. It will come as a shock to some of your Libbo buddies, then they'll ignore it.

What it shows, is centuries of Muslim agression, showing that the Crusades were defensive actions in response to that aggression. Now, here is where one your favorite Liberal arguments works against you: if the Muslims hadn't attacked Europe, the Crusades might not have taken place. The first crusade--not the 1sr Crusade--was the Reconquista, which was waged in Spain against the Muslims.

Again, I don't deny that nor have I ever stated otherwise. But as I stated to j-mac, I'll also say to you. Despite stating the obvious, I noticed you didn't answer the question posed either. So, I'll ask again...

Objective Voice said:
For those interested, pay very close attention to events from the following timeframes: 632, 850, 1026, 1050, 1088, and 1098. What's the connection between each event in time according to the (above) timeline? http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/imper...slamchron.html

apdst · Feb 11, 2015

Objective Voice said:
Again, I don't deny that nor have I ever stated otherwise. But as I stated to j-mac, I'll also say to you. Despite stating the obvious, I noticed you didn't answer the question posed either. So, I'll ask again...

You tell me what the connection is and if I disagree, I'll tell you why.

Objective Voice · Feb 11, 2015

apdst said:
You tell me what the connection is and if I disagree, I'll tell you why.

Nah. How 'bout you look over the time frames, give it your best guess and I'll tell you if you're right or not.

jpn · Feb 11, 2015

apdst said:
He called homosexuality a sin, too. You gonna keep bragging on him?

Jesus never said a word about homosexuality. Gee, it sure get old teaching "Christians" what is and is not in the New Testament. Go on. Show me a direct attribution from Jesus that mentions homosexuality--not quotes by a guy who never met him--Jesus himself (if they existed, they'd be found in the Gospels, by the way. There are lots of quotes in the Gospels about being rich, and about being hypocrites, and about judging other people, but nothing about homosexuality).

Hypocrite.

apdst · Feb 11, 2015

Objective Voice said:
Nah. How 'bout you look over the time frames, give it your best guess and I'll tell you if you're right or not.

You're the judge of what's right, or not? Sorry, dude, I'm taking the bait. :lamo

apdst · Feb 11, 2015

jpn said:
Jesus never said a word about homosexuality. Gee, it sure get old teaching "Christians" what is and is not in the New Testament. Go on. Show me a direct attribution from Jesus that mentions homosexuality--not quotes by a guy who never met him--Jesus himself (if they existed, they'd be found in the Gospels, by the way. There are lots of quotes in the Gospels about being rich, and about being hypocrites, and about judging other people, but nothing about homosexuality).

Hypocrite.

You do know that Jesus and God are the same. Right?

Objective Voice · Feb 11, 2015

apdst said:
You're the judge of what's right, or not? Sorry, dude, I'm taking the bait. :lamo

And this is why I won't just tell you what those time frames have in common. You'd probably disagree with me anyway despite the truth they reveal.

apdst · Feb 11, 2015

Objective Voice said:
And this is why I won't just tell you what those time frames have in common. You'd probably disagree with me anyway despite the truth they reveal.

You won't say, because you're entire premise has been blown out of the water and you feel somewhat sure that your current fall back positiin will get smoked, too.

Objective Voice · Feb 12, 2015

apdst said:
You won't say, because you're entire premise has been blown out of the water and you feel somewhat sure that your current fall back positiion will get smoked, too.

There's no fall back position. I've never defended the atrocities radical Muslims committed in the past whether it was to gain larger swaths of territory, for personal glory, for riches akin to the Vikings in their day or just to spread their religious ideology, nor do I defend them now. So, you can come off that kick.

You're the one who's ducking the question because you know that to state the obvious commonality between each group of people in the time frames I've presented would mean you'd have to acknowledge the truth as the President has acknowledged. So, I'll ask the question again and see if you're brave enough to state the obvious common factor between both religious people - Muslims and Christians - in the time frames mentioned.

Objective Voice said:
Pay very close attention to events from the following timeframes: 632, 850, 1026, 1050, 1088, and 1098. What's the connection (common factor) between each event in time according to the timeline presented in posts #520 & 521? Islam and Europe Timeline (355-1291 A.D.)

apdst · Feb 12, 2015

Objective Voice said:
There's no fall back position. I've never defended the atrocities radical Muslims committed in the past whether it was to gain larger swaths of territory, for personal glory, for riches akin to the Vikings in their day or just to spread their religious ideology, nor do I defend them now. So, you can come off that kick.

You omitted Muslim atrocities and aggression, colonialism, even. Either because you didn't know about it, or because you knew that the information would destroy you, "the crusaders were evil", meme. It was dishonest, at best.

You're the one who's ducking the question because you know that to state the obvious commonality between each group of people in the time frames I've presented would mean you'd have to acknowledge the truth as the President has acknowledged. So, I'll ask the question again and see if you're brave enough to state the obvious common factor between both religious people - Muslims and Christians - in the time frames mentioned.

I'm not ducking anything. If you have a point to make, make it.

Obama never mentioned Muslim aggression then, either. There's a reason for that.

Objective Voice · Feb 12, 2015

apdst said:
You omitted Muslim atrocities and aggression, colonialism, even. Either because you didn't know about it, or because you knew that the information would destroy you, "the crusaders were evil", meme. It was dishonest, at best.

That right there tells me you completely misunderstood the argument I was making (perhaps purposely). Mine wasn't a flat out comparison, i.e., "Muslim extremist good, Christian Crusaders evil." You know very well that wasn't the argument I was presenting. I merely pointed out that during the Crusades, Christians committed evil acts in the name of their God on behalf of their Christian faith just as Muslims committed evil acts in the name of their God on behalf of their Islamic faith, too. And that was the point of listing the time frames 632, 850, 1026, 1050, 1088, and 1098 because each makes this point very clear.

I'm not ducking anything. If you have a point to make, make it.

Oh, yes you were. But my point is now made. All you had to do was acknowledge the truth of it.

Obama never mentioned Muslim aggression then, either. There's a reason for that.

That's not entirely true. From the his National Prayer Breakfast speech, 11th paragraph, 2nd sentence:

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.

So, while he didn't say "Muslims" in that passage, he made it clear that those who are claiming to be following the teachings of the Islamic faith are, in fact, distorting it. And who follows the teachings of Islam? Muslims. Now, it's true he doesn't outright mention their past aggressive and barbaric acts. That much is true. So, to your point his speech doesn't take both Muslims and Christians to task for their past aggressions. But that wasn't the point of the speech. It wasn't about which religious group committed the worst atrocities moreso than the other. It was about:

So how do we, as people of faith, reconcile these realities -- the profound good, the strength, the tenacity, the compassion and love that can flow from all of our faiths, operating alongside those who seek to hijack religious for their own murderous ends?

If you'd cared to just listen to the speech or read it, then you would have known exactly what his point was. But as usual, folks are too busy trying to press their own agenda to see through their own ideological mud slinging that all they can see is the partisan view that they either create or one that is thrust before them as believable truth. I'm with you, however, in that the President should have given a history lesson on the evils Muslim extremist have done in the past as well, but it's disingenuous to suggest he never called out radical Islam or that Christians of the distant and recent past haven't used their faith to do evil as well.

Grant · Feb 12, 2015

Objective Voice said:
That right there tells me you completely misunderstood the argument I was making (perhaps purposely). Mine wasn't a flat out comparison, i.e., "Muslim extremist good, Christian Crusaders evil." You know very well that wasn't the argument I was presenting. I merely pointed out that during the Crusades, Christians committed evil acts in the name of their God on behalf of their Christian faith just as Muslims committed evil acts in the name of their God on behalf of their Islamic faith, too. And that was the point of listing the time frames 632, 850, 1026, 1050, 1088, and 1098 because each makes this point very clear.

This is so trite, so banal, that any President expressing these mundane thoughts should be booed off the stage.

Of course Christians have acted badly in the past. So have Jews, Chinese, UN workers, the French, Red Cross employees, Hindus, Teachers Unions, and every damned group in the history of mankind. Does this really need explaining? Or mentioning? No, of course not. We all know that, or should. Then, if we all accept this as common knowledge, why did BHO even bother mentioning it? Was this a recent insight of his?

The dumbing down of the Presidency has now clearly led to the dumbing down of public discourse.

apdst · Feb 12, 2015

Objective Voice said:
That right there tells me you completely misunderstood the argument I was making (perhaps purposely). Mine wasn't a flat out comparison, i.e., "Muslim extremist good, Christian Crusaders evil." You know very well that wasn't the argument I was presenting. I merely pointed out that during the Crusades, Christians committed evil acts in the name of their God on behalf of their Christian faith just as Muslims committed evil acts in the name of their God on behalf of their Islamic faith, too. And that was the point of listing the time frames 632, 850, 1026, 1050, 1088, and 1098 because each makes this point very clear.

Oh, yes you were. But my point is now made. All you had to do was acknowledge the truth of it.

That's not entirely true. From the his National Prayer Breakfast speech, 11th paragraph, 2nd sentence:

So, while he didn't say "Muslims" in that passage, he made it clear that those who are claiming to be following the teachings of the Islamic faith are, in fact, distorting it. And who follows the teachings of Islam? Muslims. Now, it's true he doesn't outright mention their past aggressive and barbaric acts. That much is true. So, to your point his speech doesn't take both Muslims and Christians to task for their past aggressions. But that wasn't the point of the speech. It wasn't about which religious group committed the worst atrocities moreso than the other. It was about:

If you'd cared to just listen to the speech or read it, then you would have known exactly what his point was. But as usual, folks are too busy trying to press their own agenda to see through their own ideological mud slinging that all they can see is the partisan view that they either create or one that is thrust before them as believable truth. I'm with you, however, in that the President should have given a history lesson on the evils Muslim extremist have done in the past as well, but it's disingenuous to suggest he never called out radical Islam or that Christians of the distant and recent past haven't used their faith to do evil as well.

I no, I understand you and then Obama's argument just fine, which is, "Christians have no right to criticize Islamic terrorism, because the Christians did the same thing during the Crusades".

Neither, Obama, nor yourself mentioned Muslim aggression that took place prior to, during and since the Crusades, except for the recent violence.

It was an attempt to give make the impression that Christian violence is a thousand years old and Muslim violence is a very recent occurance.

Objective Voice · Feb 12, 2015

Grant said:
This is so trite, so banal, that any President expressing these mundane thoughts should be booed off the stage.

Of course Christians have acted badly in the past. So have Jews, Chinese, UN workers, the French, Red Cross employees, Hindus, Teachers Unions, and every damned group in the history of mankind. Does this really need explaining? Or mentioning? No, of course not. We all know that, or should. Then, if we all accept this as common knowledge, why did BHO even bother mentioning it? Was this a recent insight of his?

The dumbing down of the Presidency has now clearly led to the dumbing down of public discourse.

That may be but I have to ask, "Why do you care so much what happens in America's national politics?" Your location: Canada, Costa Rica. As such, would I be incorrect in assuming you're Canadian? And if so, why does it matter to you what an American President says or does? What's your angle? Not saying you don't have a right to your opinion or even to express it. I'm just curious why what an America President says or does matters so much to you?

Boo Radley · Feb 12, 2015

j-mac said:
So you view these radical jihadist attacks as just anomalies carried out by just a few, contrary to their own stated goals, and support documented amongst the wider Muslim community?

I mean, sure you can show me individual cases of mentally disturbed acts, but nothing on the scale of what is going on today with ISIS and it is patently dishonest to equate the two in any way.

They are larger, but that is based on political realities and not religious ones. We'd see it just as large here if the political realities matched theirs. The point is that religion doesn't create the terrorist, but is used by evil people to both recruit and justify. The mistake is in blaming the religion.

Boo Radley · Feb 12, 2015

Cryptic said:
No, the shooter was not acting on religous motivations.

Rather, he was of nominally Christian background and stated that his motivation was racial / nationalistic, (shooter perceived all muslims as being a different race and therefore, not part of the US nation). It is much the same way with terror acts committed by various Kurdish groups in Turkey. Sure, the usually leftist Kurds are of nominal muslim background. They are not, however, "muslim" extremists. Rather, they are socio poltical extremists who attack Turks.

Neither groups are acting on religious grounds. Both have people who use religion as justification, as backing for their evil. Whether one is a Muslim extremist or a Christian extremist, the key word is extremist and not either Muslim or Christian.

matchlight · Feb 12, 2015

Boo Radley said:
They are larger, but that is based on political realities and not religious ones. We'd see it just as large here if the political realities matched theirs. The point is that religion doesn't create the terrorist, but is used by evil people to both recruit and justify. The mistake is in blaming the religion.

I can't agree with that. The most orthodox Islamic texts--the Koran itself, the hadith, which interpret it through the sayings of Mohammed, and the Reliance of the Traveler, the 14th century text which spells out shari'ah in detail--justify much of the violence Muslim jihadists engage in. That is not to say none of them ever does things no Islamic authority approves, but in general their savagery is right in line with Mohammed's own extremely violent career.

It would have been more accurate of Mr. B. Hussein Obama to say that most of the people in the world who identify themselves as Muslims are only as peaceful and tolerant as they are because they don't observe their religion very conscientiously. Who does he think he is, to claim the tenets of Islam really are not what its official texts say they are?

Objective Voice · Feb 12, 2015

apdst said:
I no, I understand you and then Obama's argument just fine, which is, "Christians have no right to criticize Islamic terrorism, because the Christians did the same thing during the Crusades".

Neither, Obama, nor yourself mentioned Muslim aggression that took place prior to, during and since the Crusades, except for the recent violence.

It was an attempt to give make the impression that Christian violence is a thousand years old and Muslim violence is a very recent occurance.

None of what you've stated was my position at all. Mine was as plain and simple as I've stated it: That people from both regions have committed violence in the name of their God and on behalf of their religious faith. Period. Nothing more and nothing less.

I didn't point out Muslim atrocities initially - neither past nor present - because the truth of their atrocities was and IS plainly evident.

I didn't outline the atrocities of Jews or Hindus or any other religious group because they weren't the focal point of the debate at hand. But the acts of those Christians who took part in the Crusades was. And as such, pointing out that Christians did, in fact, use their religion to commit atrocities in the name of their religious faith and their God was the only point of relevance worth making based on the thread topic. And while I will concede (again) that the President didn't take both Muslims and Christians to task for their past aggressions, that really wasn't the point of his speech. The point was: "What are we as people of faith doing today to check ourselves AND confront evil?" And if you missed that, well...I've got nothing for you.

apdst · Feb 12, 2015

Objective Voice said:
None of what you've stated was my position at all. Mine was as plain and simple as I've stated it: That people from both regions have committed violence in the name of their God and on behalf of their religious faith. Period. Nothing more and nothing less.

I didn't point out Muslim atrocities initially - neither past nor present - because the truth of their atrocities was and IS plainly evident.

I didn't outline the atrocities of Jews or Hindus or any other religious group because they weren't the focal point of the debate at hand. But the acts of those Christians who took part in the Crusades was. And as such, pointing out that Christians did, in fact, use their religion to commit atrocities in the name of their religious faith and their God was the only point of relevance worth making based on the thread topic. And while I will concede (again) that the President didn't take both Muslims and Christians to task for their past aggressions, that really wasn't the point of his speech. The point was: "What are we as people of faith doing today to check ourselves AND confront evil?" And if you missed that, well...I've got nothing for you.

You didn't point out any religion's atrocities, because the objective was to villanize Christians, in order to excuse the islamofacists. It's the dame phony argument, that the Muslims aren't responsible for Muslim atrocities, someone else is.

AlbqOwl · Feb 12, 2015

apdst said:
You didn't point out any religion's atrocities, because the objective was to villanize Christians, in order to excuse the islamofacists. It's the dame phony argument, that the Muslims aren't responsible for Muslim atrocities, someone else is.

What some do not wish to look at is whether Christianity is producing groups that go out to murder, maim, destroy, terrorize in the 21st century in the name of Christ. I'm sure those who know of such groups will be happy to point us to them. I honestly can't think of any other than the Westboro Baptists and they do what they do for personal profit and so far as I know they don't murder or destroy things.

It is undeniable that Islam is producing groups that have no conscience about murder, maiming, destroying, threating, terrorizing, and oppressing others all in the name of Allah. Wiki has pulled together a list that probably reflects most terrorist groups in modern times. Here and there you can find a non-Islamic group among the many, many listed. But most are indeed Islamic.
List of designated terrorist organizations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Grant · Feb 12, 2015

Boo Radley said:
Bush lied. Does this mean rightist lie? Don't you see how stupid you're being?

Bush lied??? Another Leftist lie!

Grant · Feb 12, 2015

Boo Radley said:
You miss the point again. How am I do get through to you? I doubt anyone who does this is stuff is actually Christian or Muslim for that matter. They use religion. This is the point being made by Obama and by me.

Boo Radley, you are a leftist and thus cannot 'get through' to those with some understanding of history and with some political knowledge. I recall very well how you were laughably touting Obamacare as a money saver and good for the American people. Gruber had your type nailed, and so do I and many others.

You and Obama, a genuine liar, should get off your own high horses and admit to all the lies made, and the lies swallowed, by liberals such as yourself..

Obama condemns those who seek to 'hijack religion'

Retired Navy Commander