Thursday, February 05, 2015

Obama Equates Christianity With ISIS at Prayer Breakfast!



Obama said:
“Humanity has been grappling with these questions throughout human history. Unless we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place. Remember that during the Crusades and Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ. And our home country, slavery and Jim Crow all too often was justified in the name of Christ.”
I would really like to hear Obama describe the historical timeline of the Crusades.

I wonder if he even knows that the Crusades (and the Inquisition) were a RESPONSE to Muslims murdering Christians and Jews during Islamic incursions into Christian territory.

Now, on the other hand, Christians did, indeed, use their faith, and even the Bible itself, to justify slavery during the early years of our nation's history.

Here are some real quotes. I suspect there are hundreds of these in our historical record:
[Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation...it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts. —Jefferson Davis, President, Confederate States of America 
Every hope of the existence of church and state, and of civilization itself, hangs upon our arduous effort to defeat the doctrine of Negro suffrage. —Robert Dabney, a prominent 19th-century Southern Presbyterian pastor 
... the right of holding slaves is clearly established in the Holy Scriptures, both by precept and example. —Richard Furman, President, South Carolina Baptist Convention
And the Bible does say,
Ephesians 6:5-8New American Standard Bible (NASB) 5 Slaves, be obedient to those who are your [a]masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in the sincerity of your heart, as to Christ; 6 not [b]by way of eyeservice, as men-pleasers, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the [c]heart. 7 With good will [d]render service, as to the Lord, and not to men, 8 knowing that whatever good thing each one does, this he will receive back from the Lord, whether slave or free.
and
Colossians 3:22-24New American Standard Bible (NASB) 22 Slaves, in all things obey those who are your masters [a]on earth, not with [b]external service, as those who merely please men, but with sincerity of heart, fearing the Lord. 23 Whatever you do, do your work [c]heartily, as for the Lord [d]rather than for men, 24 knowing that from the Lord you will receive the reward [e]of the inheritance. It is the Lord Christ whom you serve.
Such quotes taken in isolation, however disgusting, do not tell the entire story.

The truth is, the Bible verses above, likely, gave black slaves here in the United States an idea of how to preserve some dignity under the evil weight of their enforced servitude.

Additionally, the quotes from Jefferson Davis, et al, do not serve to encompass the whole of the story of American Christianity's response to slavery.

Indeed, American Christians were the leaders of the Abolitionist movement. And they were moved, BY SCRIPTURE, in their opposition to slavery:
By our slaveholding definitions, human slavery is described as property in man, and slaves are declared to be the property of their masters or owners, and cannot own, possess, or enjoy anything but what belongs to their owners. But by our common law definitions, human slavery is compounded of the crimes of kidnapping, assault and battery, and false imprisonment. 
In Exodus 21:16  
And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death.--Ex. xxi. 16.
Etc.

Again, I would like to hear Obama explain the historical procession of ideas that supported and then ultimately defeated slavery.

I seriously doubt he knows the history.

16 comments:

Anonymous said...

Irony...1/28/2015, JPost: Obama dismisses Muslim faith claims, says he is devout Christian
Not just Christian, but a d-e-v-o-u-t Christian.
That yokel has no shame, soul or integrity.

Anonymous said...

Given it's black history month and your closing statement on slavery...consider:
"Theodore Parker" who wrote "Historic Americans", in which he describes founding father, Ben Franklin, abolitionist extraordinaire, quoting the koran in defending his abolition petition to Congress
See online here: “Historic Americans” or http://tinyurl.com/aa96dnm

Page 27:

You see the young nation in its infancy. “Hercules in his cradle, “ said Franklin; but with a legion of the mystic serpents about him. If the rising sun shines auspicious, yet the clouds threaten a storm, long and terrible. “

Page 33

VI. Franklin, an old man of eighty-four, is making ready to die. The great philosopher, the great statesman, he has done with philosophy and state craft, not yet ended his philanthropy. He is satisfied with having taken the thunderbolt from the sky, bringing it noiseless and harmless to the ground; he has not yet done with taking the scepter from tyrants. True, he has, by the foundation of the American state on the natural and inalienable rights of all, helped to set America free from the despotism of the British king and Parliament. None has done more for that. He has made the treaty with Prussia, which forbids privateering on land or sea. But now he remembers that there are some six hundred thousand African slaves in America, whose bodies are taken from their control, even in time of peace – peace to other men, to them a period of perpetual war. So in 1787, he founds a society for the abolition of slavery. He is its first President, and in that capacity signed a <...>
[to be continued below]

Anonymous said...

[continued]
Page 34

petition to Congress, asking “the restitution of liberty to those unhappy men, who alone in this land of freedom are degraded into perpetual bondage;” asks Congress “that you will step to the very verge of the power vested in you for discouraging every species of traffic in the persons of our fellow-men.” This petition was the last public act of Franklin, the last public document he ever signed. He had put his hand to the Declaration of Independence; to the treaties of alliance with France and Prussia; to the treaty of peace with Great Britain, now he signs the first petition for the abolition of slavery. Between 1783 and 1790 what important events had taken place! For three years he had been President of Pennsylvania, unanimously elected by the Assembly every time save the first, when one vote out of seventy-seven was cast against him. He had been a member of the Federal Convention, which made the Constitution, and, spite of what he considered to be its errors, put his name to it. Neither he, nor Washington, nor indeed any of the great men who helped to make that instrument, thought it perfect, or worshiped it as an idol. But now, as his last act, he seeks to correct the great fault, and blot, and vice of of the American government – the only one which, in seventy-six years, has given us much trouble. The petition was presented on the 12th of February, 1790. It asked for the abolition of the

Page 35

slave trade, and for the emancipation of slaves. A storm followed; the South was in a rage, which lasted till near the end of March. Mr. Jackson, of Georgia, defended the “peculiar institution.” The ancient republics had slaves; the whole current of the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation, proved that religion was not hostile to slavery. On the 23rd of March, 1790, Franklin wrote for the National Gazette the speech in favor of the enslavement of Christians. He put it into the mouth of a member of the Divan of Algiers. It was a parody of the actual words of Mr. Jackson, of Georgia, as delivered in Congress a few days before; the text, however, being taken out of the Koran. It was one of the most witty, brilliant, and ingenious things that came from his mind. This was the last public writing of Dr. Franklin; and, with the exception of a letter to his sister and one to Mr. Jefferson, it was the last line which ran out from his fertile pen. - written only twenty-four days before his death. What a farewell it was! This old man, “the most rational, perhaps of all philosophers,” the most famous man in America, now in private life, waiting for the last angel to unbind his spirit and set him free from a perishing body, makes his last appearance before the American people as President of an abolition society, protesting against American slavery in the last public line he writes! One of his wittiest and most ingenious works is a plea for the bondman,

Page 36

adroit, masterly, short, and not to be answered. It was fit to be the last scene of such a life. Drop down the curtain before the sick old man, and let his healthy soul ascend unseen and growing.

[END]

Anonymous said...

Obama also slipped up again at this event: "We are summoned to push back against those who would distort our religion for their nihilistic ends,"

Anonymous said...

Back in October, Liveleak:
Obama Says America is one of the largest Muslim Countries of The World
in interview by French TV Channel Canal+

Pastorius said...

Thanks.

We actually posted on that Canal TV interview with Obama back in October of 2014.

http://ibloga.blogspot.com/2014/10/the-guy-who-said-us-wasnt-judeo.html

But this information you are giving me might make a good post all put together in one.

Anonymous said...

Perhaps then, this also may be of interest. I'm currently reading "Islam through the Looking Glass" by JB Kelly, Pg.32:
"It is beyond our scope here to examine at any length the injurious effects of Arab and Iranian oil money upon the West. That the contagion already has entered the body of the West can be confirmed by the merest glance. it is present in financial and commercial circles, though its workings are rarely exposed to public view. It has penetrated politics and government, especially in Britain, France and the US, where the spectacle of high-ranking ministers, officials, and politicians wheedling, flattering, and fawning upon the plutocrats of Arabia and Iran has become a daily occurrence. To the Western public, growing increasingly uneasy and dejected at the progress of the contagion, it is glibly explained by their rulers and by those in public life to whom they look for instruction and guidance that the contagion does not exist; or, if it does, that it is benign; or it is not benign, then there is nothing to be done about it."
[to be continued]

Anonymous said...

[continued] Note: This essay was published in the New Republic on July 26, 1980.

"It is difficult, indeed impossible, to believe that the governments of Britain, France, and the US are not fully aware of the nature of the Middle Eastern regimes with which they are treating and of the corrupting effects which Arab and Iranian oil money is having in Western society. This being so, their indifference to what is happening -- one might almost say their encouragement of it--is presumably occasioned by fear and greed: fear of offending the Arabs and Iranians lest they reduce oil supplies or raise oil prices; greed for the expenditure and investment of their oil revenues in the ailing economies of the West. How else is one to account for the obsequious contortions performed by British, French, or American politicians and officials to ingratiate themselves with the rulers of the gulf states and, until his fall the shah?"

Anonymous said...

[continued]
"How else to interpret the insensibiility of the British and French governments to the feelings of the citizens of Lond and Paris as they watch the more select parts of their cities being turned into Middle Eastern caravanserais, bazaars, and bagnios? Or are force to witness assassinations and gun battles in their streets between warring Arab factions, whose presence in their capitals, along with the arms and money with which they are amply furnished, has largely been made possible by the excessive oil revenues paid to the Arab oil states?
The lure of Arab and Iranian oil money has also exerted its attraction outside Western financial and political circles. Its influence is discernible in publishing and journalism, in the professions, in the universities and lerned societies, most of it unnoticed and unrealized by the Western public at large. Throughout the past decade, newspapers like the London Times, the Financial Times, and le Monde have shown themselves increasingly ready to cater to the desire of Saudi Arabia and the petty states of the Gulf for self-esteem and self-advertisement by publishing a seemingly endless stream of supplements about the wisdom, and capacity of the governments of these countries the charm and talents of their peoples, ..."


You get the picture by now...despite this essay having been written nearly 35 years ago, it is just as relevant today. FWIW...This book is dedicated to Hugh Fitzgerald ...Islam Through the Looking Glass.

Pastorius said...

I don't understand that post about Ben Franklin, MLK and the Koran.

Could you please explain?

Who supposedly quoted from the Koran? And what was their point?

Anonymous said...

Pg. 35..."On the 23rd of March, 1790, Franklin wrote for the National Gazette the speech in favor of the enslavement of Christians. He put it into the mouth of a member of the Divan of Algiers. It was a parody of the actual words of Mr. Jackson, of Georgia, as delivered in Congress a few days before; the text, however, being taken out of the Koran. It was one of the most witty, brilliant, and ingenious things that came from his mind."
I have not been able to locate a copy of Franklins parody. The above quote is the only reference I have come across. The author, Theodore Parker, is the source of the quote on the rug in the Oval Office, a quote frequently mis attributed to MLK.

Pastorius said...

I see.

that's what I thought.

I was unable to find any reference to it either. Therefore, I had thought I had misunderstood what you were getting at.

Alas, not. It's just the reference is not well-documented.

Anonymous said...

I found it ..... See FranklinPapers.org (only partial transcript below)

Benjamin Franklin to the Federal Gazette (unpublished)

To the Editor of the Federal Gazette.
March 23.

Sir,

Reading last night in your excellent paper the speech of Mr. Jackson in Congress, against meddling with the affair of savery, or attempting to mend the condition of slaves, it put me in mind of a similar one made about one hundred years since, by Sidi Mehemet Ibrahim, a member of the Divan of algiers, which may be seen in Martin's account of his consulship, anno 1687. It was against granting the petition of the Sect called Erika or Purists, who prayed for the abolition of piracy and slavery, as being unjust. Mr. Jackson does not quote it; perhaps he has not seen it. If therefore some of its reasonings are to be found in his eloquent speech, it may only show that men's interests and intellects operate and are operated on with surprising similarity in all countries and climates, whenever they are under similar circumstances. The African's speech, as translated, is as follows:
"Allah Bismillah, &c. God is great, and Mahomet is his Prophet.
"Have these Erika considered the consequences of granting their petition? If we cease our cruiss against the christians, how shall we be furnished with the commodities their coutnries produce, and which are so necessary for us? If we forebear to make slaves of their people, who, in this hot climate, are to cultivate our lands? Who are to perform the common labours of our city, and in our families? Must we not hten be our own slaves? and is there not more campassion and more favour due to us Musselmen, than to these christian dogs? We have no above 50,000 slaves in and near Algiers. This number, if not kept up by fresh supplies, will soon diminish, and be gradually annihilated. If then we cease taking and plundering the Infidel ships, and making slaves of the seamen and passengers, our lands will become of no value for want of cultivation; the rents of houses in the city will sink one half? and the revenues of government arising from its share of prizes must be totally destroyed. And for what? to gratify the whim of a whimsical sect! who would have us not only forbear making more slaves, but even to manumit those we have. But who is to indemnify their masters for the loss? Will the state do it? Is our treasury sufficient? Will the Erika do it? Can they do it? Or would they, to do what they think justice to the slaves, do a greater injustice to the owners? And if we set our slaves free, what is to be done with them? Few of them will return to their countries, they know too well the greater hardships they must there be subject to: they will not embrace our holy religion: they will not adopt our manners: our people will not pollute themeselves by intermarying with them: must we maintain them as beggars in our streets; or suffer our properties to be the prey of their pillage; for men accostomed to slavery, will not work for a livelihood when not compelled."

[to be continued]

Anonymous said...

[continued]
"And what is there so pitiable in their present condition? Were they not slaves in their own countries? Are not Spain, Portugal, France and the Italian states, governed by despots, who hold all their subjects in slavery, without exception? Even England treats its sailors as slaves, for they are, whenever the government pleases, seized and confined in ships of war, condemned not only to work but to fight for small wages or a mere subsistance, not better than our slaves are allowed by us. Is their condition then made worse by their falling in to our hands? No, they have only exchanged one slavery for another: and I may say a better: for here they are brought in to a land where the sun of Islamism gives forth its light, and shines in full splendor, and they have an opportunity of making themselves acquainted with the true doctrine, and thereby saving their immortal souls. Those who remain at home have not that happiness. Sending the slaves home then, would be sending them out of light into darkness. I repeat the quesiton, what is to be done with them? I have heard it suggested, that they may be planted in the wilderness, where there is plenty of land for them to subsiston, and where they may flourish as a free state; but they are, I doubt, too little disposed to labour without compulsion, as well as too ignorant to establish a good government, and the wild Arabs would soon molest and destroy or again enslave them. While serving us, we take care to provide them with every thing; and they are treated with humanity. The labourers in their own countries, aer, as I am well informed, worse fed, lodged and cloathed. The condition of most of them is therefore already mended, and requires no farther improvement. Here their lives are in safety. They are not liable to be impressed for soldiers, and forced to cut one another's christian throats, as in the wars of their own countries. "
[continued]

Anonymous said...

[continued]
"If some of the religious mad bigots who now teaze us with their silly petitions, have in a fit of blind zeal freed their slaves, it was not generosity, it was not humanity that moved them to the action; it was from the conscious burthen of a load of sins, and hope from the supposed merits of so good a work to be excused from damnation. How grosly are they mistaken in imagining slavery to be disallowed by the Alcoran! Are not the two precepts, to quote no more, Masters treat your slaves with kindness: Slaves serve your masters with cheerfulness and fidelity, clear proofs to the contrary? Nor can the plundering of infidels be in that sacred book forbidden, since it is well known from it, that God has given the world all that it contains to his faithful musselmen, who are to enjoy it of right as fast as they can conquer it. Let us then hear no more of this detestable proposition, the manumission of christian slaves, the adoption fo which would, by preciating our lands and houses, therby depriving so many good citizens of their properties, create universal discontent, and provoke insurrections, to the endangering of ggovernment, and producing general confusion. Ihave therefore no doubt, but this wise Council will prefer the comfort and happiness of a whole nation of true belie3vers, to the whim of a few Erika, and dismiss their petition."

[continued]

Anonymous said...

[continued]
"The result was, as Martin tells us, that the Divan came to this resolution, "The doctrine that plundering and enslaving the Christians is unjust, is at best problematical; but that is the interest of this state to continue the practice, is clear; therefore let the petition be rejected."

And it was rejected accordingly.

and since like motives are apt to produce in the minds of men like opinions and resolutions, may we not, Mr. Brown, venture to predict,, from this account, that the petitions to the parliament of England for abolishing the slave trade, to say nothing of other legislatures, and the debates upon them, will have a similar conclusion. I am, Sir, Your constant reader and humble servant.
Historicus.


[END]