Obama Says Christians Bad Too

[madbean]

* I really like Jonah
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl ... 25517.html

Me and Jonah used to be buds before he went on TV and got famous. Not really, but long ago I sometimes sent emails in response to his columns and he would surprisingly answer me and even engage in some back and forth. Unfortunately, as I got more libertarian he became a more hardened neocon so I can't stand to to read him too much nowadays even though he makes a lot of good points.

"It’s also insipidly hypocritical. President Obama can’t bring himself to call the Islamic State “Islamic,”? but he’s happy to offer a sermon about Christianity’s alleged crimes at the beginning of the last millennium."


Sorry, but I can hardly read that speech and call it a "sermon about Christianity's alleged crimes". As Moda would say, sounds like Jonah building a straw man to me. I do think what Obama said was clumsy and he could have made his point in a less offensive way to Christians but that doesn't seem to be among his gifts.

[moda0306]

I contend that, upon reading the full text of the remark, most voters (let's say 70-75%) will not see anything insulting or America-blaming or whatever else people are upset about here.  Most of the 70-75% are D- voters, but some are people like madbean.

I choose not to get into specifics as it would divert the thread, but my "take-aways" from reading the text of his speech was:

1. Obama is a hypocrit.

Totally.  He's a politician.  Putting on a false show and double-standards is part of the job.  There are very few political speeches I listen to where I don't walk away thinking, "This guy is quite a hypocrite."  Unfortunately (if I'm being honest), a good chunk of Christian (and Muslim) religious leaders get that same reaction from me.  This isn't to say hypocrisy is the worst of all human traits.  I think most of us carry far more of it in us than we realize.

2. Obama is probably not a Christian as he misquoted Scripture and did not understand some Biblical texts as evidenced by his "faulty" understanding of some passages.  If he were a Christian, he would not purposefully lie or mislead, or would at least proofread a speech if prepared by others and being given at a prayer breakfast.

Could you provide some of those (unless you have)?  Not saying you're not correct... I just have no basis with which to judge someone's interpretation of Scripture.  If this is too much of a rabbit-hole, we can skip it.

But let's be honest here.  Obama is PROBABLY an atheist/agnostic.  He went to church for political purposes.  I think most politicians are probably, deep down, agnostics of some sort.  But Obama is far more likely to be, IMO.  I didn't need to hear him mis-interpret Scripture to think that.

3. Obama does not have an understanding of history and who did what to whom and why they did that.

Please elaborate.

4. Obama seems, once again, to have rather obvious narcissistic tendencies.

President.  Politician.  Duh.

5. All in all, was just more bloviating by Obama with an apparent desire to turn a theme of prayer into political theater.

I thought his speech was a LOT more tolerable and encouraging (even if it was complete hypocrisy coming from his mouth) than the typical "prayers" I've heard in church.  But that's just me.

So, to this sometimes R, sometimes D, sometimes L voter - he sure did nothing to convince me of his character, moral substance, vision for a more peaceful future, or of his love of the United States.  No surprises, just more of the same, and certainly not someone I would want to follow into battle, or for that matter, anywhere else.

... Mountaineer

[Pointedstick]

Getting offended by politicians' remarks is a fool's game. Politicians are offensive. Pretty much everything they say is a falsehood, and exaggeration, a distortion, an over-emphasized detail, etc. None of it is worth paying any attention to if one's goal is to be more informed.

The truth of this statement is so close to universal that paying attention to what any of them at all say for anything other than pure ironic entertainment value cannot be anything but an exercise in frustration.

[moda0306]

* I really like Jonah
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl ... 25517.html

Me and Jonah used to be buds before he went on TV and got famous. Not really, but long ago I sometimes sent emails in response to his columns and he would surprisingly answer me and even engage in some back and forth. Unfortunately, as I got more libertarian he became a more hardened neocon so I can't stand to to read him too much nowadays even though he makes a lot of good points.

"It’s also insipidly hypocritical. President Obama can’t bring himself to call the Islamic State “Islamic,”? but he’s happy to offer a sermon about Christianity’s alleged crimes at the beginning of the last millennium."


Sorry, but I can hardly read that speech and call it a "sermon about Christianity's alleged crimes". As Moda would say, sounds like Jonah building a straw man to me. I do think what Obama said was clumsy and he could have made his point in a less offensive way to Christians but that doesn't seem to be among his gifts.

He didn't say it was "Christianity's" crimes.  He said it was "in the name of Christ."  At least as far as I could tell reviewing the speech text.

Now I think it's semantics to try to figure out whether Christian & Muslim extremists are "real Christians" or "real Muslims," but he's at least applying his principle consistently.  Committing acts of terror "in the name of Christ/Allah," is not the same as "being Christian" or "being Muslim," to Obama (or, if you prefer, to his preferred narrative, which he doesn't really believe because he's a fraud).

He wasn't talking about "Christianity's alleged crimes" in this speech.  He was talking about VARIOUS extremists who commit terror "in the name of (insert their God here)," and he had very, very clear, unequivocal, brutal language to describe those acts (even if you think it was all bullshit that he doesn't really believe, the message was clear).

[moda0306]

Ummm... You guys realize that you're in the ~30% who *are* offended by the remarks, right?

Who cares if I was in the 1%? 

Because the rope-a-dope is not intended to work on *you*.  So citing others who agree with you is not relevant to my hypothesis.

This all is a great point, Tenn.  I didn't really think of it this way, but it is becoming ABUNDANTLY easy to to get the most conservative 25% of this country to make conservativism look bat-$hit crazy by putting out something juuuuust offensive enough, allowing said conservatives to "please proceed," and letting the rest of the country watch, including a bunch of middle-of-the-road "voters" who'd rather not get in a line on a Tuesday November night if they don't have to.


However, even the smartest scheming liberals couldn't have predicted (IMO) the "outrage" from Obama not going to the French peace march.  THAT was a surprise, even to me.

[moda0306]

Ummm... You guys realize that you're in the ~30% who *are* offended by the remarks, right?

Who cares if I was in the 1%? 

You were saying that given the context, that his comments were not so bad and wondering about "rope a dope" and I pointed out the real context.  You can't argue with the real context, so you point out how popular or unpopular my views are which is irrelevant to my point.

It's a separate issue/debate.

On one hand, you have the "classiness" of the comments.  One could say popularity is or is not a factor here.  I'd say it has some weight, but I'm not one to rest my feelings on a matter with public opinion.  But if you think his speech IS offensive to Christians, one would think at the very least, you'd find a majority of Christians agreeing that it was offensive.

The other issue is that of how easy it is to get the right wing of this country riled up over nothing, and the potential political tool that could be used as.  Pointing out that it's not just feminists that are "over-sensitive to comments" will help liberals with the independent/middle voting block immensely, even if it just keeps them at home instead of voting for Jeb Bush.

[madbean]

However, the problem is, the God of the Old Testament, IMO, was something of a terrorist/murderer himself... and to the degree that Christians believe the entire Bible is the 100% true Word of God (some don't), they are advocating following a book that has much of the same gory brutality as the Koran does.

I agree with what you say about the angry God of the Old Testament but isn't interesting that Jews, who reject the New Testament, have, for the most part, moved beyond that primitive view? It would make you think that there is still hope for Islam but as long as they revere and imitate Mohammed, I just can't see it happening.

[moda0306]

Getting offended by politicians' remarks is a fool's game. Politicians are offensive. Pretty much everything they say is a falsehood, and exaggeration, a distortion, an over-emphasized detail, etc. None of it is worth paying any attention to if one's goal is to be more informed.

The truth of this statement is so close to universal that paying attention to what any of them at all say for anything other than pure ironic entertainment value cannot be anything but an exercise in frustration.

This.

I'm amazed I'm even still motivated to participate in these discussions... like I'm defending Obama or something.  I guess I just want to make sure I'm not going crazy, and that these comments about Christianity in the overall context of the speech are absolutely nothing to get worked up over.

I'm far more bothered by all his commentary in the SotU about further meddling in our labor markets, complicating taxes further, and giving people more of a reason to crap out kids before they can afford it.

"People have done bad things in the name of Christ, too," within an overall speech obviously condemning ISIS & terror as evil isn't even on my f*kin radar. 

[Pointedstick]

It's like… who gives a shit what the president says? He's just a big clown with his finger on the unusable nuclear button. There is basically no reason to pay attention to anything that comes out of his mouth. For all the stuff that various presidents have said and done that I have and haven't liked, none of them have come close to having 1/100th of the impact on my own personal life that my own decisions about how to spend my time have.

[moda0306]

However, the problem is, the God of the Old Testament, IMO, was something of a terrorist/murderer himself... and to the degree that Christians believe the entire Bible is the 100% true Word of God (some don't), they are advocating following a book that has much of the same gory brutality as the Koran does.

I agree with what you say about the angry God of the Old Testament but isn't interesting that Jews, who reject the New Testament, have, for the most part, moved beyond that primitive view? It would make you think that there is still hope for Islam but as long as they revere and imitate Mohammed, I just can't see it happening.

Yes!  If I put my "tribalist" hat on, I have a lot of respect for the Jewish community.

They have some cultural/traditional traits I find a bit much at times, but holy $hit if I held that against people I'd hate everyone.  Overall, they're compassionate, productive, responsible, funny, fun people, from what I've experienced personally.

I hope that doesn't offend anyone, for any reason.... just kind of shooting from the hip, here.

It is odd to me that their book is one brutal SoB, yet I find them to be more consistently Christ-like than Christians (perhaps it's my exposure to Christian conservatives, and the popularity of Socialism within the Israeli & Jewish community (yes, I'm sort of calling Jesus a Socialist)).

This is why I put no real weight on these remarks about how brutal the Koran is.  I mean, yeah it is, but I'm not going to listen to Jews and Christians tell me that it proves that theirs is a B-S religion without smirking a bit.  I have to listen to a Christian tell me that me and people FAR better than I am are going to hell in one breath (you know... ETERNAL F*CKING HELLFIRE), and that "Islam, by its very nature, is oppressive and brutal" because of the Koran in the next.  I'll take dying in a terrorist attack over eternal damnation, any day.  Talk about "oppressive."  Sh!t.

It's all a show with no decent analysis.  It's like watching the WWE.

[moda0306]

It's like… who gives a shit what the president says? He's just a big clown with his finger on the unusable nuclear button. There is basically no reason to pay attention to anything that comes out of his mouth. For all the stuff that various presidents have said and done that I have and haven't liked, none of them have come close to having 1/100th of the impact on my own personal life that my own decisions about how to spend my time have.

Hey HB,

We're busy debating inconsequential bullsh!t that has no affect on our lives and we can't control.  Take your sledge-hammer of wisdom elsewhere!! 

JK.  I agree.  Back to work.

[Jan Van]

It would make you think that there is still hope for Islam but as long as they revere and imitate Mohammed, I just can't see it happening.

I can. But I figure they are trailing about 600 years behind Christians. So give it a little time...

[clacy]

My little kids always try the moral equivalency game when one of them gets in trouble.  If I get onto kid #1, he will ways say "But (kid #2) did something bad too".

[Mountaineer]

Ummm... You guys (M'neer, Benko, etc.) realize that you're in the ~30% who *are* offended by the remarks, right?

You may think so, that is your perogative.  However, from my point of view, I'd say I'm in a very small minority, much less than 30%, that almost never gets offended by anything - I just try to call a thing what it is and deal with it in my circle of influence, not my circle of concern.  I have come to realize that all (almost all?) humans are subject to bouts of really disappointing behavior so I tend to expect it rather than be offended by it.  I guess I would like to think I'm a pretty self-confident guy who let's people see things as they wish - I only try to point out truth - it is up to others to decide if I'm proclaiming truth or BS.  I'm also arrogant enough to say "this is what I think and this is why I think that, ignore or accept at your own peril". 

... Mountaineer

[moda0306]

Ummm... You guys (M'neer, Benko, etc.) realize that you're in the ~30% who *are* offended by the remarks, right?

You may think so, that is your perogative.  However, from my point of view, I'd say I'm in a very small minority, much less than 30%, that almost never gets offended by anything - I just try to call a thing what it is and deal with it in my circle of influence, not my circle of concern.  I have come to realize that all (almost all?) humans are subject to bouts of really disappointing behavior so I tend to expect it rather than be offended by it.  I guess I would like to think I'm a pretty self-confident guy who let's people see things as they wish - I only try to point out truth - it is up to others to decide if I'm proclaiming truth or BS.  I'm also arrogant enough to say "this is what I think and this is why I think that, ignore or accept at your own peril".  

... Mountaineer

What is this... 1,006?

Obviously, we disagree on a lot, and probably have certain judgments about what is likely coloring the other person's view of reality, but I really respect that attitude.

The first bolded statement is pretty much the best way to describe an attitude that I've been trying to describe in far more words with much less effect in communicating.  Thanks for simplifying that thought.  Perfect wording.

The second bolded statement also really, really colors how I feel about myself and a trait I value in others.  Sometimes I want to tell people, "at least be arrogant enough to stand behind how you feel about something and why you feel that way!"  We can work on things from there, but without it, all you have is lies and/or material omissions.  That may not be arrogant, but it's passive-aggressive and selfish.

[Mountaineer]

Ummm... You guys (M'neer, Benko, etc.) realize that you're in the ~30% who *are* offended by the remarks, right?

You may think so, that is your perogative.  However, from my point of view, I'd say I'm in a very small minority, much less than 30%, that almost never gets offended by anything - I just try to call a thing what it is and deal with it in my circle of influence, not my circle of concern.  I have come to realize that all (almost all?) humans are subject to bouts of really disappointing behavior so I tend to expect it rather than be offended by it.  I guess I would like to think I'm a pretty self-confident guy who let's people see things as they wish - I only try to point out truth - it is up to others to decide if I'm proclaiming truth or BS.  I'm also arrogant enough to say "this is what I think and this is why I think that, ignore or accept at your own peril".  

... Mountaineer

What is this... 1,006?

Obviously, we disagree on a lot, and probably have certain judgments about what is likely coloring the other person's view of reality, but I really respect that attitude.

The first bolded statement is pretty much the best way to describe an attitude that I've been trying to describe in far more words with much less effect in communicating.  Thanks for simplifying that thought.  Perfect wording.

The second bolded statement also really, really colors how I feel about myself and a trait I value in others.  Sometimes I want to tell people, "at least be arrogant enough to stand behind how you feel about something and why you feel that way!"  We can work on things from there, but without it, all you have is lies and/or material omissions.  That may not be arrogant, but it's passive-aggressive and selfish.

Holy horse hockey!  You are welcome.  Illegitimi non carborundum. 

... Mountaineer

[MachineGhost]

Remarks by the President at National Prayer Breakfast

I got bored of the asskissing about 40% of the way through.  Can someone paste the relevant quotes?

[MachineGhost]

On Wednesday, the United Nations issued a report detailing various “mass executions of boys, as well as reports of beheadings, crucifixions of children, and burying children alive”? at the hands of the Islamic State.

Woah!  Is there any independent verification of these claims?

[MachineGhost]

And on Thursday, President Obama seized the opportunity of the National Prayer Breakfast to forthrightly criticize the “terrible deeds”? . . . committed “in the name of Christ.”?

If that's what he said, thats in pretty bad taste to be doing that at a National Prayer Breakfast full of religious mystics.

[Pointedstick]

Remarks by the President at National Prayer Breakfast

I got bored of the asskissing about 40% of the way through.  Can someone paste the relevant quotes?

There aren't any. Just a bunch of meaningless bla bla bla at a totally pointless fluff event for which taxpayers were undoubtedly billed hundreds of thousands of dollars.

[MachineGhost]

However, the problem is, the God of the Old Testament, IMO, was something of a terrorist/murderer himself... and to the degree that Christians believe the entire Bible is the 100% true Word of God (some don't), they are advocating following a book that has much of the same gory brutality as the Koran does.

I think you'd have a much better argument with that by claiming the Jews are.  Even Muslims include the Old Testament as part of their canonical mythology.

[dualstow]

However, the problem is, the God of the Old Testament, IMO, was something of a terrorist/murderer himself... and to the degree that Christians believe the entire Bible is the 100% true Word of God (some don't), they are advocating following a book that has much of the same gory brutality as the Koran does.

I think you'd have a much better argument with that by claiming the Jews are.  Even Muslims include the Old Testament as part of their canonical mythology.

Most so-called Jews and Christians have moved on, and believe in Leviticus about as much as the average Greek believes in Zeus or Norwegian in Loki. Not that there's something wrong with being a true believer, and I understand that believers might counter that "those are not real Jews/Christians", but that's the way it is.

[MachineGhost]

Most so-called Jews and Christians have moved on, and believe in Leviticus about as much as the average Greek believes in Zeus or Norwegian in Loki. Not that there's something wrong with being a true believer, and I understand that believers might counter that "those are not real Jews/Christians", but that's the way it is.

Secularism is assimilating and resistance is futile?

[Reub]

Bobby Jindal addressed Obama’s remarks at the Prayer Breakfast. According to National Review Online, Jindal said:

“It was nice of the President to give us a history lesson at the Prayer breakfast,”? Jindal said. “Today, however, the issue right in front of his nose, in the here and now, is the terrorism of Radical Islam, the assassination of journalists, the beheading and burning alive of captives.

We will be happy to keep an eye out for runaway Christians, but it would be nice if he would face the reality of the situation today. The Medieval Christian threat is under control, Mr. President. Please deal with the Radical Islamic threat today.”?

Jindal moved up on my list with his great response to the "Christian threat".

[fnord123]

After reading the original remarks (thanks TennPaGa) I have to say that the "rope a dope" theory seems pretty good. Jindal seems to be reacting exactly as Obama would hope - saying things that will please the conservative wing of the party, but won't help him in the general.

I don't like Obama, never voted for him, and think he is a weasel politician.  But I have to admit he is a good campaigner.