There is grave danger in statements supporting moral equivalency and religious relativism. What happens is horrific behavior is excused because you have a certain recalcitrance in admitting the existence of evil.◼ Rev. Graham to Obama: Unlike Christ, Mohammed ‘Killed Many Innocent People' - His 'True Followers' Emulate Him - CNS News
President Barack Obama had the chance to affirm our Judeo-Christian faith heritage at the National Prayer Breakfast just days after the world was exposed to the savage and barbaric actions of ISIS in the burning to death of the captured Jordanian fighter pilot. But he did not....
Now, being a simple student of history, I’d like to share a simple analysis — and please, I ask all the Islamapologists reading this to sit down and take a deep breath.... KEEP READING
Franklin Graham, who heads the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association (BGEA), said on his Facebook page shortly after the president’s remarks, “Today at the National Prayer Breakfast, the President implied that what ISIS is doing is equivalent to what happened over 1,000 years ago during the Crusades and the Inquisition...."◼ "He cannot adjust to or accept the calamities it is causing." - Roger L Simon/PJMedia
“Mr. President--Many people in history have used the name of Jesus Christ to accomplish evil things for their own desires,” said Rev. Graham. “But Jesus taught peace, love and forgiveness. He came to give His life for the sins of mankind, not to take life.”
Many faiths could be cited, including communism, obviously, also a kind of religion that was responsible for exponentially more deaths — via Stalin’s Gulag, Mao’s Cultural Revolution and Great Leap Forward, the killing fields of Cambodia, etc. — than all other belief systems combined, although none of them are doing it now. Right now it’s Islamic radicalism that just the other day placed a human being in a cage and burned him alive, an act not, to my knowledge, even performed by Dr. Mengele. And it was done in the name of Allah.
And yet Obama saw fit to lecture his audience on the Crusades and slavery, done “in the name of Christ,” subjects of which his audience was undoubtedly well aware and, needless to say, did not approve in the slightest. Yet still the president felt he had to hector them. Why?
To begin with, we can find some the answer in his criticism of ISIS, which Obama described as ”a brutal vicious death cult that in the name of religion carries out unspeakable acts of barbarism, claiming the mantle of religious authority for such actions.” Note the now unsurprising use of the word “religion,” not “Islam,” or the even more telling “Mohammed,” a warlord who married a little girl and a figure, one can safely say, not very much like Christ. Nevertheless, Obama can blacken Christians and name them in a speech, but not Muslims.
The reason is not complicated. Obama is not a religious person. He rarely appears in church, except for political purposes. He is titularly a Christian, but identifies emotionally, from his youth in Indonesian madrassas and from his ideological predisposition, with Third World Muslims. But now he is confronted with those same Muslims behaving like barbarians across Africa and the Middle East and sometimes into Europe and America.
What would be his reaction to that? Pretty much what it is for most throughout the Islamic world — shame. As many have noted, Islam is a shame culture (the kind of society that will go berserk over cartoons) and, like it or not, our president is part of it culturally. That does not mean he is stoning adulterers or cutting off the hands of thieves or treating women like chattel, but it does mean he is genuinely and quite deeply ashamed of the religion he, in part, came from. He cannot adjust to or accept the calamities it is causing. Unlike the president of Egypt, he cannot name it.... KEEP READING
Yazidi Sex Slaves Begged their Muslim Captors to Kill Them Instead: Here’s what Obama should have spoken about... http://t.co/4Ezdd2M7QL— Pamela Geller (@PamelaGeller) February 6, 2015