From today's National Prayer Breakfast:
But Mr. Obama said Christians shouldn't claim any historical high ground about religious-inspired violence, and said the U.S. has not been immune from such examples.
"Unless we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place, remember during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ," Mr. Obama said. "In our home country, slavery and Jim Crow all too often was justified in the name of Christ. It is not unique to one group or one religion. There is a tendency in us, a sinful tendency, that can pervert and distort our faith."
Catholic League President Bill Donohue said Mr. Obama should apologize for "an attempt to deflect guilt from Muslim madmen." He said the president's comparisons to the Crusades and the Inquisition were "insulting" to Christians.
"Obama's ignorance is astounding, and his comparison is pernicious," Mr. Donohue said. "The Crusades were a defensive Christian reaction against Muslim madmen of the Middle Ages."
Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/feb/5/obama-people-faith-must-confront-insults-religion/#ixzz3QtnF0l4R (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/feb/5/obama-people-faith-must-confront-insults-religion/#ixzz3QtnF0l4R)
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
Man we're 21-4 what does he have against us? Does he not like our strength of schedule?
Is it 2016 yet?
"We are hard-pressed to find anything in these disastrous waves of fighting that our Lord might have approved, despite the fact that the conflict was ostensibly carried out in his name."
Wheaton College President Duane Litfin on why Wheaton College dropped the Crusader nickname
Oh if 2008 Rick was still here, he'd have scads of newspaper stories about this attached to the thread, and be begging liberals to defend what they can't talk about. Those from previous incarnations of this forum remember how many posts he would have in favor of the Republican party, and would never discuss them, just demand that we either counter with liberal talking points that would shut him up, or agree with his side of the story.
One side will martyr itself and think nothing of murder in the name of its cause.
The other side has a respect for human life a hesitance to kill civilians, and wants to put prisoners of war on civilian trial.
Who do you think wins?
I don't care what side of the aisle you'd sit on...surely we can agree that it's embarrassing to have a president who's a complete failure at knowing/understanding world history.
Shouldn't the President of the United States of America have bigger fish to fry than calling out athletic programs that use a mascot that might of had a violent past. A Crusader is basically a European warrior from a thousand years ago. So by saying that athletic programs should be ashamed of themselves for identifying them selves with a Crusader or other like mascot is ridiculous.
If Obama doesn't want Crusaders then basically every other war/warrior mascot should have been brought up.
In the HL then... Cleveland State shouldn't be the Vikings because Vikings weren't nice people who pillaged and ravaged communities throughout Scandinavian Europe. The Raiders shouldn't be the Raiders because they are like a Viking and pillage and ravage towns for fun... which also isn't nice.
To me the President should spend his time figuring out solutions to legitimate problems in the United States... Like the gang violence in our cities, the children who go hungry every night. There is a reason why America isn't the power it once was, is it all Obama's fault? No. But maybe if our politicians focused on the real problems we might actually start making some headway as a country once again.
Quote from: classof2014 on February 06, 2015, 09:03:33 AM
Shouldn't the President of the United States of America have bigger fish to fry than calling out athletic programs that use a mascot that might of had a violent past. A Crusader is basically a European warrior from a thousand years ago. So by saying that athletic programs should be ashamed of themselves for identifying them selves with a Crusader or other like mascot is ridiculous.
If Obama doesn't want Crusaders then basically every other war/warrior mascot should have been brought up.
He was talking about the crusades, not mascots.
Quote from: a3uge on February 06, 2015, 09:36:07 AM
Quote from: classof2014 on February 06, 2015, 09:03:33 AM
Shouldn't the President of the United States of America have bigger fish to fry than calling out athletic programs that use a mascot that might of had a violent past. A Crusader is basically a European warrior from a thousand years ago. So by saying that athletic programs should be ashamed of themselves for identifying them selves with a Crusader or other like mascot is ridiculous.
If Obama doesn't want Crusaders then basically every other war/warrior mascot should have been brought up.
He was talking about the crusades, not mascots.
I know that but he basically stated that Christians should be ashamed of the Crusades, I know it wasn't about mascots. It was about the historical event of the Crusades. In a way it was about Valparaiso University affiliating themselves with Crusaders. If Obama is saying that Christians shouldn't be proud of the Crusaders; then Scandinavians shouldn't affiliate themselves with the Vikings, etc...
It wasn't directed at universities but the American public, which does include Valparaiso University.
Quote from: classof2014 on February 06, 2015, 09:55:28 AM
Quote from: a3uge on February 06, 2015, 09:36:07 AM
Quote from: classof2014 on February 06, 2015, 09:03:33 AM
Shouldn't the President of the United States of America have bigger fish to fry than calling out athletic programs that use a mascot that might of had a violent past. A Crusader is basically a European warrior from a thousand years ago. So by saying that athletic programs should be ashamed of themselves for identifying them selves with a Crusader or other like mascot is ridiculous.
If Obama doesn't want Crusaders then basically every other war/warrior mascot should have been brought up.
He was talking about the crusades, not mascots.
I know that but he basically stated that Christians should be ashamed of the Crusades, I know it wasn't about mascots. It was about the historical event of the Crusades. In a way it was about Valparaiso University affiliating themselves with Crusaders. If Obama is saying that Christians shouldn't be proud of the Crusaders; then Scandinavians shouldn't affiliate themselves with the Vikings, etc...
It wasn't directed at universities but the American public, which does include Valparaiso University.
This is true. Never thought the Crusaders was an offensive name, however, from the beginning Ive despised the old Disney logo since I first saw it.
Quote from: classof2014 on February 06, 2015, 09:55:28 AM
Quote from: a3uge on February 06, 2015, 09:36:07 AM
Quote from: classof2014 on February 06, 2015, 09:03:33 AM
Shouldn't the President of the United States of America have bigger fish to fry than calling out athletic programs that use a mascot that might of had a violent past. A Crusader is basically a European warrior from a thousand years ago. So by saying that athletic programs should be ashamed of themselves for identifying them selves with a Crusader or other like mascot is ridiculous.
If Obama doesn't want Crusaders then basically every other war/warrior mascot should have been brought up.
He was talking about the crusades, not mascots.
I know that but he basically stated that Christians should be ashamed of the Crusades, I know it wasn't about mascots. It was about the historical event of the Crusades. In a way it was about Valparaiso University affiliating themselves with Crusaders. If Obama is saying that Christians shouldn't be proud of the Crusaders; then Scandinavians shouldn't affiliate themselves with the Vikings, etc...
It wasn't directed at universities but the American public, which does include Valparaiso University.
It was actually more about Christians trying to claim morale high ground because their religion doesn't commit acts of terrorism and only Muslims are guilty of such extreme violence. He picked a bad example, but he could have pulled out countless other examples (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism).
No religion is without their nutbars and I think that's what he was trying to say. We shouldn't classify them by their religion as that only adds fuel to their fire. Call them terrorists and if they are from the same country where the act was perpetrated then call them domestic terrorists and if they are from another country call them foreign terrorists. If their group has a name call the the
_Group Name_ Terrorists. We'll never get to that point because we'll have people on Faux News saying there are Islamic no-go zones in London and Paris and then we'll have people who go to townhall meetings regurgitate those "facts" to elected officials asking them how we can prevent that from happening in their home towns.
Quote from: wh on February 05, 2015, 01:08:45 PMCatholic League President Bill Donohue said Mr. Obama should apologize f
Keep in mind that Bill Donohue also criticized President Bush for Christmas cards that said "Happy Holidays", stated that the Charlie Hedbo editors played a role in their own massacre, believes that marriage is about "having a family" and not about love or happiness, and that the stories about pedophile priests was a campaign to discredit the Vatican's authority.
Quote from: Kyle321n on February 06, 2015, 10:15:12 AMIt was actually more about Christians trying to claim morale high ground because their religion doesn't commit acts of terrorism and only Muslims are guilty of such extreme violence. He picked a bad example, but he could have pulled out countless other examples.
This is embarrassing historical equivalence from you. Even the president of the US had to stretch back several centuries to try to find a parallel--a completely wrong one, but at least he was trying.
You, who would never say anything as stupid as "Duke and P.S. 182 are basically the same because they are both schools and have basketball teams"...just said something functionally equivalent.
Anyone who thinks that you can paint all religions with a broad brush as equally "nut job" or "terrorist" is so wrongheaded as to be willfully ignorant.
...and then there's VU75 flaunting his own right there too. At least you're all not alone. I envy you the simple world you inhabit.
I have always had some ambivalence about the nickname Crusaders. I have worked with muslims and worked in muslim countries and, while I will speak highly of my alma mater, I avoid wearing anything that says "Crusaders" (whether I am here or abroad). If you look at various definitions online, the name Crusaders has a strong affiliation with those who fought in the name of christianity during the crusades, and from what I know some of those people did some terrible things. That said, I have never heard any muslim students or faculty at Valparaiso express any concern about the nickname, and they, along with potential students, would be the most important stakeholders when considering whether the nickname should change.
I think that it is safe to say that anyone that does terrible things in the name of whatever religion they follow is evil, regardless of whether they call themselves christian or muslim or whatever. I just worry that people don't recognize that the vast vast majority of christians, muslims, etc. are good people that seek the same worthy things in their lives. Perhaps this is what President Obama tries to convey, though the message seems to get confusing at times.
Dang, I had hoped that the Crusader mascot discussions were over! This has been going on since my first day on campus in 1999 (and probably before)! I heard about it then, and still hear about it now. It is a mascot, and is not a racist term of any sort. It's not like we are that California HS that used to have their mascot as the 'Arabs,' and had a mascot with a huge nose and large mustache. Our guy used to be Little Caesar in a suit of armor, and is now a faceless knight guy.
Quote from: LaPorteAveApostle on February 05, 2015, 09:43:01 PM
I don't care what side of the aisle you'd sit on...surely we can agree that it's embarrassing to have a president who's a complete failure at knowing/understanding world history.
I don't follow. You're agreeing with Donohue?
Quote from: classof2014 on February 06, 2015, 09:03:33 AMA Crusader is basically a European warrior from a thousand years ago. So by saying that athletic programs should be ashamed of themselves for identifying them selves with a Crusader or other like mascot is ridiculous.
We could be the Knights, right? A crusader's not the same thing.
Quote from: agibson on February 07, 2015, 02:38:40 PM
Quote from: LaPorteAveApostle on February 05, 2015, 09:43:01 PM
I don't care what side of the aisle you'd sit on...surely we can agree that it's embarrassing to have a president who's a complete failure at knowing/understanding world history.
I don't follow. You're agreeing with Donohue?
I'm agreeing with history. Only post-Saïd (and his ilk) did the Muslims stop bragging about their victories in the Crusades and start complaining about 'hegemonic colonialism' etc.
Obama was right on in his criticism of the Crusades. An article "The First Victims of the First Crusade" by Susan Jacoby recently appeared in the Sunday Times. The crusaders started off by killing Jews in Trier and Mainz in preparation for the invasion of The Holy Land. Over 700 Jews were slaughtered in Mainz alone. So you "cultural ignoramuses" need to read up on the First Crusades.----- Go Obama you got it right.
That might be the only thing on which Obama has been right.
For those of you not too old to fix your opinions:
http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2015/02/what-isis-really-wants/384980/ (http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2015/02/what-isis-really-wants/384980/)
And for those of you interested in the facts:
http://www.firstthings.com/article/2009/06/inventing-the-crusades (http://www.firstthings.com/article/2009/06/inventing-the-crusades)
And for those of you who grow tired of Obama criticizing everyone but the obvious (himself):
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/08/opinion/sunday/ross-douthat-obama-the-theologian.html?rref=collection/column/ross-douthat&_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/08/opinion/sunday/ross-douthat-obama-the-theologian.html?rref=collection/column/ross-douthat&_r=0)
Quote from: LaPorteAveApostle on February 17, 2015, 12:33:33 PM
And for those of you interested in the facts:
http://www.firstthings.com/article/2009/06/inventing-the-crusades (http://www.firstthings.com/article/2009/06/inventing-the-crusades)
And for those of you who grow tired of Obama criticizing everyone but the obvious (himself):
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/08/opinion/sunday/ross-douthat-obama-the-theologian.html?rref=collection/column/ross-douthat&_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/08/opinion/sunday/ross-douthat-obama-the-theologian.html?rref=collection/column/ross-douthat&_r=0)
That's a lot of great information. Thanks for posting it.
State Dept. Deputy Spokesperson Marie Harf was on MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews yesterday. She said that "we cannot win this war by killing them (ISIS). We cannot kill our way out of this war. We need in the medium to longer term to go after the root causes that leads people to join these groups, whether it's lack of opportunity for jobs...".
Lack of opportunity for jobs?! Are you kidding? Where did she get that - from a Social Problems 101 class about why kids in the inner city join gangs? Even Matthews (famous for saying he got a thrill up his leg watching Obama's inauguration) could hardly believe what he was hearing. The Obama "team" is so far in over their heads that to call them a JV team (like Obama called ISIS only a few months ago) would be an insult to JV teams everywhere. The 2016 elections can't get here fast enough. Like everyone else I'll have a favorite for our next President, but at this point I'll gladly settle for ANYONE from either party over Obama and his clueless ideologically driven minions.
The article from The Atlantic is very long--might be the longest article you read all year--but it is the single most helpful thing you can read in English to understand what ISIS is, and how it differs from al-Qaeda, et al.
You'll learn a lot about Islam too.
Quote from: setshot on February 17, 2015, 11:32:46 AM
Obama was right on in his criticism of the Crusades. An article "The First Victims of the First Crusade" by Susan Jacoby recently appeared in the Sunday Times. The crusaders started off by killing Jews in Trier and Mainz in preparation for the invasion of The Holy Land. Over 700 Jews were slaughtered in Mainz alone. So you "cultural ignoramuses" need to read up on the First Crusades.----- Go Obama you got it right.
Come on setshot... pretty weak effort. Then it seems that if anyone should be mad at the West about the crusades it should be Israel!
Atrocities on both sides, Christians and Muslim, but the only "cultural ignoramuses" are the ones viewing the crusades from only one side (or one culture) of the argument. Middle Eastern Christians have taken the brunt of the wars in both time frames and are still being martyred now, as was witnessed in the past few days. They have no voice and little culture left because, as Marie Harf will never comprehend, they have almost literally been slaughtered into extinction.
This along with many reasons is why I can't stand politics. Politicians try to make everyone happy and by doing so pisses about everyone off except for their wife and that nutjob that lives in Oregon.
http://www.crisismagazine.com/2011/the-real-history-of-the-crusades#at_pco=smlwn-1.0&at_si=54e4eaa8cdc45b03&at_ab=per-12&at_pos=0&at_tot=1 (http://www.crisismagazine.com/2011/the-real-history-of-the-crusades#at_pco=smlwn-1.0&at_si=54e4eaa8cdc45b03&at_ab=per-12&at_pos=0&at_tot=1)
Who cares!!
I have no idea who cares, but I think I know 1 person who doesn't... ;)
It's always been the stories of violent attempts to convert Muslims that has made it's impression on me, as alluded to in that story.
By the same token, I know well of Suleiman's attack on the Holy Roman Empire of the German nations which coincided with the Reformation, so I do recognize the provocation.
I do think it is fair to question whether or not this kind of thing *did* appeal to opportunistic popes. I think history records many acts of opportunism by popes back then.
I'm still waiting by the way for someone to explain to me how Obama equated the Crusades to ISIS. I think people are *inferring* this perhaps because it's what they want to hear. I took him as simply saying our slate is far from clean on this score.
In fairness, I don't necessarily ascribe pure motives to what Obama is saying, nor do I grant him the deep insight I'm referring to, and I can understand how people can get the impression that he is drawing a false equivalence. It would just be nice to hear an explicit quote where Obama did this, rather than making me feel like we're putting words in his mouth.
Quote from: StlVUFan on February 20, 2015, 07:23:01 PMI think history records many acts of opportunism by popes back then.
Indeed...they acted on the opportunity to preserve Christianity, not to mention Western civilization. Each and every time Christendom rallies to the Cross, it has been to defend itself, never to attack. This is the opposite of the history of Islamic aggression. But no big deal if you haven't read much on the topic...I doubt Protestants talk/ed much of Lepanto (and "Don John of Austria!" in the words of GK Chesterton), or Charles Martel ("The Hammer!"), or Los Reyes Católicos, etc., etc. Ask a Spaniard and they remember 700 years of occupation still today, though.
"If you can read this in not-Arabic, thank a pope."
The President warned us
Quotelest 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.
I would agree with the NYTimes' Ross Douthat as linked to above on the problems in that statement. If that's not an equivalence, what is it?
Oh, and an estimated six million Muslims convert to Christianity every year, so I doubt it's at the point of a sword.
You know that's not what I meant by opportunism. I was speaking of political and financial opportunism.
There are plenty of Christians converting to Islam, too, by the way.
I agree it would be a false equivalence, and I did say I understood how it could be taken that way, but it's still reading between the lines, which is usually not a 100% sure thing.
I question Obama's motivation for making the statement. From a purely political point of view, it's a risky one. It might be foolish.
I would still insist there's a kernel of truth in it, that's likely to be avoided by everyone.
Quote from: StlVUFan on February 20, 2015, 09:13:49 PM
You know that's not what I meant by opportunism. I was speaking of political and financial opportunism.
There are plenty of Christians converting to Islam, too, by the way.
I agree it would be a false equivalence, and I did say I understood how it could be taken that way, but it's still reading between the lines, which is usually not a 100% sure thing.
I question Obama's motivation for making the statement. From a purely political point of view, it's a risky one. It might be foolish.
I would still insist there's a kernel of truth in it, that's likely to be avoided by everyone.
Willingly, or with a knife at the throat?
The article LAA posted from the Atlantic is one of the best written and comprehensively researched articles that I have seen any periodical in a long time. Thank you very much for posting the link to it. I read it and subsequently had some good discussions with friends about it. I don't think it really changed my general opinions (any person or group that attacks or harms in the name of their religion, regardless of their religion, is inherently evil...and it is the person or group that is evil, not the religion), but it certainly offered a perspective of how these extremely evil people in ISIS/ISIL think. In terms of national policy, I am always concerned that politicians/governments are not considering how their foe thinks when developing strategy.
A few other thoughts from comments in this thread:
-I am very confident that this is the only college basketball fan forum that debates political and intellectual issues at this level (smile).
-There have been and will continue to be people converting from Christianity to Islam (and vice versa and to/from other religions) based their own decisions. ISIS/ISIL forcing people to do so is evil, and indeed forcing anyone is evil. But outside of that, a free society includes the freedom to choose what religion that you choose to follow.
-I am not as "anti-Obama" as some people on this site may be, but I do feel that he struggles as a leader with several things. One of his struggles is having a clear message. The "job opportunities" comment from one of his senior staff is such an example. The comment on its own sounds pretty stupid, especially when you consider how evil the leaders of ISIS/ISIL are. But put it in a different context. There are millions of people in horrible poverty with no education in the middle east and central asia. These people are desperate for anything to sustain themselves and their families and have no ability to read and critically think for themselves. There are immense vacuums in the lives of these people and organizations like ISIS/ISIL, Taliban, etc., as evil as they are, fill that vacuum when no other option does. Furthermore, these evil organizations psychologically exploit these people by convincing them that their poor lot in life is due to western culture - not themselves, their government, the evil organizations, etc.
Quote from: wh on February 20, 2015, 09:46:13 PM
Quote from: StlVUFan on February 20, 2015, 09:13:49 PM
You know that's not what I meant by opportunism. I was speaking of political and financial opportunism.
There are plenty of Christians converting to Islam, too, by the way.
I agree it would be a false equivalence, and I did say I understood how it could be taken that way, but it's still reading between the lines, which is usually not a 100% sure thing.
I question Obama's motivation for making the statement. From a purely political point of view, it's a risky one. It might be foolish.
I would still insist there's a kernel of truth in it, that's likely to be avoided by everyone.
Willingly, or with a knife at the throat?
Willingly, of course.
Quote from: vu84v2 on February 22, 2015, 01:36:54 PMThere are millions of people in horrible poverty with no education in the middle east and central asia. These people are desperate for anything to sustain themselves and their families and have no ability to read and critically think for themselves. There are immense vacuums in the lives of these people and organizations like ISIS/ISIL, Taliban, etc., as evil as they are, fill that vacuum when no other option does. Furthermore, these evil organizations psychologically exploit these people by convincing them that their poor lot in life is due to western culture - not themselves, their government, the evil organizations, etc.
All I've ever believed is that we should fess up to whatever our role is in helping to create such conditions in which recruitment to terrorism is a piece of cake. "Aiding and abetting" is the phrase that usually comes to mind for me.
Quote from: StlVUFan on February 24, 2015, 12:21:21 PMWillingly, of course.
How can anyone take someone seriously when they believe the traffic on Christians => Muslims is willingly, and and Muslims => Christians is knife-to-the-throat?
You've not just been divorced from reality, you've had it annulled.
LAA: No idea what you are intending to say. Who said muslims are being forced to be christians?
Quote from: vu84v2 on February 25, 2015, 08:20:37 AMWho said muslims are being forced to be christians?
STL says that the Christians converting to Islam are doing so "willingly" and that Muslims converting to Christians are doing so "with a knife at the throat".
That's ... ignorant, as mildly as I can put it. "Bass-ackwards", someone else might say.
The corpses ISIS is piling up speak to the truth.
Excluding the evil of ISIS/ISIL and how they force christians to convert to islam, there are (and always have been) people in the U.S. and other parts of the world that choose to convert to Islam. A free society must allow people to make their own choices regarding religion.
Just for the sake of clarity and to avoid being deceiving, allow me to start this post by disclosing that I am a Muslim. My hope is that this post will not be offensive to anyone. If it is, I apologize in advance.
As horrible as it sounds and as strongly as I oppose it and denounce it, I am not sure I understand the concept of changing religion with a knife to the throat. When someone is threatened, they can (and should) say whatever is needed to get them out of danger. That does not in anyway result in changing their religion. What's in their heart is really what matters, right?
On another note, it is important to note that so far, ISIS has killed around 10 Muslims for every Christian (apologies for having to use such horrific statistics). In other words, ISIS crimes shall not be portrayed as "the" Muslims killing "the" Christians. ISIS is a barbaric organization killing anyone who opposes them regardless of their faith.
Thank you :angel:
Quote from: LaPorteAveApostle on February 25, 2015, 08:41:25 AMand that Muslims converting to Christians are doing so "with a knife at the throat".
I believe you are reading too much into what StL said. I don't believe he said that.
I also agree with Valpofan. Lumping ISIS in with all muslims is just ridiculous. The idea that muslims are backing ISIS is absurd since they are the ones taking most of the abuse that ISIS is handing out. It was a Jordanian pilot being burned alive that sparked the corporal punishment of ISIS members being held in Jordan. Many Syrians and Iraqis have suffered greatly in ISIS controlled areas. Yes, ISIS propaganda is mostly centered on Christians but the ones under control of ISIS, who are mostly muslims, suffer the most from ISIS cruelty.
Valpofan - Thank you for the thoughtful insights.
Quote from: ValpoFan on February 25, 2015, 11:19:56 AM
Just for the sake of clarity and to avoid being deceiving, allow me to start this post by disclosing that I am a Muslim. My hope is that this post will not be offensive to anyone. If it is, I apologize in advance.
As horrible as it sounds and as strongly as I oppose it and denounce it, I am not sure I understand the concept of changing religion with a knife to the throat. When someone is threatened, they can (and should) say whatever is needed to get them out of danger. That does not in anyway result in changing their religion. What's in their heart is really what matters, right?
On another note, it is important to note that so far, ISIS has killed around 10 Muslims for every Christian (apologies for having to use such horrific statistics). In other words, ISIS crimes shall not be portrayed as "the" Muslims killing "the" Christians. ISIS is a barbaric organization killing anyone who opposes them regardless of their faith.
Thank you :angel:
That is incorrect. For a Christian to deny their faith in Jesus Christ in the face of death is a cowardly act. Matthew 10:32-33 of the New Testament of the Bible says, "Whoever acknowledges me before others, I will also acknowledge before my Father in heaven. But whoever disowns me before others, I will disown before my Father in heaven." The 21 Coptic Christians who were brutally beheaded at the hands of ISIS henchmen, as one example, are heroes who were martyred for their faith in Jesus Christ by evildoers of God's greatest enemy, Satan. Today, they are rejoicing in heaven and I am rejoicing for them.
As to ISIS killing more Muslims than Christians or Jews, this is only the beginning by their own admission. It's nothing more than an early plot point on a murderous, apocalyptic rampage. If they have their way, they will conquer the Middle East, adjacent areas of Africa, then Europe and the United States - and of course destroy Israel. This is in the opinion of many, myself included, the biggest danger to mankind since Hitler and Nazi Germany.
Quote from: LaPorteAveApostle on February 24, 2015, 09:49:57 PM
Quote from: StlVUFan on February 24, 2015, 12:21:21 PMWillingly, of course.
How can anyone take someone seriously when they believe the traffic on Christians => Muslims is willingly, and and Muslims => Christians is knife-to-the-throat?
You've not just been divorced from reality, you've had it annulled.
Excuse me???????????????
I don't know how to respond to this. I said: some Christians willingly convert to Islam. I NEVER said that Muslims convert to Christianity with a knife to their throat. Where the bleep did you get that from????
ISIS is forcing Christians to convert to Islam is what people are talking about here. I believe I acknowledged that. I never asserted the converse. Not once.
Quote from: StlVUFan on February 25, 2015, 09:07:41 PMI NEVER said that Muslims convert to Christianity with a knife to their throat.
I apologize, then,
Stl; I thought you were because of statements like this.
Quote from: StlVUFan on February 20, 2015, 07:23:01 PMIt's always been the stories of violent attempts to convert Muslims that has made it's impression on me
I'm very glad that you don't think that and I wish I'd given you more of the benefit of the doubt.
And I agree that ISIS is taking it out on Muslims judged apostates far more than Christians; however, part of that would be there are so few Christians left in the first place. There have been some simply horrific stories to come out--not just of that, but of Boko Haram--that have not received attention. Not just because of anti-Christian posturing in the West (imagine if Christian terrorists were doing anything like this; you'd never hear of anything else from the NYT/MSNBC etc), but because the latter is Africa, which the West always ignores unless there's money to be made exploiting someone somewhere.
http://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2015/02/when-africa-bleeds (http://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2015/02/when-africa-bleeds)
And
wh is right--from the earliest days, when Christians were put before the idol of the emperor and asked to deny Christ, certainly many did; but there were two schools of thought on those who didn't--they were excommunicated; the soft touches insisted on intense and very public penance. To demand anything less is to greatly diminish the sacrifices of the martyrs who didn't flinch.
Valpofan, I'm very glad you posted. I wonder if you read The Atlantic story on ISIS, and if so, what your thoughts were? One can't say "Islam is all ISIS"--any more than you can say "Islam is all (one's particular sect/version here)": because Islam is so varied (far beyond the simple Shiite/Sunni distinction which, how many Americans even know *that*?). It is both an advantage (cf. in moments like these) and a disadvantage (in lack of unity).
In that, Islam has always had a good deal in common with Protestantism--the lack of any coherent central authority, plus a single divine text with as many ways to read it as there are readers--it'd be like saying "All Protestants are Westboro Baptists" or "All Protestants are The Western Branch of American Reform Presbylutheranism".
Quote from: wh on February 25, 2015, 05:58:22 PMThat is incorrect. For a Christian to deny their faith in Jesus Christ in the face of death is a cowardly act. Matthew 10:32-33 of the New Testament of the Bible says, "Whoever acknowledges me before others, I will also acknowledge before my Father in heaven. But whoever disowns me before others, I will disown before my Father in heaven." The 21 Coptic Christians who were brutally beheaded at the hands of ISIS henchmen, as one example, are heroes who were martyred for their faith in Jesus Christ by evildoers of God's greatest enemy, Satan. Today, they are rejoicing in heaven and I am rejoicing for them. As to ISIS killing more Muslims than Christians or Jews, this is only the beginning by their own admission. It's nothing more than an early plot point on a murderous, apocalyptic rampage. If they have their way, they will conquer the Middle East, adjacent areas of Africa, then Europe and the United States - and of course destroy Israel. This is in the opinion of many, myself included, the biggest danger to mankind since Hitler and Nazi Germany.
WH, thank you for your clarification. The point of discussion is not whether or not an endangered person should die for their beliefs or not. All I said is that I don't understand how would someone change religion with a knife to their throat. Whether an individual decides to stand up for their beliefs and die for them or whether they decide to "temporarily" play along and say whatever will save their life. Both options do not result in any one changing religions.
As far as your second point, no argument there. ISIS is a huge threat to humanity, the whole humanity. And the whole humanity should do whatever possible to eradicate this terrorist organization.
LAA, I have not read the article you cited. I will look it up and get back to you ASAP.
Quote from: ValpoFan on February 25, 2015, 10:11:20 PMLAA, I have not read the article you cited. I will look it up and get back to you ASAP.
Oh boy. I'm sorry then. (The link I posted above.)
Not because it isn't worth reading...it's just...really really long. So please don't rush on my account!
Quote from: LaPorteAveApostle on February 25, 2015, 10:00:55 PMI apologize, then, Stl; I thought you were because of statements like this.
Quote from: StlVUFan on February 20, 2015, 07:23:01 PM
It's always been the stories of violent attempts to convert Muslims that has made it's impression on me
Ah. Now I understand. I believe I was referring to what I remember reading or hearing. I should clarify: I don't know one way or the other whether those stories are true or not. For all I know, they are.
But as someone on facebook kept hammering on, *that was ancient history*. ISIS is modern. I thought that was understood... I had implied that it might have happened 1000 years ago or so. I certainly didn't imply that it's happening now.
Anyway, I had forgotten all about that statement, which should tell you how much importance I was placing on my implication.
Obama is simply the worst president we have ever had. The deal he is bargaining with Iran -- the Iranians have reportedly said America is "desperate" for a deal -- is a debacle. Read Charles Krauthammer's opinion on it today in the Washington Post. He is giving away the farm to our enemy while giving the cold shoulder -- or worse -- to one of our strongest allies, Israel. It is a disgrace.
These are scary times, not only for our nation, but for the world.
Paul
I disagree. "W" will go down in history as one of our worst presidents. Book it! >:(
Quote from: setshot on February 27, 2015, 10:33:26 AM
I disagree. "W" will go down in history as one of our worst presidents. Book it! >:(
Glad to see you are still with us setshot! I was a little worried as you have been pretty quiet through our very successful season (so far). In any event, what exactly do you think Mr. Obama has done that is good for our country? We now face one of the biggest threat we have ever faced and still no policy or plan. Then again we have Obamacare, the Safe Employment Act for hundreds of thousands of additional bureaucrats and added debt for our children. You guys got whooped on last election and you are planning on running an old white lady for President, who needs to find a way to not be associated with Mr. Obama, even though she served on his Cabinet and oversaw something called Benghazi. And Obama is great because?? Please enlighten us!
What, per se, would you advise doing differently or additional in regards to ISIS/ISIL? Ground troops? More intense bombing with not worrying about civilians? Create a holy war? There was an interesting segment on what Republicans have called for in dealing with ISIS (beyond their generic comments that Obama is bad). What is ironic is that the specific things that the Republicans have called for are the things that Obama has done.
Affordable Care Act: I have problems with several parts of it, but I also recognize that 40 million people under age 65 did not have heallth insurance. Now it is much lower. What solutions did the Republicans offer besides, "if Obama likes or promotes something, we must take the opposite position"?
Not sure what you are getting at by the Safe Employment Act. If it is making it more difficult to fire poor performers (which it was already damn difficult during Bush and before), I am clearly against it (i.e. people need to perform to keep jobs). Indeed, I would argue that one of Obama's problems has been not improving the efficiency and effectiveness of government agencies. However, if it is protection for gays and other groups of people from workforce discrimination, I am all in favor of it.
In summary, I have problems with Obama's presidency, some of which have been from the requirement that all true Republicans must disagree with him and some of which has been from him not making tougher choices and and not promoting his ideas with specifics (rather than ideologies). He has not followed through on initiatives that promote personal responsibility. Additionally, Obama does not seem to be able to see economic reactions of society to his policies...and I am not really in favor of just grating work visas to millions of illegal immigrants (something Reagan did too). Furthermore, I am not thrilled with Hilary Clinton. But what Republican option does not follow a strategy of: (1) reduce taxes regardless of budget impacts (see what has happened with this method in several states including Kansas), (2) move the US towards being a god fearing christian nation, with laws and policies that are consistent with their own interpretation of christianity, (3) promote US exceptionalism without engaging in critical reflection on things that the US has not done well, as well as recognizing that exceptionalism hinders our country and the companies within it from working effectively with other countries (creating lost economic value), (4) every person not convicted of a felony should be able to own an arsenal, (5) have their own definition of freedom that excludes anyone who does not agree with them (is that really what freedom is?). I would have voted for Romney since he is a better executive than Obama, but I couldn't since Romeny would have had to accept parts of the narrow-minded conservative mantra.
Here's the way I see Obama's rise to the Presidency.
He starts as the perpetually offended and aggrieved, whiny employee you work with (every organization has them, trust me). Every day he rips on your company and how unfair they treat everyone. The bosses are all stupid. Every edict is wrong and self-serving. If the company loses money it's because of terrible management. If the company makes money they didn't give enough of the profits to the workers. They've rigged the system so we do all they work and the 1% at the top make all the money. In the break room he tells everyone how all of your competitors are better than we are. At night he fills his mind with books written by rebellious people consumed with hate for your company and others like it. He secretly meets with radical haters of companies. Every Sunday for 20 years, he takes his family to listen to a person consumed with hate rant about how your terrible your company is and how it deserves anything bad that comes it's way.
One time you and some of your co-workers who are proud of your company and are thankful to be a part of it try to challenge him on what you believe are totally unfair criticisms on his part. He immediately interrupts you and indignantly says that the only reason you're challenging him is because he's African American and calls you all bigots. Since that incident you and your friends don't talk to him and his friends anymore for fear of being labeled bigots, homophobes, islamophobes, anti-female, or generally insensitive. In your entire career you have never seen the workforce so polarized. You wonder if your company is going to survive.
Now, imagine what would happen if that same person that sowed all that discord suddenly became the president of your company? And so we have the Presidency of Barack Obama. As to your points of view, I've heard them all a thousand times over. So much so, that I don't even waste my time debating them. The situation is what it is until January 2017. He's going to continue to teach America a lesson for its past sins and failures, continue to apologize to the world for our arrogance, continue to subvert the constitution through executive order, continue to run up unbelievable debt, and continue to ignore the biggest threat to mankind since Hitler and Nazi Germany. Finally, his presidency will be over, someone will inherit an unbelievable mess, and start putting the pieces back together.
I'm sure there are those who will read this and vehemently disagree with everything I've said. That fine. I'm entitled to my opinions, and you're entitled to yours and all opinions should be respected. At least I think it still works that way.
Quote from: vu84v2 on February 28, 2015, 01:43:20 PM
What, per se, would you advise doing differently or additional in regards to ISIS/ISIL? Ground troops? More intense bombing with not worrying about civilians? Create a holy war? There was an interesting segment on what Republicans have called for in dealing with ISIS (beyond their generic comments that Obama is bad). What is ironic is that the specific things that the Republicans have called for are the things that Obama has done.
Affordable Care Act: I have problems with several parts of it, but I also recognize that 40 million people under age 65 did not have heallth insurance. Now it is much lower. What solutions did the Republicans offer besides, "if Obama likes or promotes something, we must take the opposite position"?
Not sure what you are getting at by the Safe Employment Act. If it is making it more difficult to fire poor performers (which it was already damn difficult during Bush and before), I am clearly against it (i.e. people need to perform to keep jobs). Indeed, I would argue that one of Obama's problems has been not improving the efficiency and effectiveness of government agencies. However, if it is protection for gays and other groups of people from workforce discrimination, I am all in favor of it.
In summary, I have problems with Obama's presidency, some of which have been from the requirement that all true Republicans must disagree with him and some of which has been from him not making tougher choices and and not promoting his ideas with specifics (rather than ideologies). He has not followed through on initiatives that promote personal responsibility. Additionally, Obama does not seem to be able to see economic reactions of society to his policies...and I am not really in favor of just grating work visas to millions of illegal immigrants (something Reagan did too). Furthermore, I am not thrilled with Hilary Clinton. But what Republican option does not follow a strategy of: (1) reduce taxes regardless of budget impacts (see what has happened with this method in several states including Kansas), (2) move the US towards being a god fearing christian nation, with laws and policies that are consistent with their own interpretation of christianity, (3) promote US exceptionalism without engaging in critical reflection on things that the US has not done well, as well as recognizing that exceptionalism hinders our country and the companies within it from working effectively with other countries (creating lost economic value), (4) every person not convicted of a felony should be able to own an arsenal, (5) have their own definition of freedom that excludes anyone who does not agree with them (is that really what freedom is?). I would have voted for Romney since he is a better executive than Obama, but I couldn't since Romeny would have had to accept parts of the narrow-minded conservative mantra.
Lots of good questions. Let me try to address them one at a time. Let me first add a preamble to address Mr. Obama in general. His first problem is/was his total lack of experience doing anything. He was a very junior senator from Illinois where he was elected because of his far left positions, bordering on communism. Given his total lack of experience he is thrust into the most challenging job in the entire world. I might as well have been elected to be President. I am older and actually have run a couple of small businesses so much more qualified. ;D
Mr. Obama announced what he was going to do when elected and they included ending the wars. Here he told our enemies when we were leaving. If Bryce coached in a similar fashion he might tell our opponent how we were going to defend their key guy--several days before the game. Or, he might tell their coach that one of our guys has a bad ankle thus giving the opposition the easier target on whom to focus. He pulled troops out against military advice. We now know what happened by setting a time table and leaving the Iraqis before they were anywhere close to being ready to govern on their own. Thousands of our troops died and much of the gains from those sacrifices are now controlled by ISIS.
So, now on to what to do with ISIS. Again, in a basketball sense, by making sure our enemies know that we in no way, ever, will commit ground troups, he telegraphed our offense. Kinda like Bryce telling Kampe that we will NEVER shoot a three. Ya think old Kampe might sag into the middle on defense, just a little bit?
The answer to ISIS is, no doubt, very complicated. I'm not trying to begin to tell you what that answer should look like. One thing we certainly can do is not call the enemy the "JV" squad and start to be the leader the free world has come to expect--at least until the last several years. Get the Middle East leaders together and LEAD, not follow, hoping that nothing bad will happen in our country. Ya know, "as long as that Hitler guy doesn't bother us, we don't have a dog in the fight"
Let me next address the Affordable Care Act. Here is the problem. It will be run by government officials. Look, Republicans don't want people to starve, be sick or die in the streets. We don't point fingers and say, " it's your own darn fault, if you hadn't made bad mistakes you could have been as successful as me" "You are on your own". No, that's not what Republicans think or want. I am a Christian as are many Democrats. As Christians we are called to help those less fortunate. The question is, how do we do that while also following the Bible's teaching to not waste our talents. It can be summed up by comparing the Post Office to UPS or FEDEX. They are basicly in the same business. UPS and FEDEX run at a profit and the Post Office wastes billions of our tax dollars.
Try to name one government program that looks anything like it was envisioned when the bill was signed into law. There is one constant. All of the programs are gigantically bigger than when they were put into place, cost WAY more and have led to a sense of entitlement (thus the name) which leads to folks who are able to work, as an example, just sitting around because they have enough to get by on what the government is giving them. The correct answer is not more government, it is more jobs. Things like the new pipeline. It would create thousands of new jobs and new tax revenue. It isn't like we are going to endanger the environment when we already have thousands of miles of these thing in existence and doing just fine, thank you, and run by the private sector.
The better way to solve the healthcare problems is again, via the private sector. Republicans were and are all over eliminating preexisting conditions as an example. They also are for removing the restrictions on crossing state lines by insurers, thus creating more and better competition by existing medical insurance providers, versus putting the government in a business they know nothing about and who have proven consistently that they are terrible at running everything.
Finally, my mention of the Safe Employment Act was a joke. My point in the joke was to point out what will and has happened when government gets involved in trying to expand or start another program. It creates thousands or hundreds of thousands of jobs, with great benefits, which gives folks security regardless of performance. Thus, the "Safe Employment Act". Just think back to my Post Office example. If UPS or FEDEX hired people and never could fire them, would these companies still be in business? I think we all know the answer to that question.
I was always of the opinion that the Affordable Care Act was good in principle, but in execution, it came before getting people working again. If more jobs had been created, before handing out health care insurance like fun size candy bars on Halloween night, more people would have been working in jobs where they potentially could have afforded to live better lives, and being able to afford some form of health care. Health care reform was great in principle, but in execution, as John Mackay said of his Tampa Bay Buccaneers, "I'm all for it", oh wait, in this case I'd step back 50 yards and punt because the government leaders we elected NEVER read the bill as printed. I got more of the idea that they just read the bullet points from the researchers knowing that if they didn't show up for the vote informed in some way, that President Obama might ramrod an executiver order down their throats.
It just seems that President Obama led by how much money was coming in for his next campaign, rather than by what the people he's supposed to represent needed. I know for myself, I want people working some kind of job, before getting health insurance handed to them like a pamphlet that no one understands the content or context of.
My thoughts on the rebuttals to my post:
-We likely agree on some things and disagree on others. On the areas we partially or completely disagree, my guess is that you form your opinions intelligently and with caring thought (for the country, etc.)
-I lived in Illinois during Obama"s "rise". He was extremely effective at communicating a vision despite lack of detail (and perhaps a lack of understanding of the complexities and tradeoffs). Couple this with a lack of executive experience and you have problems.
-I do not think that Obama hates the U.S. He is critical of some parts of it and people don't like that. If you reframe criticism as "where can we improve?", isn't it more acceptable. I don't agree with how he frames some of his criticism, but I do feel that critical assessment is important for leadership.
-Obama may have the luckiest election history ever. He runs for senate in Illinois. A legitimate candidate on the Republican side has to step down due to a scandal involving his ex-wife (we could argue whether one is not qualified due to such things, but the political reality is that you cannot sustain such things). Alan Keyes, who was not even from Illinois and is wildly unqualified, steps in to run on the Republican side and has little or no backing or funding. Any of us could have beaten Alan Keyes. Then when he runs for President, he faces a legitimate opponent in McCain - who then has a completely unqualified and irrational person named as his running mate.
-The Jeremiah Wright thing has always been a dilemma for me. He did indeed say those things and was rightly criticized and subsequently marginalized. But my church had many people visit that church with him preaching over many years and no one ever saw that (they would have stopped immediately otherwise). Any evidence that I have from that indicates that he was not ranting against the US for twenty years and that it was a more recent thing. Furthermore, my current church (all are same denomination) is critical of policies against human rights and social justice. I agree with some positions and not with some other positions, but I don't feel that such discussion is anti-American.
-I generally agree that government run programs are inherently inefficient. I should caution, however, that the USPS is severely hampered by government requirements of six day per week delivery, fixed prices on various services, etc. Fedex and UPS could not be profitable under those constraints. I would then ask, how government run is the Affordable Care Act? They setup a website that has linkages to buy policies from private insurance companies. Lots of problems with rolling this program out (despite it being far less complicated than other options) plus other problems with trying to fund it on the backs of the young, healthy and middle class, but you also have to ask whether ideas like increased competition from removing state boundaries is only going to increase value for people that the health insurance companies want to insure. You could very well still end up with 30-40 million uninsured.
-I agree that government is grossly inefficient. Dealing with this is a failure of the Obama Presidency, but is frankly a failure of the past several administrations.
-Totally agree with the lunacy of passing bills without knowing what is in them.
-ISIS: Your "lead the free world" sounds good, but not realistic. Are leaders in the Middle East and Europe going to get support from following a US president? You need a coalition of countries each with the same objective and similar basic values (non-religious), and the leaders of each need to lead in their own way. Sounds hard and is damn hard, but expecting any US President to lead a bunch of other countries is unrealistic. U.S. - Jordan relationship is probably the model that works best.
-Signaling that the US would leave Iraq and Afghanistan: probably a bad move.
-Polarization of American society. While liberals due indeed deserve some blame for this, conservatives certainly deserve blame here too. What would happen to a Republican senator or congressman who decided to work with Obama on something, even if it offered a lot of potential good? They would be ridiculed by conservative media and other congressional Republicans. I am a moderate and it often feels like conservatives hate people like me because I don't "tick all the boxes".
-I do agree that Christians, and people of other faiths, place great value in helping other people. I see examples of this all the time. I do think, however, that faith organizations will always lack the resources to help even a simple majority of the population.
Quote from: vu84v2 on March 05, 2015, 03:19:48 PM-The Jeremiah Wright thing has always been a dilemma for me. He did indeed say those things and was rightly criticized and subsequently marginalized. But my church had many people visit that church with him preaching over many years and no one ever saw that (they would have stopped immediately otherwise). Any evidence that I have from that indicates that he was not ranting against the US for twenty years and that it was a more recent thing. Furthermore, my current church (all are same denomination) is critical of policies against human rights and social justice. I agree with some positions and not with some other positions, but I don't feel that such discussion is anti-American.
From what I heard of his critique at the time (and I may not have heard all of it), I didn't have a single problem with his criticisms. It took a conversation with a friend of mine who happens to teach religion at VU and write a weekly column for the Post-Tribune for me to understand what separates Jeremiah Wright from his biblical namesake: a true prophet does not derive *joy* from harpooning his otherwise legitimate targets. A true prophet wishes he could be delivering an upbeat message instead of the downer he's saddled with, and Jeremiah Wright seemed to this friend to derive pleasure from harpooning the USA (the german word, which I'm sure I'm going to misspell: schadenfreude).
Quote from: StlVUFan on March 05, 2015, 04:51:00 PMIt took a conversation with a friend of mine who happens to teach religion at VU and write a weekly column for the Post-Tribune for me to understand
THIS EXPLAINS SO MUCH ABOUT YOU
Quote from: StlVUFan on March 05, 2015, 04:51:00 PM(the german word, which I'm sure I'm going to misspell: schadenfreude)
Actually perfect...just capitalize the first letter (because German noun).
Anyone else notice how this thread has morphed all the way from "Obama Criticizes Crusades" to "Crusaders Criticize Obama"?
Quote from: LaPorteAveApostle on March 05, 2015, 08:34:03 PM
Quote from: StlVUFan on March 05, 2015, 04:51:00 PMIt took a conversation with a friend of mine who happens to teach religion at VU and write a weekly column for the Post-Tribune for me to understand
THIS EXPLAINS SO MUCH ABOUT YOU
Quote from: StlVUFan on March 05, 2015, 04:51:00 PM(the german word, which I'm sure I'm going to misspell: schadenfreude)
Actually perfect...just capitalize the first letter (because German noun).
Anyone else notice how this thread has morphed all the way from "Obama Criticizes Crusades" to "Crusaders Criticize Obama"?
Very true! ;D
Count me surprised that this thread has lasted this long without blowing apart.
Quote from: wh on March 05, 2015, 09:13:11 PMCount me surprised that this thread has lasted this long without blowing apart.
(http://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/uncyclopedia/images/7/7c/Car_explosion.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20051215200050)
Now officially blown apart.
Quote from: bbtds on March 05, 2015, 09:32:19 PMNow officially blown apart.
Nope...but it is...now:
(http://worth1000.s3.amazonaws.com/submissions/187500/187977_7963_1024x2000.jpg)
Quote from: LaPorteAveApostle on March 05, 2015, 09:45:29 PMQuote from: bbtds on March 05, 2015, 09:32:19 PMNow officially blown apart.
Nope...but it is...now: (http://worth1000.s3.amazonaws.com/submissions/187500/187977_7963_1024x2000.jpg)
I think I get it.
Is that Napoleon Blown-apart?
Half right--Linoleum Blownapart.
Quote from: LaPorteAveApostle on March 06, 2015, 06:38:22 PMHalf right--Linoleum Blownapart.
Probably what Lumber Liquidators should do their linoleum.
https://www.facebook.com/ewtnonline/photos/a.157114462581.116591.34701792581/10152785504012582/?type=1 (https://www.facebook.com/ewtnonline/photos/a.157114462581.116591.34701792581/10152785504012582/?type=1)