National Prayer Breakfast 2015.

aristotle

Veteran Expediter
Whose idea was it to have Barack Hussein speak at the annual National Prayer Breakfast this year? Do US Presidents ordinarily attend these functions? Regardless, it provided a forum for Obama to do what he does best: Christian-bashing and trash talking the United States. Obama's comments could have been scripted as a propaganda video for ISIS. Obama is too inflammatory and divisive to be lecturing anyone.

Please, no more exotic presidents. No more novelty presidents. No more the first-this, the first-that president. Presidential elections should carry more consideration with voters than choosing a Prom King. Electing a US president is not a trivial matter. Obama is woefully unfit to serve as Chief Executive. By temperament, Obama is angry, vindictive, polarizing, petty and hostile. Six years have demonstrated he has slapped American values and heritage at nearly every chance. Obama has done his best to diminish America's standing in the world. Enough.

Can the Democrats give us another Truman or JFK? Nominate a patriot, please.
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
Oh, yeah, it was a thing started in the 1950s and was originally called the Presidential Prayer Breakfast. The name was changed in 1970, but every president since Eisenhower has participated in the annual event. It's an event hosted by Congress and usually has two guest speakers; the President, and one other speaker that is kept confidential until the morning of the breakfast. The second guest speakers have ranged from Sister Teresa to Tony Blair to Ben Carson (twice) to Bono to this year's Darrell Waltrip.

If the National Prayer Breakfast was an Internet Forum, Obama would be a troll.

It's amazing.

On the upside, Rand Paul sent Obama a Thank You note. :D
 

cheri1122

Veteran Expediter
Driver
Whose idea was it to have Barack Hussein speak at the annual National Prayer Breakfast this year? Do US Presidents ordinarily attend these functions? Regardless, it provided a forum for Obama to do what he does best: Christian-bashing and trash talking the United States. Obama's comments could have been scripted as a propaganda video for ISIS. Obama is too inflammatory and divisive to be lecturing anyone.

Please, no more exotic presidents. No more novelty presidents. No more the first-this, the first-that president. Presidential elections should carry more consideration with voters than choosing a Prom King. Electing a US president is not a trivial matter. Obama is woefully unfit to serve as Chief Executive. By temperament, Obama is angry, vindictive, polarizing, petty and hostile. Six years have demonstrated he has slapped American values and heritage at nearly every chance. Obama has done his best to diminish America's standing in the world. Enough.

Can the Democrats give us another Truman or JFK? Nominate a patriot, please.

Christian bashing? I am aware of the recent comments reminding people that radical Muslims have no monopoly on terrorizing others, but how many other comments bashing Christians have I missed?
And trashing America? By acknowledging that we aren't perfect, and don't always live up to our ideals?
Maybe that offends some, but I would rather hear the truth than the 'rah rah' 'love it or leave it' jingoism that passes for patriotism in some circles. True love for one's country requires the desire to see it be the best it can be, which requires admitting where it isn't, yet. You'll never fix it, if you can't admit it's broke.
I'd like to see another Eisenhower, myself, or JFK.
 

cheri1122

Veteran Expediter
Driver
PS: after the way Obama has been treated by the opposition for all six years so far, I can't blame him for being angry or vindictive. They made it clear that if he was for it, they were against it, no matter what "it" was. Cutting off their own noses to spite their faces is hardly a demonstration of mature or reasoned leadership, IMO.
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
Christian bashing? I am aware of the recent comments reminding people that radical Muslims have no monopoly on terrorizing others, but how many other comments bashing Christians have I missed?
And trashing America? By acknowledging that we aren't perfect, and don't always live up to our ideals?
Maybe that offends some, but I would rather hear the truth than the 'rah rah' 'love it or leave it' jingoism that passes for patriotism in some circles. True love for one's country requires the desire to see it be the best it can be, which requires admitting where it isn't, yet. You'll never fix it, if you can't admit it's broke.
I'd like to see another Eisenhower, myself, or JFK.
Yes, Christian bashing and trashing America. He didn't need to give a "rah rah" speech, but what he did was tell (preach to) a room full of Christians not to criticize the ISIS and the atrocities they have committed because Christians have been guilty of the same offenses in the past during the Crusades, the Inquisition, and during slavery. And he minimized America's values and ideals as being rather pedestrian on the world stage. Instead of standing up and saying ISIS is wrong in what they are doing, instead of dealing with the issue at hand, he waved his preachy little finger and admonished everybody to instead back off and give ISIS a little slack, judge not lest ye be judged, because we're not perfect.

He was so concerned about not offending Muslims in general in dealing with Islamic extremists that he went overboard in citing examples of how a few bad apples can distort and pervert religion to do bad things. He specifically noted that the violent acts of Islam are carried out by “twisted” individuals, but then in his reference to Christianity, the Crusades, and Jim Crow it wasn't about any "twisted" individuals, it was more about the religion, and Americans, as a whole.

As someone noted, it was an incredibly wrongheaded moral comparison.

Plus, Obama is forever tripping over himself to point out and emphasize ISIS’s acts of brutality (and other extremist groups) are not typical, normal Islamic behavior, but then to assert this and in the same breath suggest that Christianity was also a violent, expansionist religion a mere 800 years ago is a contradiction. Why make this comparison if ISIS is not representative of Islam, since he just got through saying that the Crusades and Jim Crow were typical of Christianity?

He's making great effort not to offend Muslims, and to de-offend any of them who have been offended, and at the same time marginalize Christianity and Christians, and America's values and ideals, as if to say we're all the same, we can all get along and play well together, we just happen to have different world views than the "twisted" extremists and all views are valid.

It's incredibly offensive, or certainly should be, to all Americans, and not just to Christians on the right. There's a time and a place for everything, and the National Prayer Breakfast isn't the time or the place to marginalize American's Christians nor America's morals, values and ideals.
 

mjmsprt40

Veteran Expediter
Owner/Operator
Why are we surprised? Remember his "pastor" who he had to hide in the 2008 elections? A real piece of work, that one. How you could be a member of that congregation, listening to that preaching every Sunday and NOT hate America would be a wonder.
 

cheri1122

Veteran Expediter
Driver
I'm going to have to read the text of Obama's speech - I don't believe he "admonished everybody to back off and give ISIS a little slack" - they are terrorists, plain & simple.
No comment on the Crusades, because history is written in different ways by different sides, but as far as Jim Crow? That wasn't a few twisted individuals, it was most of America.
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
No, he didn't say "not to criticize" in those exact words.

"And lest we get on our high horse and think this is 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."

Getting on a high horse means to sit above and look down upon and criticize. "And lest we get on" means don't do it.

And yes, he didn't say that ISIL was brutal, vicious Muslims, or that they committed brutal acts in the name of Islam or in the name of Mohammed, he called ISIL "a brutal, vicious death cult," he singled them out, used the word cult, which is by definition a small group, and he used the term "twisted individuals" to describe them. And when addressing a room full of Christians at the National Prayer Breakfast, when he says "lest we get on our high horse..." he's talking to and about Christians, especially in the context of the Crusades, the Inquisition and Jim Crow in the name of Christ. He's broad-brushing Christians while making great effort to surgically select Muslims.

Then he goes on about having to counteract the intolerance for these hate groups like ISIL. To counteract intolerance means to show tolerance for.

You put all that together, and it's "give 'am a little slack."
 

muttly

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Remarks by the President at National Prayer Breakfast | The White House


He didn't tell anyone "not to criticize", in fact, he called ISIL "a brutal, vicious death cult", and I'm ****ed if I can see where he criticized Christians, or minimized America's values, either. :confused:

So the following text below wouldn't be criticizing Democrats and their party's values?
From article:
By now you’ve probably dismounted from your high horse.

After all, President Obama reminded us that while it is bad that the Islamic State (which apparently isn’t Islamic, “whatever ideology they’re operating off of”) is beheading people and burning them alive in 2015, Christians (who were obviously Christian) also did very bad things in 1215.
If you didn’t learn this presidential history lesson, The Atlantic’s Ta-Nehisi Coates is here to offer extra help after class. He points out that Christianity was often invoked in defense of slavery, segregation and white supremacy for a large part of American history.

“The interest in power is almost always accompanied by the need to sanctify that power,” Coates theorizes. “That is what the Muslims terrorists in ISIS are seeking to do today, and that is what Christian enslavers and Christian terrorists did for the lion’s share of American history.”

Very well, then. The next time some Republican says dumb and ugly things about race, our Democratic friends will apply the same logic and say something like the following:
Lest we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other party, remember that from its founding until the 1960s, people committed terrible deeds in the name of the Democratic Party. In our own party, slavery and Jim Crow all too often were justified in the Democratic platform.
Confederate General Nathan Bedford Forrest, possibly the first grand dragon of the Ku Klux Klan, spoke at the 1868 Democratic National Convention. Most Klansmen were Democrats. The party refused to condemn the Klan as late as its 1924 convention, a gathering wags called “the Klanbake.”

Woodrow Wilson, a progressive Democrat, was a white supremacist who re-segregated the federal workforce. Segregationists were part of the New Deal coalition and were running mates even to liberal Democratic presidential candidates into the 1950s. In 1956, 99 of the 101 politicians who signed the racist “Southern Manifesto” were Democrats.

The major civil rights legislation of the 1950s and 1960s were supported by a lower percentage of Democratic members of Congress than Republicans. This included J. William Fulbright, who was a mentor to Bill Clinton, Al Gore Sr., who was father of the future vice president, and Robert Byrd, an ex-Klansmen who was the Senate Democratic floor leader until 1989 and an elected Democrat until his death in 2010.

George Wallace, Bull Connor and Lester Maddox were all Democrats… By now you get the point.

We don’t need to ask whether liberals think any of this history is relevant to the Democratic Party today. They’ve told us repeatedly.

When then-conservative Bruce Bartlett wrote a book about the Democrats’ past racism, the Washington Monthly’s Steve Benen dismissed it as “cheap and silly.”
“If history ended in 1965,” Benen concluded, “Bartlett may have a legitimate point.”

Or as Matthew Yglesias put it, “that was all quite a long time ago.”

Not longer ago than the history Obama and Coates cite in comparing Christian supporters of slavery and segregation in the 19th and 20th centuries to ISIS today. (Coates curiously downplays the extent to which Christianity also played a role in abolishing slavery and segregation.)

It’s all much more recent than the Crusades or the Inquisition.

If we’re talking about Christians or Americans, there is a direct link between the distant past and today. If we’re talking about Democrats, it’s all ancient history.

It’s almost like saying that bringing up the weather to argue against global warming is stupid but bringing up the weather to argue for it is really smart and sophisticated.

All analogies break down somewhere. There’s obviously less continuity between the Democratic platforms of 1860 and 2012 than Christian doctrines from the early church to today.

Most liberals would say that whatever the sins of past Democrats, what’s relevant is where the party stands today. The same is true for the president’s history lesson: whatever sins have historically been committed in the name of Christianity, ISIS is setting people on fire right now.

The United States abolished slavery in 1865. ISIS still practices it.
http://dailycaller.com/2015/02/07/people-committed-terrible-deeds-in-the-name-of-democrats/
 
Last edited:

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
Ummm ... so ... basically, your previous assertion was pretty much completely made up out of whole cloth then ...
If you're going to sit there and call me a liar, then you need to justify it and tell me how I lied.

Made of whole cloth - Something made completely new, with no history, and not based on anything else. A complete fabrication, a lie with no basis in the truth.

Since I just got through laying out the reasoning of how I reached the conclusion that he was telling people not to criticize, and did so in the very post from which you grabbed that quote, I have to assume you either didn't read the rest of what I wrote, or you failed utterly to comprehend it. If in fact you did both and disagree with my conclusions, fine, then tell me how how you disagree, but don't sit there and assert my conclusions are fabricated lies not based on anything. Otherwise, in fine Brisco fashion, you're doing precisely what you incorrectly accuse me of doing.

I do love a good irony, tho.
 

witness23

Veteran Expediter
Out of curiosity turtle, did you see the Presidents speech or read his speech before you made your comments in post #5?
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
Turtle, do you believe the President is a Christian?
That's a very dangerous question, because my answer is gonna pіss off a lot of Christians.

Short answer is, yes, I believe he is a Christian. He claims to be a Christian, so I have to go with that, just like I believe others when they say they are Christian. I have no reason to doubt him, to believe that he is some other religion, or that he is an atheist. Furthermore, I believe he is a typical Christian, like most Christians, who uses his Christianity when it suits him and ignores it when it doesn't. He did that very thing in his Prayer Breakfast speech, where he used his Christianity to chide other Christians for not being the right kind of Christian or not being Christian enough, which is exactly what Christians do all the time ad nauseum. He stood there and told Christians (preached) what their job was as Christians with respect to God, and that they should "assume humbly" that they are confused and don't know what they're doing, and then immediately followed that up by telling them what God's own personal position on terror is.
 

Ragman

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
. . . do you believe the President is a Christian?
Nope!

Obama-and-the-Jewish-vote-620x310.jpg
 

cheri1122

Veteran Expediter
Driver
What I read in Obama's speech was simply a reminder about "people who live in glass houses", in order to forestall the serious [as in bodily injury & death] Muslim bashing that inevitably occurs when one fanatic part of a larger group commits atrocities. It's the same speech we heard [not from Obama, obviously] when the anti abortion fanatics were bombing abortion clinics: "Not all Christians are extremists!"
The message was on point then, too: neither Christians nor Muslims should be held accountable for the actions of terrorists who claim their religion as defense. The religion isn't to blame, just the twisted thoughts and behavior of fanatics.
I still fail to see any "Christian bashing" or "trashing America" in the speech - just a reminder that Muslims aren't the enemy, terrorists [like ISIL] are. Perhaps many in the audience didn't need the reminder, but I'd be willing to bet that many did as well.
 
Top