DescentBB

You guys have probably heard about the conservative reaction to Obama's national prayer breakfast speech. I looked around the internet a bit about it, and I have a few comments that I'll offer. Here's a link to a particular story about it:

Link

My thoughts:

1. I'm concerned that people are re-writing history to suit the "all religions are essentially the same and dangerous" mantra. We would all be wise to consider that state and religion were very tightly joined at the hip for a long time, and thus that political ambition and religious ambition were tightly married in our more distant history.

2. I heard echos of the idea that religion is the primary cause of war and the idea that a religion-free world would also be a war-free world. I'd challenge anyone upholding those ideas to work their way through our recent history of war (recent history because recent history gives a better separation between religious and state ambitions), and compare those which are primarily attributable to religion to those which could be primarily attributable to political ambition or ethnic conflict.

3. I'm concerned by evidence of the continued dismissal of differences between religions as inconsequential. I think it demonstrates a level of ignorance about religions that's insulting. If beliefs are in direct conflict with each other, it isn't valid to say that they're both right; logically at least all but one must be incorrect. I have a scientific analogy for this: If one group of scientists say that c = 3x10^8 m/s, and another group of scientists says no, it's c = 3x10^-8 m/s you have an irreconcilable difference. I can't validly tell them "oh well, you all say pretty much the same thing so it doesn't matter." - because it does. I can tell them that they should agree to disagree and move on... but when they both go about designing a machine that depends on the speed of light to work, one of the machines is going to work properly, and the other is going to fail. Ultimately one group must be wrong... and if the stakes are life and death (as religions believe) wouldn't you try to intervene to save the people who you think are wrong?

4. I see disagreement with mainstream thought being incorrectly associated with danger. There's this message that divergent thought must be dangerous that I frankly disagree with. Historically science has been driven forward by divergent thought. From an objective standpoint: incorrect thought is dangerous, regardless how vast of a majority might hold the viewpoint.

I heard the entire speech, and while I may agree with you on much of what you wrote about conflating/comparing different religions, and especially your criticism of those who would blame religion as the main driver of wars(none of that can be seen in Obama's words, by the way), there was one part that puzzled me: Obama went out of his way to talk about how, through history, religion has been twisted and used as justification for all manner of atrocities. He is/was correct, and completely so. This isn't an indictment of religion, it's a comment on how people misuse religion for twisted ends. All Obama seemingly did was note that such twisting and bastardization of religious thought has not been limited to one religion. Nor, will it be so going forward.

I think the rationale he used, that the Crusades are proof that radicals using Islam are no different than radicals using Christianity, is a really weak argument. So weak it cant even be an argument at all.

The net results today of those two radical groups are far from being equivalent and that is the main point he is trying to disguise....the cultures that support a vast segment of Islam are lagging centuries behind their western counterparts, not running parallel.
A lot has changed in the last 900+ years on one side of that equation and hardly anything at all on the other. Just go ask a few women from each group...

It isn't logical or productive to give the cultural aspect causing the disparity in tolerance a pass the way he tries to do. And the radicals aren't going to like him for the effort, in spite of his naive belief that they will, and the good moderate people living in that culture know the difference between their ways and ours so he looks like a fool to them as well.

If he wanted to counter some movement of prejudice toward that culture he should have thought of something better than regurgitating the typical american liberal political rhetoric. The audience he is playing to isn't as ignorant as he apparently thinks they are. He is used to working a different crowd and that has been the downside of so much of his 'foreign policy'. He is implementing his own parallel mistake to Bush's 'they love freedom if we throw it at them'.

Will Robinson wrote:I think the rationale he used, that the Crusades are proof that radicals using Islam are no different than radicals using Christianity, is a really weak argument. So weak it cant even be an argument at all.

but he didn't suggest that they were 'no different', just that both were examples of misuse of religion.

Okay, I've been seeing numerous thoughts like these lately:

snoopy wrote:I'm concerned that people are re-writing history to suit the "all religions are essentially the same and dangerous" mantra.
...
I'm concerned by evidence of the continued dismissal of differences between religions as inconsequential.

Will Robinson wrote:I think the rationale... that the Crusades are proof that radicals using Islam are no different than radicals using Christianity, is a really weak argument.

...and I completely agree.

---------

With that said:

The objectionable idea that "all religions are equally dangerous", isn't in the aforementioned speech at all.

I highly suggest reading it, because the primary theme of that speech (the danger of human perversion of faith) had nothing to do with comparing religions. The statement, "this is not unique to one group or one religion" was pointing out that no religion is immune, not stating that they are somehow equally dangerous.

To make an analogy:

If I were to point out a set people and say, "those people are all human, and apt to do evil", that's very different from making the claim that they are all equal, or equally evil.

That was a pretty good speech, thanks for posting that transcript Foil.

I’m sure a lot of liberals are cringing at this very minute.

Sorry Snoop, but I’m just not getting what you have implied here, If a diplomat names one group, there is sort of an obligation to mention others as well…it’s…well…politics.

But I didn’t get any equalization, except on the positive aspects, and the ability of people to misuse.

To a extent I agree with Foil except where this line is used:

"And lest we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place"

If he is talking about a physical place he gets it wrong by dredging up another time. Reminding christians that in our history we committed evil things is just that...history. The events are today and trying to ameliorate what is being done by islamnoterrorist by saying Christian were also bad just does not connect. You could also say that america was as bad as Germany and Japan during the 2nd World War because we also killed large numbers of people. Saying this at a national meeting of the VFW would go over equally well.

When I listen to moderate liberal broadcasters beings appalled at what Obama said, then you know he screwed up.

woodchip wrote:To a extent I agree with Foil except where this line is used:

"And lest we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place"... .

That's the problem indeed right there. It maybe that he touched on it lightly but that 'argument' is so prevalent today in the debate from the left that it comes off as a nod to that line of thinking.

In the discussion that surrounds the subject of Islamo-terrorism it is so out of place it would be like suggesting the sexual predator that assaults a woman in public, by attaching his mouth to her breast, is just doing what we all did as babies...

woodchip wrote:would go over equally well.

When I listen to moderate liberal broadcasters beings appalled at what Obama said, then you know he screwed up.

name one who was 'appalled', and post links to their words.

Will, that analogy was past terrible.

callmeslick wrote:

woodchip wrote:would go over equally well.

When I listen to moderate liberal broadcasters beings appalled at what Obama said, then you know he screwed up.

name one who was 'appalled', and post links to their words.

Mitch Albom

Mitch takes exception to President Obama's remarks during the prayer breakfast and you were invited to call in with your opinion too.

http://www.wjr.com/common/page.php?pt=m ... &is_corp=0#

fine, except there was no station I ever heard of that carries his show. Nor, have I ever heard of him. So, yes, you might have produced a liberal voice with questions about the speech, but you do have to admit he's one of the few.........most of the rants I've heard came from equally obscure voices from the right. The most egregious was someone named Star Parker, who I never heard of any more than Mitch. Her objections were absurd.

The best that can be said of Obama here, and I think the most pertinent, is that he speaks on the subject of faith while he does not know God.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:The best that can be said of Obama here, and I think the most pertinent, is that he speaks on the subject of faith while he does not know God.

and, you can say that with any certainty, because? Oh, yeah, because it's your opinion, with exactly zero knowledge of either the man, or the true nature of God.

Well…we have had a few years to get to know the man.

sure, Spidey....the question is, how many of you all have even tried?

callmeslick wrote:

Sergeant Thorne wrote:The best that can be said of Obama here, and I think the most pertinent, is that he speaks on the subject of faith while he does not know God.

and, you can say that with any certainty, because? Oh, yeah, because it's your opinion, with exactly zero knowledge of either the man, or the true nature of God.

What God? Not the God of the Bible? And you wouldn't be referring to "the man" who's been running our country for two terms, would you? This foundation-less, fantastic, and illogical attack on my credibility has me at once questioning both your sanity and your integrity.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:What God? Not the God of the Bible? And you wouldn't be referring to "the man" who's been running our country for two terms, would you? This foundation-less, fantastic, and illogical attack on my credibility has me at once questioning both your sanity and your integrity.

the above says it all about integrity of thought, and to an extent sanity, and not mine.....

You waste no time ending our arguments as of late, I'll give you that. It's certainly in your best interest...

that wasn't going to be an argument, just an endless circle. If I want to see that, I'll grab the dog's tail.

And anyone who's been on this forum for any length of time knows how you hate going round and round, right? bull★■◆●. You just don't have an argument.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:...he does not know God.

Phew! That's a relief. The less our leaders believe in fairy tales the better.

Yes, lets have a godless world. I'm sure we'll all be the better for it....

the involvement of God in the world hasn't been exactly positive, historically, so why not leave religion out of governance?

Yes, the old USSR tried that and look how well that worked.

vision wrote:Phew! That's a relief. The less our leaders believe in fairy tales the better.

Obama seems to believe in one of those “fairy tales” guess he’s an idiot in your eyes. (judging from past comments)

woodchip wrote:Yes, the old USSR tried that and look how well that worked.

why not look to your own nation, where it has worked for over 230 years?

Funny how our money still has "In God We Trust" printed on it. Your point?

woodchip wrote:Funny how our money still has "In God We Trust" printed on it. Your point?

The slogan adopted officially only in 1956. It has only been used in a way to separate "American" life from "evil", such as "the South" and "the Commies." In God We Trust is literally war propaganda. Great argument!

Spidey wrote:Obama seems to believe in one of those “fairy tales” guess he’s an idiot in your eyes. (judging from past comments)

Wait, so suddenly you believe the words of a politician you hate? Convenience?

woodchip wrote:Funny how our money still has "In God We Trust" printed on it. Your point?

Actually.... I agree with the idea of separation of church and state.

Wood hit the nail on the head with regard to the connection between the specific speech and my concerns:

Obama echoed links between current Islam and Christian history which I've heard being taken as justification for rolling religions into a big "trouble" ball many times. I agree with Obama's point that any religion is liable to being twisted by twisted people - but that's true for any ideology - the real question is how how far those people have to twist until they get to their destination.

Back to the separation of church and state thought (and similar to my original thoughts): I think it behooves Christianity to have a separation between church and state.... because I don't think states can be trusted to adhere to Christian doctrine. I think that much of Christianity's "blighted" history stems from states (and people) attaching a "Christian" name to their secular ambitions. I'm not convinced that the same is true for Islam. (Or Judaism) Maybe I think that Islam is simply too political, maybe I think that Islam's ambitions aren't really as benevolent as the current PR would have us believe, maybe I'm just biased. My point is this: many Christians believe that Christianity is fundamentally much more "peaceful" than Islam, and that while Christianity can claim a fairly clear cut "twisting" when people justify social injustice or war with the Bible, Christians don't tend to believe that the same distinction can be claimed by Islam.

**Note: I define social injustice as cruelty toward others... not reservation of the right to politely disagree with others.***

vision wrote:

Spidey wrote:Obama seems to believe in one of those “fairy tales” guess he’s an idiot in your eyes. (judging from past comments)

Wait, so suddenly you believe the words of a politician you hate? Convenience?

Lol…yea, turn it back on me…

Well, either he is a liar, or he believes in fairy tales…take your pick.