Insulted

[Guest]

This will probably be taken as political which it really shouldnt but any Christian that heard the speech by obama yesterday should be insulted and outraged by his comments about the roll of the Catholic church during the crusades. He doesnt care about the what the United States stands for and does not understand anything about history or even have a clue what a president should say in public. If you dont know what I'm talking about it is all over the news and the inter net.

[Guest]

i agree. his remarks were in no way helpful in making americans feel he has our back!

[Guest]

i agree. his remarks were in no way helpful in making americans feel he has our back!


He appears to be like some of the posters on here. He refers to actions taken 800 years ago and tries to lay it alongside modern day.

[Guest]

You have to give him credit, he does not mention radical Islamist because it would be a conflict of interest....... to refer to himself.

[Guest]

You have to give him credit, he does not mention radical Islamist because it would be a conflict of interest....... to refer to himself.

I cant or wont go that far.

He DID, without a doubt, defend the actions of this terrorists.

The WH says it is consistent with the Presidents reminding the world of their sins.

Who is this President to be the confessor for the world ?

He does open mouth and insert foot a lot !!!!

[Guest]

It's a good thing to question anyone who is afraid to post with a real personality....

[Guest]

Made me wonder if Joe Biden wrote his prayer breakfast speech!

[Guest]

This is spot on. Krauthammer: 'Stunned' At Obama's 'Banal,' 'Offensive' Words | The Daily Caller (http://dailycaller.com/2015/02/05/krauthammer-stunned-at-obamas-banal-offensive-prayer-breakfast-remarks-video/)

KRAUTHAMMER: I was stunned that the president could say something so, I mean, at once, banal and offensive. Here we are from an act shocking barbarism, the burning alive of a prisoner of war, and Obama’s message is that we should remember the Crusades and the Inquisition. I mean, for him to say that all of us have sinned, all religions have transgressed — it was adolescent stuff.

Everyone knows that. What’s important is what’s happening now. Christianity no longer goes on Crusades. It gave up the Inquisition a while ago. the Book of Joshua is knee deep in blood. That story is over too. The story of today, of our generation, is the fact that the overwhelming volume of the violence and the barbarism that we are seeing in the world from Nigeria to Paris all the way to Pakistan and even to the Philippines, the island of Mindanao in the Philippines is coming from one source, and that’s from inside islam. It is not the prevalent idea of Islam. But it is coming from Islam.


As many Islamic leaders including the President of Egypt and many others have admitted. And there needs to be a change in Islam. It is not a coincidence that all of these attacks on other religions are happening. All over the world, in a dozen countries, two dozen countries, all in the name of one religion. It’s not a coincidence. And for the president to be lecturing us and to say we shouldn’t get on our high horse and to not remember our own path is ridiculous. The present issue is Muslim radicalism and how to attack it.

A lot of people are dying. From Obama’s first speech at West Point in December 2009, ironically announcing the surge in Afghanistan, you could tell that his heart has never been in this fight. Never. He’s the Commander-In-Chief and yet he announces one sentence after he talks about the surge, he talks about the day to withdraw. Everyone in the region knows that.

Everyone in the Middle East knows that he took on the fight on ISIS only because of the public reaction to the video of the beheading of the two Americans. He never would have lifted a finger otherwise. He hasn’t helped the rebels in Syria. He has not given the weapons that Jordan needs. The Kurds who are actually able, courageous and well and committed to the fight against ISIS still cannot get direct arms from the United States. The world knows this. Our enemies know it, an our friends know it.

[Guest]

The Medieval Christian threat is under control,

[Guest]

that was what the teleprompter had for him to say....total and complete grasping of straws to authenticate those he continues to shield and protect....no matter how badly it plays or that it makes no sense....

[Guest]

Interesting piece on this subject.......

"In his ignorant and bigoted remarks to religious leaders this week, President Obama parroted jihadi propaganda. Bored (when not annoyed) by facts, the president referred to the Crusades and the Inquisition as evidence of the horrors religion can wreak. That kind of talk emboldens the Islamist line that Christian bad behavior justifies the Middle East’s bad behavior even today.

The president knows as little about history as he does about warfare, and even less about religion. But he’s not alone. With the Left’s successful destruction of history instruction in our schools and universities, even “well-educated” creatures of Washington accept the Arab fantasy that the cultural incompetence, practical indolence, and spiritual decay of the entire Middle East stems from Richard Coeur de Lion’s twelfth-century swordplay."

Jihadis 14, Crusaders 2 | National Review Online (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/398126/jihadis-14-crusaders-2-ralph-peters)

[Guest]

Another slant on this topic...of ISIL but in reference to the words used by the left wing...

"This week came news that the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant burned alive a Jordanian pilot in a metal cage. Thursday morning's National Prayer Breakfast speech represented the first sign that President Obama is prepared to acknowledge a connection between Islam and the violence -- beheadings, mass murders, rape, human slavery, state sponsorship of terrorism, and military conquest -- jihadists are perpetrating in Muhammad’s name.

To be sure, President Bush's "global war on terror" shielded the exact identity of America's adversary. But the Obama administration has taken euphemism to new heights. By avoiding reference to Islamic extremism or radical Islam, Obama has reinforced the left's proclivity to condemn critics of radical Islam instead of the jihadists who fight in its name."

Why the Left Casts a Blind Eye on Radical Islam | RealClearPolitics (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/02/07/why_the_left_casts_a_blind_eye_on_radical_islam_12 5522.html)

There are reminders in this piece that this is not new....

"Such suppression is nothing new for the administration. As early as early 2009, it renamed campaigns in the struggle against Islamic extremism "overseas contingency operations."

Then, in November 2009, U.S. Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan committed premeditated mass murder at Fort Hood in Texas, killing 13 and wounding 30 more. Astonishingly, the administration classified the massacre as a case of "workplace violence." It was certainly violent. It was also inspired by Hasan’s religion as he made clear while shouting "Allahu Akbar" as he sprayed military personnel with bullets. He also received guidance from foreign terrorist organizations and had exchanged emails with al-Qaeda leader Anwar al-Awlaki.

Last September in a White House speech, Obama actually declared that ISIL -- even as it was establishing a new caliphate in Iraq and Syria -- had nothing to do with Islam.

[Guest]

I suspect most have not actually read Obama's remarks. So here is the link to his entire speech

Remarks by the President at National Prayer Breakfast | The White House (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/02/05/remarks-president-national-prayer-breakfast)

Here are excepts which put his comments in the correct context

But part of what I want to touch on today is the degree to which we've seen professions of faith used both as an instrument of great good, but also twisted and misused in the name of evil. ..we also see faith being twisted and distorted, used as a wedge -- or, worse, sometimes used as a weapon. 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. We see ISIL, a brutal, vicious death cult that, in the name of religion, carries out unspeakable acts of barbarism -- terrorizing religious minorities like the Yezidis, subjecting women to rape as a weapon of war, and claiming the mantle of religious authority for such actions...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? .

Humanity has been grappling with these questions throughout human history. And lest we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ. In our home country, slavery and Jim Crow all too often was justified in the name of Christ. Michelle and I returned from India -- an incredible, beautiful country, full of magnificent diversity -- but a place where, in past years, religious faiths of all types have, on occasion, been targeted by other peoples of faith, simply due to their heritage and their beliefs

Read the entire speech, see how this paragraph belongs, indeed needs to be included. Put away your sound bites and take something to relieve your Obama Derangement Syndrome. Even uber conservative David Brooks today came out in support of Obama's call for religious humility.

[Guest]

I suspect most have not actually read Obama's remarks. So here is the link to his entire speech

Remarks by the President at National Prayer Breakfast | The White House (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/02/05/remarks-president-national-prayer-breakfast)

Here are excepts which put his comments in the correct context

.



Read the entire speech, see how this paragraph belongs, indeed needs to be included. Put away your sound bites and take something to relieve your Obama Derangement Syndrome. Even uber conservative David Brooks today came out in support of Obama's call for religious humility.

I will say that you make a valid point.

I also will say that is was said at a time in history that it should have been toned down. Folks watching others be killed publicly in the name of a religion DO NOT NEED A LECTURE. Most people get it..they do not need to be talked down to and that is one of my big problems with this President.

Factually, I say you make a point.....in reality, it was very insulting under the current circumstances.

[Guest]

in reality, it was very insulting under the current circumstances

So who was insulted? People who were there listening to the entire speech many of whom are religious leaders of various denominations up to the Dalai Lama, or people who heard sound bites on TV. The only people Obama insulted was ISIL, of course that did not get reported as it does not fit the RW meme of how weak he is in his words condemning terrorism in the name of Islam. There never is a time in history when somewhere some group is using a philosophy whether religious or political as an excuse to slaughter others. It is never a mistake to ask that everyone pause and reflect on their certainty before they use a gun, an knife, a nuclear weapon, or a match to take another's life.

[Guest]

Correction above, wish we had an edit button, There never is not a time in history...

[Guest]

Correction above, wish we had an edit button, There never is not a time in history...


We do have an EDIT button so we can self-edit our posts!

[Guest]

We do have an EDIT button so we can self-edit our posts!

Sorry, no we don't which is silly!

[Guest]

We do have an EDIT button so we can self-edit our posts!

On the other forum we do, none on this forum.

[Guest]

I suspect most have not actually read Obama's remarks. So here is the link to his entire speech

Remarks by the President at National Prayer Breakfast | The White House (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/02/05/remarks-president-national-prayer-breakfast)

Here are excepts which put his comments in the correct context

.



Read the entire speech, see how this paragraph belongs, indeed needs to be included. Put away your sound bites and take something to relieve your Obama Derangement Syndrome. Even uber conservative David Brooks today came out in support of Obama's call for religious humility.


Whatever context this was said he is legitimizing ISIS and their extremism in the name of Islam by saying it's been done before. Not appropriate at the National Prayer Breakfast and more important for the community organizer of this country.

[Guest]

Sorry, no we don't which is silly!

If there was an edit button, everybody would be able to edit everybody else's posts. Because everyone is Guest.

[Guest]

Whatever context this was said he is legitimizing ISIS and their extremism in the name of Islam by saying it's been done before. Not appropriate at the National Prayer Breakfast and more important for the community organizer of this country.

I bet you don't think that noting Reagan's and Bush's executive orders legitimizes O'Bama's.

[Guest]

I bet you don't think that noting Reagan's and Bush's executive orders legitimizes O'Bama's.
This gets tiresome. Wish people who continually say this as a defense of the current President would please do some homework and review the content and subject matter of pst President executive orders. PLEASE. Not even in the same ballpark.

This is again, and I compliment the Obama prpoganda machine for their ability, is another of the false party lines that lack context

[Guest]

Whatever context this was said he is legitimizing ISIS and their extremism in the name of Islam by saying it's been done before. Not appropriate at the National Prayer Breakfast and more important for the community organizer of this country.

Your ODS is showing.

We see ISIL, a brutal, vicious death cult that, in the name of religion, carries out unspeakable acts of barbarism

translate in your brain to legitimizing. If I write that Pol Pot was a monster but Hitler was one too, and Stalin who was America's ally, does that sound like I just legitimized Pol Pot? Or does it sound like there are monsters throughout history and we need to be vigilant for all of its forms?

[Guest]

This gets tiresome. Wish people who continually say this as a defense of the current President would please do some homework and review the content and subject matter of pst President executive orders. PLEASE. Not even in the same ballpark.

This is again, and I compliment the Obama prpoganda machine for their ability, is another of the false party lines that lack context

Who is defending anybody? Just saying that actions are not legitimized by previous ones.

[Guest]

This gets tiresome. Wish people who continually say this as a defense of the current President would please do some homework and review the content and subject matter of pst President executive orders. PLEASE. Not even in the same ballpark.

This is again, and I compliment the Obama prpoganda machine for their ability, is another of the false party lines that lack context

False party line that lacks context. Like reflexively condemning a statement by the president which is not nearly as outrageous many would have us believe?
The president condemned ISIS. He noted that most other religions had done bad things, too. I'm not offended. I don't feel that he has legitimized ISIS in any way.

[Guest]

of course not EVERYONE was offended, but many good people were. that is the point.

[Guest]

But had the entire speech been published rather than just a very small portion, would people have been offended? I know I took umbrage when I first heard that Obama had once again condemned Christianity because of the Crusades. However, I then sat down and found the entire speech. Once I saw all of what had been said and understood (I think) what Pres. Obama was tring to say, my umbrage turned to a sigh knowing that too many would only hear the comment about the Crusades and not try to put it into any sort of context.

[Guest]

But had the entire speech been published rather than just a very small portion, would people have been offended? I know I took umbrage when I first heard that Obama had once again condemned Christianity because of the Crusades. However, I then sat down and found the entire speech. Once I saw all of what had been said and understood (I think) what Pres. Obama was tring to say, my umbrage turned to a sigh knowing that too many would only hear the comment about the Crusades and not try to put it into any sort of context.

I suggest that the fact you heard that one portion from ALL sources, including those who support him, means THAT is what resonated with everybody, and as people are trying to tell you WAS UNNECCESSARY and preachy.

Leadership, not lectures

[Guest]

I suggest that the fact you heard that one portion from ALL sources, including those who support him, means THAT is what resonated with everybody, and as people are trying to tell you WAS UNNECCESSARY and preachy.

Leadership, not lectures


Failed leadership to do anything PREACHY at a PRAYER breakfast.

[Guest]

of course not EVERYONE was offended, but many good people were. that is the point.

OP said that all Christians should be insulted. So I thought that was the point of this thread. I guess not.

[Guest]

Gee, in today's Daily Sun on the op-ed page, the Rasmussen Reports states that 46 percent of Americans polled agree with the President's comments compared with 41 percent who did not agree. :boom:

[Guest]

Gee, in today's Daily Sun on the op-ed page, the Rasmussen Reports states that 46 percent of Americans polled agree with the President's comments compared with 41 percent who did not agree. :boom:

And your point is?

[Guest]

Gee, in today's Daily Sun on the op-ed page, the Rasmussen Reports states that 46 percent of Americans polled agree with the President's comments compared with 41 percent who did not agree. :boom:

merely proves their sample was too small or in the wrong neighborhood or _ ?_.
We all know by now that polls and surveys are designed to acheive a pre-designated outcome.

[Guest]

merely proves their sample was too small or in the wrong neighborhood or _ ?_.
We all know by now that polls and surveys are designed to acheive a pre-designated outcome.

This was a Rasmussen poll, the polling team of choice for pro-GOP findings, the pollster who convinced Rove to storm off the set when Ohio was called for Obama. If any skewing is going to be done by Rasmussen it will be to the detriment of Obama. Frankly I have my own doubts about whether those polled even are conversant in this little tempest and most likely it really boiled down to do I say I agree with Obama or disagree on general issues. But a result you find doesn't agree with your opinion is not wrong because of being too small as no polling company with any reputation would not know how to do proper statistics. There are issues with how to select your sample, and that has traditionally been Rasmussen's problem. In the past (I don't know about this poll and if they have fixed their problem) they have not used anything but land lines which means their sample heavily skewed away from younger more technology dependent people or the other way, toward older people.

[Guest]

Here is the exact question asked

5* In reference to ISIS’ violent acts, someone said this week that the use of religion to justify violence and killings “is not unique to one group or one religion” and cited the Crusades and slavery as examples of terrible deeds done “in the name of Christ.” Do you agree or disagree with this comparison?


And here they are in order. The order in which you ask has been shown to alter the responses to many surveys

Questions - ISIS - February 6-7, 2015 - Rasmussen Reports™ (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/questions/pt_survey_questions/february_2015/questions_isis_february_6_7_2015)

1* How closely have you followed recent news stories about the radical Islamic State Group, also known as ISIS?



2* President Obama is expected to ask Congress to authorize the use of more military force against ISIS up to and including ground forces back in Iraq. Should the United States send combat troops back to Iraq as part of an international coalition to fight ISIS?



3* Will ISIS’ burning to death of a captured Jordanian pilot this week and the subsequent outrage in several Muslim countries lead to more Muslim support for the fight against ISIS?



4* Do you agree or disagree with the president that ISIS does not represent true Islamic beliefs?



5* In reference to ISIS’ violent acts, someone said this week that the use of religion to justify violence and killings “is not unique to one group or one religion” and cited the Crusades and slavery as examples of terrible deeds done “in the name of Christ.” Do you agree or disagree with this comparison?

[Guest]

This was a Rasmussen poll, the polling team of choice for pro-GOP findings, the pollster who convinced Rove to storm off the set when Ohio was called for Obama. If any skewing is going to be done by Rasmussen it will be to the detriment of Obama. Frankly I have my own doubts about whether those polled even are conversant in this little tempest and most likely it really boiled down to do I say I agree with Obama or disagree on general issues. But a result you find doesn't agree with your opinion is not wrong because of being too small as no polling company with any reputation would not know how to do proper statistics. There are issues with how to select your sample, and that has traditionally been Rasmussen's problem. In the past (I don't know about this poll and if they have fixed their problem) they have not used anything but land lines which means their sample heavily skewed away from younger more technology dependent people or the other way, toward older people.



We all know by now that polls and surveys are designed to acheive a pre-designated outcome.

Not EVERYTHING on the planet needs to be measured as to their worthiness dependent upon whether they lean left or right.

I suppose a locked in position that is maintained no matter what is easier to live with. If ANYTHING is in disagreement it must be wrong or slanted or _ ? _.