obama compares Catholics to ISIS

[n david]

obama's a fool. But most of us already knew that. At the prayer breakfast, he took the opportunity to once again downplay the radical Islamic extremist group ISIS, by claiming that Christians also did bad things in the name of Christ.

Here's my problem with his statement: he said ISIS is doing evil in the name of "RELIGION." Not in the name of Islam or Mohammed...in the name of religion. But then turns around and says crusades done in the name of Christ.

What a pathetic, wimpy, spineless president. he still refuses to call ISIS what it is: Islamic terrorists who act in the name of Islam and in the name of Mohammed.

Sad when the King of Jordan shows more courage than the American President.

[Carl]

Originally Posted by n david

obama's a fool. But most of us already knew that. At the prayer breakfast, he took the opportunity to once again downplay the radical Islamic extremist group ISIS, by claiming that Christians also did bad things in the name of Christ.

Here's my problem with his statement: he said ISIS is doing evil in the name of "RELIGION." Not in the name of Islam or Mohammed...in the name of religion. But then turns around and says crusades done in the name of Christ.

What a pathetic, wimpy, spineless president. he still refuses to call ISIS what it is: Islamic terrorists who act in the name of Islam and in the name of Mohammed.

Sad when the King of Jordan shows more courage than the American President.

Yep, nothing like turning back the calendar hundreds of years to try and prove we have no moral high ground. And the other day he said ISIS is acting on some type of ideology they believe in (rather than a specifc religion of course).

[Jermyn Davidson]

the catholic / isis comparison is not that far off base.

wrong is wrong no matter who does it.

but the fact that he refused to name islam but specifically named Christ is interesting-- I am guessing he did that because of his audience as if to make a specific point with them.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

the catholic / isis comparison is not that far off base.

wrong is wrong no matter who does it.

but the fact that he refused to name islam but specifically named Christ is interesting-- I am guessing he did that because of his audience as if to make a specific point with them.

Point being he's too scared to confront ISIS for what it is: Islamic Terrorists who act in the name of Islam and in the name of Mohammed.

[Praxeas]

the catholic / isis comparison is not that far off base.

wrong is wrong no matter who does it.

but the fact that he refused to name islam but specifically named Christ is interesting-- I am guessing he did that because of his audience as if to make a specific point with them.

Originally Posted by n david

Point being he's too scared to confront ISIS for what it is: Islamic Terrorists who act in the name of Islam and in the name of Mohammed.

Oh but those were not REAL Catholics just as ISIS are not real Muslims.....

When will people step into the 21 century?

[Jito463]

The Crusades could never be condoned. What was done in that period was reprehensible. However, what many people fail to remember, is that what sparked the crusades was Muslims attacking "Christian" settlements and killing those who would not convert. In other words, not much different from today.

And I agree about Obambi. He's a spineless wimp of a coward who bows down at the first sign of a fascist, oppressive regime; yet calls out conservatives as if we're the enemy. I suppose he thinks he's safe, since we're not going around killing people who don't believe like we do.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by n david

obama's a fool. But most of us already knew that. At the prayer breakfast, he took the opportunity to once again downplay the radical Islamic extremist group ISIS, by claiming that Christians also did bad things in the name of Christ.

Here's my problem with his statement: he said ISIS is doing evil in the name of "RELIGION." Not in the name of Islam or Mohammed...in the name of religion. But then turns around and says crusades done in the name of Christ.

What a pathetic, wimpy, spineless president. he still refuses to call ISIS what it is: Islamic terrorists who act in the name of Islam and in the name of Mohammed.

Sad when the King of Jordan shows more courage than the American President.

Notice that O said ISIL, not ISIS. There is a difference. ISIL (Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant) has plans to recapture the ancient land of Mesopotamia, which includes Israel. ISIS mainly covers Syria and Iraq.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Jito463

The Crusades could never be condoned. What was done in that period was reprehensible. However, what many people fail to remember, is that what sparked the crusades was Muslims attacking "Christian" settlements and killing those who would not convert. In other words, not much different from today.

And I agree about Obambi. He's a spineless wimp of a coward who bows down at the first sign of a fascist, oppressive regime; yet calls out conservatives as if we're the enemy. I suppose he thinks he's safe, since we're not going around killing people who don't believe like we do.

How did the Crusades begin? The Islamic Arabs conquered the area around the eastern shore of the Mediterranean Sea in the 600's AD. Jerusalem and other places remained under Arab rule until the 1000s. During the 1000s the Seljuk Turks, who were very fierce, swept into Turkestan in Asia, took all of Asia Minor (which is now Turkey) from the Byzantine Empire. They occupied Arab Syria, which included the Holy Land. The Turks captured Jerusalem in 1071. They then begin to interfere with Christian pilgrims who tried to visit the holy places.

In 1090's, Alexious Commnenus, the Byzantine emperor, asked Pope Urban II for help in fighting the Turks.

I wish I could find Ferd's post on this topic. It was great!

[Pressing-On]

Speaking of Catholics. I really liked what I read by Kathryn Lopez.

Obama's Religious Hypocrisy

But President Obama's most controversial comments at the prayer breakfast weren't his most alarming. During that same speech, he said: "No grievance justifies the taking of innocent lives, or the oppression of those who are weaker or fewer in number." As the president said this and directed those listening to "Put on love," I couldn't help but hear the echoes of Mother Teresa's speech at a 1994 prayer breakfast: "Any country that accepts abortion is not teaching its people to love, but to use any violence to get what they want. This is why the greatest destroyer of love and peace is abortion."

This is why we can't see clearly. Our national conscience is too clouded, too complicit, too bogged down by false claims of love and choice and freedom.

http://townhall.com/columnists/kathr...&newsletterad=

[good samaritan]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

How did the Crusades begin? The Islamic Arabs conquered the area around the eastern shore of the Mediterranean Sea in the 600's AD. Jerusalem and other places remained under Arab rule until the 1000s. During the 1000s the Seljuk Turks, who were very fierce, swept into Turkestan in Asia, took all of Asia Minor (which is now Turkey) from the Byzantine Empire. They occupied Arab Syria, which included the Holy Land. The Turks captured Jerusalem in 1071. They then begin to interfere with Christian pilgrims who tried to visit the holy places.

In 1090's, Alexious Commnenus, the Byzantine emperor, asked Pope Urban II for help in fighting the Turks.

I wish I could find Ferd's post on this topic. It was great!

Originally Posted by Ferd View Post
Thank you for bringing up these points. They are very good points of references to juxtapose Christianity and islam.

1. Christians who kill abortion doctors.
We agree that
A. it has happened.
now do we also agree that
A. Christian Ministers roundly reject this, speak open and often that it is NOT representative of Christianity to kill people we do not agree with
B. Understand that the actual number of murdering terrorists who actually kill abortion drs can be listed on a single hand over the last 10 years? that the number for all of the modern era is less than what? 100?

2. Catholic/Protestant Wars in Ireland.
That my friend is a mis-representation of the history of Ireland.

It is in fact lazy to boil that down to a religious war.


The strife that STILL exists in Ireland... and that has at times blown up into actual war and terrorism is NOT religiously motivated.

Here is the very brief history. back in the 1200s Henry II invaded Ireland. This led to his taking land from the Irish and giving it to his Norman/French followers. over the centuries, English Kings dominated the Irish and they hated them for it. in the 1500s the English Monarch split with the catholic church, but the Irish maintained close ties to the Catholic church. In the wars that followed with Ireland, the Irish sought to gain their independence from the English Crown. The Crown won the wars and took land from the Irish and gave it to their followers. These followers were protestant. then came more wars.

The Irish fought the English invaders year by year, decade by decade, century by century. They fought not because one side was Protestant and they were catholic. They fought because they had been invaded by the English who were taking their land, raping their women and starving their kids.

It just so happened that the Irish were catholic and the invaders became Protestant. the war was and is over English invasions for 800 years.

3. There were the crusades. This is a well-used argument. Crusades.... So let’s review what the crusades were.
first, the lands around Jerusalem were Christian lands. controlled by the Byzantine Emperor. Then Muhammad rose to power and over a number of years, the Arabs gained control of a lot of land... including Jerusalem. BUT that wasn’t the end of their invasions. from the 600s to the 1000s Muslims expanded into Christian held lands. They took large portions of the Byzantine lands, they took portions of Italy. They took portions of southern france. They took complete control of North Africa, extinguishing entire Christian nations…it was these Islamic invasions over a 400 year period that ended Aryanism. They took almost all of what we now call Spain.

So over that period, the Christian nations fought for their survival against an enemy with a very different culture which was vastly different from the mideval wars within the Christian nations that raged at the same time. This was seen as a cultural war by both sides. Beyond that the Muslims saw themselves as the “sword of allah” and the Christians saw themselves as “defenders of the faith”. BOTH SIDES saw the invading muslims as the agressors and the Christians as the defenders….

THEN at the same time the Vikings began their invasions from the north. Christian Europe became an armed camp every man capable of fighting was in an army marching around the countryside figting off invader after invader. The Vikings could not simply be defeated, because more came and none were controled by any one king. They were just marauders. So in the end, the church just went there and CONVERTED THEM thus ending the Viking invasions. BUT that left Christian Europe with a serious problem. They had HUGE armies full of men who had no trade other than fighting…. And most of those they had been fighting were no longer invading.

THIS was the political and social pressure that led the church to point toward turning from being defensive to being the agressors where the muslims were concerned. Enter the Crusades. 400 years of pent up frustration, cultural pressure, and massive armies that were going to undo their own societies combined to form a perfect storm that brought about the Crusades. MOST of it was just socio-economic-political realities clothed in the religious language of the age.


BUT beyond that, it can be argued that John Hunyadi who died in 1456 of the plague was The Last Crusader…Certainly by the year 1500, there was no one left alive who could legitamatly wear the Crusaders Cross. We have lived for 514 years, without a single Christian Crusader walking to and fro upon the earth…YESTERDAY AT THE VERY LEAST 10,000 FUTURE JIHADIES WERE BORN…



Finally, you suggest that the point of your points are that there are Christians that don’t act like me. That is true. The vast majority of people who call themselves Christians don’t act like me. I believe baptism in Jesus Name is required for salvation. I do not own a single piece of jewlery. In fact, I have never owned a wedding ring. ive been married 19 years. I do not ever go out in public wearing shorts. Period. I never drink. I think it is a sin. Those things alone, separate me from the vast majority of people who call themselves Christians. I don’t any issue with what others do.

BUT the numbers of people who call themselves Christian, have NEVER ONCE tried to kill someone for the cause of Christianity. The statistical reality is the number of such is so close to zero as to be statistically inseperable from zero.
TODAY more than one Muslim will attempt to and likely succeed in killing someone (liklely a fellow muslim) because they believe their victim doesn’t believe in islam in the right way. These people number in the millions. Hundreds of millions more muslims while not activly killing people, believe such is utterly reasonable.

Is this it?