Obama's day: National Prayer Breakfast

[Neofight]

I thought he spoke well of Pope Francis, thats his best nobel peace prize inter-religious dialogue.

Me too.

All in all, I thought it was a great leap forward.

Unfortunately those who hate the president for various reasons will find fault in his every word and action.

Makes me glad God is my judge.

 

[StSentry83]

He wasn’t wrong, but he’s not adding to the dialogue. The Crusades were almost 1,000 years ago.

“Before we get on our high horse.” What exactly is he trying to accomplish except more divisiveness? Because Crusaders did it 1,000 years ago, it’s ok for ISIS to do it today?

And, technically, we were defending the Holy Land against the murderous Moslems, who started that war.

He clearly shows lack of understanding of history.

Step 1: Google “Map of Earth”
Step 2: Identify locations not violently conquered by Christians
Step 3: Get a magnifying glass so that it doesn’t strain your eyes staring at all those tiny dots

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Step 1: Google “Map of Earth”
Step 2: Identify locations not violently conquered by Christians
Step 3: Get a magnifying glass so that it doesn’t strain your eyes staring at all those tiny dots

Please, do tell me where all of these areas that were violently conquered are, because I’m not seeing any.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Me too.

All in all, I thought it was a great leap forward.

Unfortunately those who hate the president for various reasons will find fault in his every word and action.

Makes me glad God is my judge.

Right, it was progress, his dialogue very much followed suite with the King of Jordans who also went a bit further with the ideology of radical Islam. The Catholicism aspect, he seems to be very inspired by Pope Francis. Who knows a little humility as he suggested may go a long way.

The Crusades always caught a bad rap and with a distorted view of the Siege of Maarat.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Dear Mr. President:

I am a bit confused by your National Prayer Day speech. Since you refuse to recognize ISIS as an Islamic (religious) group…why was it necessary to bring up a relationship between them and Christianity??

The Crusades and the Inquisition are not problematic today. What is problematic today are Islamic Jihadist Terrorists…not Christians.

As a Christian I am offended by your lecture this morning. It is not your place to tell me how to relate to by beliefs. Or that we should excuse the actions of religious terrorists who remain mired in the 11th century because of what was done 1000 years ago.

I would remind you that the overall majority of your constituents are Christian and it is your Constitutional responsibility to defend us. Perhaps you should take a clue from Pope Urban II. A little “Holy War” might be just what is needed.

Zoltan

 

[StSentry83]

Please, do tell me where all of these areas that were violently conquered are, because I’m not seeing any.

You have a map of the Earth that doesn’t have North America on it? Wait, it doesn’t have South America on it, either? It doesn’t have much of south Asia on it? It erased most of the Middle East? Half of Africa doesn’t exist on your map of the Earth? All of Australia has been erased too? Where’s Europe?

What does your map of the Earth have on it, just Antarctica and a few islands here and there? You should get a refund on that!

 

[qui_est_ce]

Dear Mr. President:

I am a bit confused by your National Prayer Day speech. Since you refuse to recognize ISIS as an Islamic (religious) group…why was it necessary to bring up a relationship between them and Christianity??

The Crusades and the Inquisition are not problematic today. What is problematic today are Islamic Jihadist Terrorists…not Christians.

As a Christian I am offended by your lecture this morning. It is not your place to tell me how to relate to by beliefs. Or that we should excuse the actions of religious terrorists who remain mired in the 11th century because of what was done 1000 years ago.

I would remind you that the overall majority of your constituents are Christian and it is your Constitutional responsibility to defend us. Perhaps you should take a clue from Pope Urban II. A little “Holy War” might be just what is needed.

Zoltan

 

[qui_est_ce]

You have a map of the Earth that doesn’t have North America on it? Wait, it doesn’t have South America on it, either? It doesn’t have much of south Asia on it? It erased most of the Middle East? Half of Africa doesn’t exist on your map of the Earth? All of Australia has been erased too? Where’s Europe?

What does your map of the Earth have on it, just Antarctica and a few islands here and there? You should get a refund on that!

That’s right, the Jesuits, the Franciscans, and various other religious order violently conquered and forced conversions on peoples. (Who by the way sacrificed infants and virgins in volcanoes).

Furthermore, we are talking about ISIS today, not what happened 600 years ago.

 

[Path_Finder]

That’s right, the Jesuits, the Franciscans, and various other religious order violently conquered and forced conversions on peoples. (Who by the way sacrificed infants and virgins in volcanoes).

Furthermore, we are talking about ISIS today, not what happened 600 years ago.

The French came to Canada, Midwest like St. Louis, the Clerics were not oppressing the natives, same thing for Viet Nam and other Catholic areas. Probably similar can be said for Latin America.

This was not done saying Allahu Akbar in the name of Christendom.

Or Vietnam would be 90% Christian, not 10% or however that number is.

 

[Path_Finder]

In fact, all of this might point again to the Theocratic system Islam is in the eyes of many.

Indonesia, Malaysia and so on, conquered in the name of religion much like what is going on now, convert or die.

 

[Evania]

That’s right, the Jesuits, the Franciscans, and various other religious order violently conquered and forced conversions on peoples. (Who by the way sacrificed infants and virgins in volcanoes).

Furthermore, we are talking about ISIS today, not what happened 600 years ago.

 

[GaryTaylor]

:knight1: :knight2: pssst…“I don’t know how we got on the Crusades”

 

[ProdglArchitect]

You have a map of the Earth that doesn’t have North America on it?

There were certainly instances of violence, both offensively and defensively, but there is a difference from an area being conquered for a state and then having Christian views spread, and actively conquering in the name of Christianity. The conquistadors were primarily hunting gold and new lands, not to spread the Gospel. Native Americans were not conquered in the name of Christianity, but rather in teh name of land expansion. Monasteries in the area provided education, medical care and shelter for many Native Americans. True, some monks overstepped their bounds in their conversion attempts, but that is very different from “violent conquest.”

Wait, it doesn’t have South America on it, either?

Honestly, I know very little about South American history, so I can’t really speak on this part.

It doesn’t have much of south Asia on it?

The areas of Southern Asia that were converted were converted peacefully through missionary efforts. Once again, a peaceful conversion is very different from a violent one.

It erased most of the Middle East?

This is the same as southern Asia. The Middle East was converted peacefully. And then the Muslims came in and violently conquered the land and performed forced conversions, much like what we see today. It was convert or die. The Church then responded and attempted to reclaim the lands that had been taken by Muslims, though the primary effort of the first few crusades was geared towards protecting pilgrims. There was certainly violence in this period, but the Church was reacting against an aggressor that it had already attempted to reason with (the first Crusade didn’t happen until around 400 years after the first Muslim conquest.) True, there were some crusaders who greatly overstepped the bounds of morality, and we make no attempt to hide that, but the area was not violently converted in the way you are claiming.

Half of Africa doesn’t exist on your map of the Earth? … Where’s Europe?

Africa and Europe were part of the Roman Empire, and were converted at the same time as the rest of the Empire. (When an heir of Constantine declared that the official Religion of Roman was Catholicism.) There were certain groups in these areas that remained pagan, but most of them were wiped out by non-Christian groups. The few that were converted to Catholicism were generally converted peacefully. There were instances of violence and forced conversion in Europe, but frequently that was in response to violent acts committed by the pagan groups such as the sacrifice of women and children to pagan gods. The violence committed against those groups was less in the name of Christianity, and more in the name of stopping them from killing innocent people.

All of Australia has been erased too?

The Australian Continent was conquered by Britain. The Church had nothing to do with that.

While I do not deny that there were isolated incidents of violence, that is a far cry from the systematic violence we are seeing today from ISIS, or in the past from other Muslim groups. Almost all conversion of foreign lands has been handled peacefully, and unless you can actually cite real incidents, instead of engaging an an ad-hominem attack on my imaginary map, I’d ask you to stop spreading historically-inaccurate information.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Me too.

All in all, I thought it was a great leap forward.

Unfortunately those who hate the president for various reasons will find fault in his every word and action.

Makes me glad God is my judge.

Criticizing the president is now hate?

 

[GaryTaylor]

Criticizing the president is now hate?

Nope Obama affirmed freedom of speech and religion! I heard him.

 

[StSentry83]

The French came to Canada, Midwest like St. Louis, the Clerics were not oppressing the natives, same thing for Viet Nam and other Catholic areas. Probably similar can be said for Latin America.

This was not done saying Allahu Akbar in the name of Christendom.

Or Vietnam would be 90% Christian, not 10% or however that number is.

It’s not clear what your argument is. What is inescapable here is that hundreds of millions of innocent people have been raped, enslaved, tortured and slaughtered in the name of Christ. Those events don’t matter because… why again? Because you can name a few Christians that didn’t kill anyone? Or… because priests didn’t directly cause most of these vents? Does a Muslim have to be an Imam in order to kill for Islam?

 

[DeniseNY]

Criticizing the president is now hate?

And racist, don’t you know!

 

[qui_est_ce]

There were certainly instances of violence, both offensively and defensively, but there is a difference from an area being conquered for a state and then having Christian views spread, and actively conquering in the name of Christianity. The conquistadors were primarily hunting gold and new lands, not to spread the Gospel. Native Americans were not conquered in the name of Christianity, but rather in teh name of land expansion. Monasteries in the area provided education, medical care and shelter for many Native Americans. True, some monks overstepped their bounds in their conversion attempts, but that is very different from “violent conquest.”

Honestly, I know very little about South American history, so I can’t really speak on this part.

The areas of Southern Asia that were converted were converted peacefully through missionary efforts. Once again, a peaceful conversion is very different from a violent one.

This is the same as southern Asia. The Middle East was converted peacefully. And then the Muslims came in and violently conquered the land and performed forced conversions, much like what we see today. It was convert or die. The Church then responded and attempted to reclaim the lands that had been taken by Muslims, though the primary effort of the first few crusades was geared towards protecting pilgrims. There was certainly violence in this period, but the Church was reacting against an aggressor that it had already attempted to reason with (the first Crusade didn’t happen until around 400 years after the first Muslim conquest.) True, there were some crusaders who greatly overstepped the bounds of morality, and we make no attempt to hide that, but the area was not violently converted in the way you are claiming.

Africa and Europe were part of the Roman Empire, and were converted at the same time as the rest of the Empire. (When an heir of Constantine declared that the official Religion of Roman was Catholicism.) There were certain groups in these areas that remained pagan, but most of them were wiped out by non-Christian groups. The few that were converted to Catholicism were generally converted peacefully. There were instances of violence and forced conversion in Europe, but frequently that was in response to violent acts committed by the pagan groups such as the sacrifice of women and children to pagan gods. The violence committed against those groups was less in the name of Christianity, and more in the name of stopping them from killing innocent people.

The Australian Continent was conquered by Britain. The Church had nothing to do with that.

While I do not deny that there were isolated incidents of violence, that is a far cry from the systematic violence we are seeing today from ISIS, or in the past from other Muslim groups. Almost all conversion of foreign lands has been handled peacefully, and unless you can actually cite real incidents, instead of engaging an an ad-hominem attack on my imaginary map, I’d ask you to stop spreading historically-inaccurate information.

Great post.

What we have to remember is Church Teaching prohibits conversion by violence. However, there are individuals, even today, who act contrary to Church teaching.

As far as slavery, perhaps Obama ought to get off his own high horse and look to his own heritage: those who sold their own people to slave traders.

 

[GaryTaylor]

And racist, don’t you know!

Good thing we have freedom of speech and religion, we would be flogged weekly like our partners do in SA. Maybe Obama is getting us ready for the new world order.

 

[Path_Finder]

It’s not clear what your argument is. What is inescapable here is that hundreds of millions of innocent people have been raped, enslaved, tortured and slaughtered in the name of Christ. Those events don’t matter because… why again? Because you can name a few Christians that didn’t kill anyone? Or… because priests didn’t directly cause most of these vents? Does a Muslim have to be an Imam in order to kill for Islam?

Not in the Americas.

No, the Church was not involved in killing people on a mass basis.

The Muslims are saying “God Be Praised”, US Calvary, Spanish Conquistadores, none of these people IF they killed did it in the name of Christ.