At the National Prayer Breakfast this morning, president Obama actually told the gathering that there were atrocities like the crusades and the inquisition that were committed as acts of Christian faith. He also said that in the USA, slavery and the Jim Crow laws were perpetrated in the name of Christianity. Somehow, that was meant to explain to the American people that it is wrong to consider the ISIS and al Qaeda terrorists to be acting in the name of Islam.
There is so much to say about this speech that it is hard to decide where to begin. I think we need a little historical perspective.
In the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, in particular, European Christians conducts a series of crusades in an effort to take back control of the Holy Land from the Moslems who had conquered it. There were bloody battles and the crusaders were merciless in killing those who were not Christian. That was 900 years ago.
In the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, there was an effort in Europe to get all non-Christians to convert. Those who refused were tortured and, in many instances, killed. It was the inquisition. It was also 500 years ago.
In the seventh and eighth centuries, Arab warriors spread out from the Arabian peninsula (today's Saudi Arabia) and conquered most of the Middle East and North Africa. They also spread their control to parts of Europe such as Spain, Portugal and southern France. These warriors forced nearly all of the people that they conquered to convert to Islam. There were enormous numbers of dead. It was also 1300 years ago.
In the twentieth century, millions of people were killed by the Communists of the Soviet Union not in the name of religion, but in the name of eradicating religion. At the same time, the Germans were busy trying to eradicate the Jewish religion; many millions died. This was 60 to 80 years ago.
So what does all this bloody history mean? Is no one allowed now to criticize evil because there were people in the past who also carried out bloody acts involving religion? Are we to believe that the president of the United States of America is actually such a sophist that he would put forth such a ridiculous argument? Apparently so. We heard that speech this morning.
Initially, then, I wonder how Obama can mention slavery and Jim Crow laws under this standard. After all, while the American institution that fought hardest for keeping slavery, which imposed the Jim Crow laws and which fought relentlessly to keep those Jim Crow laws is Obama's own Democrat party. Do the misdeeds of past Democrats mean that Obama cannot criticize slavery, Jim Crow or other evils? He clearly does not think so. So why would evil done by Christians 500 or 1000 years ago mean that today's Christians cannot criticize the current evil that is coming from radical Islam? It means no such thing.
Look, the fact that ISIS and al Qaeda may not be exactly the textbook Moslems according to Obama does NOT mean they are not Moslems. This nonsense that ISIS is not Islamic is garbage. Think of it this way: suppose there was a woman who said she was Catholic but who refused to follow the teachings of that church when it came to abortion and birth control. In fact, assume that this woman actually fought to increase the ability of people everywhere to use birth control and also for women to have the unfettered right to abort their pregnancies at all times. Let's call this woman Nancy Pelosi, the Democrat leader of the House. Would Obama tell America and the world that Pelosi is not Catholic because she distorts and disobeys the teachings of the Catholic church? No, of course not. And when ISIS announces that it is Islamic (it is, after all, the "Islamic State"), how can Obama spout nonsense that ISIS is not Islamic? Of course it is.
America needs a return to the truth. We do not all have to agree; in fact, we never will. Nevertheless, this country can no longer put up with replacing the truth with politically correct bullshit. That is something that truly degrades and distorts reality.
There is so much to say about this speech that it is hard to decide where to begin. I think we need a little historical perspective.
In the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, in particular, European Christians conducts a series of crusades in an effort to take back control of the Holy Land from the Moslems who had conquered it. There were bloody battles and the crusaders were merciless in killing those who were not Christian. That was 900 years ago.
In the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, there was an effort in Europe to get all non-Christians to convert. Those who refused were tortured and, in many instances, killed. It was the inquisition. It was also 500 years ago.
In the seventh and eighth centuries, Arab warriors spread out from the Arabian peninsula (today's Saudi Arabia) and conquered most of the Middle East and North Africa. They also spread their control to parts of Europe such as Spain, Portugal and southern France. These warriors forced nearly all of the people that they conquered to convert to Islam. There were enormous numbers of dead. It was also 1300 years ago.
In the twentieth century, millions of people were killed by the Communists of the Soviet Union not in the name of religion, but in the name of eradicating religion. At the same time, the Germans were busy trying to eradicate the Jewish religion; many millions died. This was 60 to 80 years ago.
So what does all this bloody history mean? Is no one allowed now to criticize evil because there were people in the past who also carried out bloody acts involving religion? Are we to believe that the president of the United States of America is actually such a sophist that he would put forth such a ridiculous argument? Apparently so. We heard that speech this morning.
Initially, then, I wonder how Obama can mention slavery and Jim Crow laws under this standard. After all, while the American institution that fought hardest for keeping slavery, which imposed the Jim Crow laws and which fought relentlessly to keep those Jim Crow laws is Obama's own Democrat party. Do the misdeeds of past Democrats mean that Obama cannot criticize slavery, Jim Crow or other evils? He clearly does not think so. So why would evil done by Christians 500 or 1000 years ago mean that today's Christians cannot criticize the current evil that is coming from radical Islam? It means no such thing.
Look, the fact that ISIS and al Qaeda may not be exactly the textbook Moslems according to Obama does NOT mean they are not Moslems. This nonsense that ISIS is not Islamic is garbage. Think of it this way: suppose there was a woman who said she was Catholic but who refused to follow the teachings of that church when it came to abortion and birth control. In fact, assume that this woman actually fought to increase the ability of people everywhere to use birth control and also for women to have the unfettered right to abort their pregnancies at all times. Let's call this woman Nancy Pelosi, the Democrat leader of the House. Would Obama tell America and the world that Pelosi is not Catholic because she distorts and disobeys the teachings of the Catholic church? No, of course not. And when ISIS announces that it is Islamic (it is, after all, the "Islamic State"), how can Obama spout nonsense that ISIS is not Islamic? Of course it is.
America needs a return to the truth. We do not all have to agree; in fact, we never will. Nevertheless, this country can no longer put up with replacing the truth with politically correct bullshit. That is something that truly degrades and distorts reality.
No comments:
Post a Comment