The President and the National Prayer Breakfast

[Guest]

I don't care if you're Republican, Democrat, Liberal, Conservative, Independent, Red, White, or Blue.... that was just one dumb speech.

 

 

We have seen violence and terror perpetrated by those who profess to stand up for faith, their faith.  Professed to stand up for Islam, but in fact are betraying it.  Humanity has been grappling with these questions throughout human history.  And lest we get on our high horse and think this is (pause) 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.

 

 

Really?  He's gonna use the Crusades and Jim Crow to excuse the Islamic Terrorists?  At the National Prayer Breakfast of all places?

 

There was a time when this kind of stupidity would be eaten up by journalists as an attempt at political suicide...

 

[pam]

I agree.  His comparison was ridiculous.

[NightSG]

Well, I'll say one thing for him; he's got more people praying than any President I can remember.

 

Granted, a lot are praying that he'll go away and take Biden with him, but still.

[Palerider]

I agree....it was very sad and disappointing

[Still_Small_Voice]

That speech was awful.

In my opinion Mister Obama thinks he is morally superior to others. He thinks that others who have some wealth need to pay their "fair share" in taxes to help others in the world.

Obama has a net worth of about 12 million dollars. He makes about $400,000 per year and has his housing, medical, food, security and all travel expenses paid for. (He also has investments in the Cayman Islands.) He has had many many expensive vacations during his sojurn as President. I personally have no qualm with the 12 million dollars he has, but he has no right to continually talk about income inequality and confiscating others income to support his programs while piling up a lot of wealth for himself and living very very luxuriously. It is very hypocritical.

Edited February 9, 2015 by Still_Small_Voice

[prisonchaplain]

Reminds me of a 2002 conference I attended, put on by our local school district.  This was about six months after 9/11, and the District Superintendent says to us, "I can't see the difference between Al Quaida and the Christian Coalition."  Now, I know what he meant--that both want to establish theocracies.  Nevertheless, I was dumbfounded--so shocked, I did not immediately react.  Strangely, over the next three days no one at the conference mentioned it. 

 

So, here we are 13 years later...

[Windseeker]

We have come to a point where the American people have chosen a President who is so morally and intellectually incapacitated that he is unable to simply outright condemn rape, murder and slavery and those who perpetrate it.

[Guest]

We have come to a point where the American people have chosen a President who is so morally and intellectually incapacitated that he is unable to simply outright condemn rape, murder and slavery and those who perpetrate it.

 

Not sure about the morally or intellectually incapacitated... I think he is simply favoring political viability over correct foreign policy in the information age.  So, I lay that blame squarely on the voters/lobbyists/donors who put the pressure on certain political positions.

[Windseeker]

What I mean by incapacitated is that the Progressive/Elitist/Radical thought process combines moral equivalency with the "End Justifies the Means". Rape, Murder and Slavery is not wrong or right per se, it just is. That is why you see a marked difference in a President who is moved to put his own life at risk in an effort pursue justice for his murdered pilot while our President can shoot a few rounds of golf and sip a few brews with a clean conscience after Americans are publicly be-headed. 

 

Eph. 4:17-19 

17 This I say therefore, and testify in the Lord, that ye henceforth walk not as other Gentiles walk, in the vanity of their mind,

18 Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart:

19 Who being past feeling have given themselves over unto lasciviousness, to work all uncleanness with greediness.

[Traveler]

I personally do not think that the president is that far off in his observations and of historical failures of Traditional Christians.  However, as usual - his examples and purposes indicate an obvious prejudice and misunderstanding.  I would point out that historically war has always been violent and examples of inhuman acts and most wars have been waged at least in part in the name of G-d.  As much as we disavow Hitler as religious and in particular Christian the purpose of the Third Reich  was to reestablish the Holy Roman empire.  And there is the famous sign displayed by the Germans at the battle of the bulge as well as an emblem worn by the German soldiers proclaiming or meaning "Gott mit uns" - which translated means "G-d is with us".

 

We can dismiss such things as the misfortunes of war.  But president Obama touched on another part of history - but again with prejudice and without a good understanding of history.  He talked of Jim Crow and slavery and missed more critical parts of history of what was done to natives in the western hemisphere.  There has always been opposition to slavery and there has always been religious debate and denouncing of slavery - but with what was done to native populations - especially those that did not convert to Christianity the voices of religious indignation has been sorrowfully lacking especially at the time when such things were happening. 

 

Despite the criticisms of President Obama Traditional Christian committed similar atrocities in ending paganism among the northern Germanic tribes of Europe where defenseless men, women and children (including infants) were slathered (entire communities) for not converting to Christianity or allowing pagan worship in their communities.  The perpetrator of this most inhuman slaughter was Charlemagne - a man that had significant influence on our modern biblical scriptures and a man that was crowned by Christian authorities of his day as the "Defender of the Faith".

 

I personally have no doubt what-so-ever that such acts of inhumanity are definite displays of Apostasy from the True G-d and creator of our universe.  So also is the denial of such acts and the inhuman turning aside, when something could be done to prevent such inhuman acts or to refuse real and needed support for those in desperate need.   It is the excuse to allow such things.  My objection is the Presidents lack of commitment to do something meaningful.  Just as I condemn leaders that in our history did not act as the saint they pretend to be - but obviously were not.

[Guest]

I would point out that historically war has always been violent and examples of inhuman acts and most wars have been waged at least in part in the name of G-d.  As much as we disavow Hitler as religious and in particular Christian the purpose of the Third Reich  was to reestablish the Holy Roman empire. 

 

Really?  Re-establish the HOLY Roman Empire?  Did you just, like... read that on Wikipedia or something?

[Guest]

Despite the criticisms of President Obama Traditional Christian committed similar atrocities in ending paganism among the northern Germanic tribes of Europe where defenseless men, women and children (including infants) were slathered (entire communities) for not converting to Christianity or allowing pagan worship in their communities.  The perpetrator of this most inhuman slaughter was Charlemagne - a man that had significant influence on our modern biblical scriptures and a man that was crowned by Christian authorities of his day as the "Defender of the Faith".

 

Sure.  When God empowered Joshua to conquer the Promised Land - killing everyone for 7 years... it is just.  When Charlemagne embraced Christianity and brought Christians out into the light of day... it's an atrocity.  Yet, without Charlemagne, it is doubtful that you will have Christians breathing today - let alone a Christian Religious Fervor during the days of Joseph Smith to even give him the idea to ask God which church he is to join.  Think of him what you will but he is a Defender of the Faith.

Edited February 9, 2015 by anatess

[Traveler]

Sure.  When God empowered Joshua to conquer the Promised Land - killing everyone for 7 years... it is just.  When Charlemagne embraced Christianity and brought Christians out into the light of day... it's an atrocity.  Yet, without Charlemagne, it is doubtful that you will have Christians breathing today - let alone a Christian Religious Fervor during the days of Joseph Smith to even give him the idea to ask God which church he is to join.  Think of him what you will but he is a Defender of the Faith.

 

I have pondered my response - you are such a valued friend.  But I think my understanding of G-d, the truths of the gospel of Jesus Christ and the constant eternal war between the forces of good and evil or a little different than yours.  Perhaps I can learn something I have not considered from you - I realize that there is good and evil among all men but for me - I would not and cannot say that Charlemagne (man more responsible for human death than the Black Plague)  is a defender of my faith.

[Guest]

I have pondered my response - you are such a valued friend.  But I think my understanding of G-d, the truths of the gospel of Jesus Christ and the constant eternal war between the forces of good and evil or a little different than yours.  Perhaps I can learn something I have not considered from you - I realize that there is good and evil among all men but for me - I would not and cannot say that Charlemagne (man more responsible for human death than the Black Plague)  is a defender of my faith.

 

Ponder this then:  Retrace history and figure out logical conclusions on where the "faith" would be from the time of Charlemagne to Joseph Smith without Charlemagne.

[Traveler]

Ponder this then:  Retrace history and figure out logical conclusions on where the "faith" would be from the time of Charlemagne to Joseph Smith without Charlemagne.

 

Ponder this:  Retrace history and figure out logical conclusions on where the "faith" would be from the time of Jesus to Joseph Smith without the Pharisees and Scribes that were responsible for putting Christ to death.

 

I do not believe that I have illusions of the Apostasy that critically altered plain and precious truths or historical individuals that were so influence by evil.  At the same time I also do not believe I have illusions on the wisdom of G-d being able to bring about his purposes despite the most evil of men or Apostasy of once divine institutions. 

 

I see little difference between Hitler and Charlemagne except that Hitler failed in the end to establish what historians call the Holy Roman Empire and write history without the input from friends and families of those put to death.

[prisonchaplain]

There is a good deal of debate about the extent and true damage of the Inquisition, as well as of the Crusades.  The current dogma that Christians of all stripes are culpable for the MASSIVE killings and torture of that era, in which innocent, almost-angelic victims suffered at the hands of a corrupt, demonized Christian church is such a ridiculous caracture. 

 

What really galls that is that our President chose this time and venue to explore those issues.  Never mind the current day's beheadings, torture, genocide, forced conversions, pedophile rape, genital mutilation, and terror war--no no--it's all morally equivalent to that which happened a millenia ago.

 

The President does not want to admit we are at war.  He'd rather have a classroom discussion about the specks in our eye, rather than actually have to deal with an enemy that, unlike him, really is DEADLY serious.

[Traveler]

There is a good deal of debate about the extent and true damage of the Inquisition, as well as of the Crusades.  The current dogma that Christians of all stripes are culpable for the MASSIVE killings and torture of that era, in which innocent, almost-angelic victims suffered at the hands of a corrupt, demonized Christian church is such a ridiculous caracture. 

 

What really galls that is that our President chose this time and venue to explore those issues.  Never mind the current day's beheadings, torture, genocide, forced conversions, pedophile rape, genital mutilation, and terror war--no no--it's all morally equivalent to that which happened a millenia ago.

 

The President does not want to admit we are at war.  He'd rather have a classroom discussion about the specks in our eye, rather than actually have to deal with an enemy that, unlike him, really is DEADLY serious.

 

I may not have been clear on a most important point.  Like the president I am very concerned about inhuman acts by men turning away from G-d.  But I am most concerned is about what believers do when such events are taking place.  I believe the great mistakes of history are turning our backs on those in need of our help and standing up to end what we know is evil.  I do support those willing to speak out - not just against the evil being done but those willing to let such evil be done - when ever and where ever evil is unleashed.  Those that stood by in history are as misguided as our Presidents efforts to do and say as little as possible now.

[prisonchaplain]

All it takes for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing.  I don't remember who said that, but Traveler echoes those words in his pos.

[Palerider]

I heard during the breakfast the President announced that if you like your omelet you can keep your omelet .....then all the omelets were gone...Lol!!! Sorry....I couldn't resist.

[Guest]

Ponder this:  Retrace history and figure out logical conclusions on where the "faith" would be from the time of Jesus to Joseph Smith without the Pharisees and Scribes that were responsible for putting Christ to death.

 

I do not believe that I have illusions of the Apostasy that critically altered plain and precious truths or historical individuals that were so influence by evil.  At the same time I also do not believe I have illusions on the wisdom of G-d being able to bring about his purposes despite the most evil of men or Apostasy of once divine institutions. 

 

I see little difference between Hitler and Charlemagne except that Hitler failed in the end to establish what historians call the Holy Roman Empire and write history without the input from friends and families of those put to death.

 

From the prism of the modern era, hindsight is always 20/20.  But, if it's in the Bible, then it's okay if they wiped out entire towns and cities... we can see the hand of God in them because Sunday School teaches it.  Anything else... we have the luxury of applying our own bias to such events so that... for a non-Mormon Joseph Smith is a pedophile sex-crazed maniac no better than Warren Jeffs.  And for a non-Christian, Charlemagne was just another evil war monger no better than Hitler.  Abraham Lincoln gets a pass... he can kill confederates and everybody still loves him, even the descendants of confederates.

Edited February 11, 2015 by anatess