Barack Obama

When Americans Practiced Terrorism

Obama had a good point at the National Prayer Breakfast.

|

Conservatives got a bee up their nose when, at the National Prayer Breakfast earlier this month, President Barack Obama reminded Christians not to cast the first stone. Christians had done some pretty ferocious things themselves, Obama said (citing, e.g., the Crusades) and ought to be careful about getting on their "high horse" over heinous crimes committed by Islamic fanatics.

In the wake of ISIS' hideous immolation of Jordanian pilot Moaz al-Kasabeh, that was bound to stir resentment—even though the idea that we are all sinners is not exactly controversial doctrine in the Christian church. Still, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal got off a pretty good riposte when he remarked that "the medieval Christian threat is under control, Mr. President. Please deal with the radical Islamic threat today." Many others made similar points. As syndicated columnist Cal Thomas put it, ISIS is known for "beheading and flogging people, oppressing and raping women . . . and jailing or discriminating against anyone who practices another faith, or no faith. . . . Modern Jews and Christians aren't known for such behavior."

Thomas gave several examples of atrocities committed by Islamic fanatics, such as "Khalid bin al-Walid—the heroic 'Sword of Allah'—who burned apostates to death." But he left out one particularly gruesome episode not so long ago, in which a bloodthirsty mob of savages seized three men and then castrated them, stabbed them, tied them up, and set fire to them while a crowd of spectators watched.

Yet that didn't happen in Raqqa, Haditha, or Tal Afar. It happened in Kirvin, Texas, in 1922. The three victims were black, and the mob was angry over the killing of a white woman.

It wasn't an isolated incident, either. Things like that happened a lot in the U.S.—not several centuries ago, but within living memory. Last week the Equal Justice Initiative in Montgomery, Alabama, released a report with details about 3,959 such "racial terror lynchings" in 12 Southern states between the Civil War and WWII. (Not 39, or 390, but nearly 4,000.)

The report defines racial terror lynchings as those committed against people who had not been accused of any crime, let alone convicted. Rather, the victims usually were killed for "minor social transgressions," such as accidentally bumping into a white person on the street, "or for demanding basic rights and fair treatment." William Little was lynched in Blakely, Georgia, in 1919 for refusing to take off his uniform. He was returning from WWI. In 1940 Jesse Thornton was lynched in Lucerne, Alaba,a, for failing to address a white police officer as "mister." Many lynchings happened for similar detestable reasons.

Lynchings were used as a "tool of social control" against African-Americans, to make them subservient by keeping them terrified. It worked: "After a lynching in Forsyth County, Ga., in 1912, white vigilantes distributed leaflets demanding that all black people leave the county or suffer deadly consequences; so many black families fled that, by 1920, the county's black population had plunged from 1,100 to just thirty."

Nor were lynchings carried out in the dark of night by a few people ashamed of what they were doing. In Mississippi, Luther Holbert and a black woman were lynched in front of a mob of several hundred in 1904. "Both victims were tied to a tree and forced to hold out their hands while members of the mob methodically chopped off their fingers and distributed them as souvenirs," the report says. "Next, their ears were cut off. Mr. Holbert was then beaten so severely that his skull was fractured and one of his eyes was left hanging from its socket. Members of the mob used a large corkscrew to bore holes into the victims' bodies and pull out chunks of 'quivering flesh,' after which both victims were thrown onto a raging fire and burned. The white men, women, and children present watched the horrific murders while enjoying deviled eggs, lemonade, and whiskey in a picnic-like atmosphere."

Events like that were common. You can easily find accounts and photographic evidence with a quick Google search.

America today is not what America was then. (And even then, many Americans were horrified by the depravity of lynching.) It's also important to note that America transcended the barbarity of racial terrorism with much help from people of true Christian faith. But to recognize that America transcended such barbarity implicitly is to concede that others can, too. Christians of all people should be wary of declaring anyone beyond redemption.

Solzhenitsyn, who knew a thing or two about the depravity inflicted by fanatics in thrall to malignant ideology, probably said it best: "The line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either—but right through every human heart."

Advertisement

NEXT: Does Circumcision Cause Autism?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Isn’t it sort of imperialist to get upset about other people doing stuff that is a sin in your culture but not in theirs?

    I mean Christians, of course.

    We can’t really expect better from Muslims.

  2. AmeriKKKa==ISIS.

    Got it.

    1. Sure the Rape of Nanking was horrible, but AmeriKKKa used to have SLAVES!!11!!

    2. The same dumb schmucks who first told us that the “Arab Spring” would be the greatest thing ever have now completely channeled their inner little Obama junior since they got exposed as the silly, naive dolts that they are. It’s really something.

      1. I was for the Arab spring because I was thinking about what would happen after toppling a dictator if everyone doing the toppling has the same cultural background as me. In the ensuing vacuum the first free expression in the middle east is monstrous.

        1. It’s good that you can admit that you made a mistake and learned something. We all make mistakes at times.

          Because frankly, there are some people writing for this journal who appear to have not learned a damn thing from recent events.

  3. This foreign group is committing atrocities! Quick, our immediate priority is to curb our self-righteouness by finding atrocities from the Jim Crow South!

    “Christians of all people should be wary of declaring anyone beyond redemption”

    Which definition of redemption are we using?

    1. well said.

  4. Maybe Barton missed it or something, but we don’t lynch people anymore. The country found the practice revolting and put a stop to it. They also put a stop to Jim Crow. It was kind of a big deal back in the 60s.

    What the hell is the point of this article? Does Hinkle think that lynchings make what ISIS is doing okay? If not, then what the hell does he think they have to do with this?

    First, nothing that happened under Jim Crow is the same as burning prisoners alive or what ISIS is doing right now. Even if it were, that wouldn’t in anyway mean the US or any American doesn’t have a right to unequivocally condemn what is going on there and the people who do it.

    If Barton can’t condemn this shit without some mealy mouthed “yeah but we are just as bad”, that is his problem. He is allowed his own self loathing and fear of running afoul with PC culture prevent him from making even the most obvious of moral judgements.

    1. Maybe he’s worried our self-righteousness will lead to a Rush to War?

      Still, it’s a ridiculous thing to bring up now.

      1. Also, he probably doesn’t want to even suggest that there is any group out there that’s worse than Christians.

      2. No, Hinkle is a typical douche bag white person who lacks the balls to stand up to any designated victim group under any circumstances.

        Muslims are brown people. They can’t be that bad or certainly any worse than we are, even if they are burning people alive and turning women into sex slaves. Brown people are always better than evil white people or maybe in some really extreme cases as bad.

        This article is disgusting. It is also an example of how fucking useless many self professed Libertarians will be if the time ever comes to actually fight an enemy to keep our freedom. Libertarians like Hinkle wouldn’t fight unless the enemy was someone fashionable society found objectionable.

    2. First, nothing that happened under Jim Crow is the same as burning prisoners alive or what ISIS is doing right now.

      Actually, some of the stuff done to rebellious slaves to terrify the others during the colonial era was at ISIS levels of cruelty. The severed heads posted on crossroads after the Stono Rebellion for example.

      Even if it were, that wouldn’t in anyway mean the US or any American doesn’t have a right to unequivocally condemn what is going on there and the people who do it.

      THIS!!!!!!

      This entire article strikes me like some SJW shrieking “Check your privilege” to shut up someone he/she/it doesn’t agree with.

    3. Most recent example of American barbarism from the article: 1940, or, seventy five goddamn years ago.

      Most recent example of ISIS barbarism, possibly as much as 75 hours old.

      Slight difference.

  5. I’ve got an idea! Let’s excuse ISIS because of what our great grandfathers may have done a century ago!

    derp

    1. I checked my ancestry and didn’t find any Jim Crow era Southern whites among my great-grandfathers. And if I had, that wouldn’t make them lynchers.

      1. My ancestors were Quakers. I get to judge all I want.

        1. Southern Quakers?

          1. Yep. Guilford, N.C. and pushed out prior to the Civil War.

    2. My ancestors are all from the midwest and voted Republican, you know the party that was against Jim Crow.

      1. I bet they voted for Lincoln, too, you monster.

    3. I’ve got an idea! Let’s excuse ISIS because of what our great grandfathers may have done a century ago!

      That the majority of Americans condemned and put a stop to!

      Herpity herp de derp!

      Anyway, how long are ancestors of victims allowed to hold paper on past atrocities? Because my Irish and Scottish ancestors were sorely aggrieved by the English. I think that may make me a victim, entitled to special privileges.

      1. You already took your revenge, it’s called haggis.

        Is there no end to your vindictiveness?

        1. *narrows gaze, tells haggis, it will be OK*

        2. No, Celtic peoples hold grudges for centuries.

          1. Do you watch Top Gear? The British hosts tried to do a road trip to Argentina, but were literally run out of the country by rioters.

            1. I do watch Top Gear, but I haven’t seen the Argentina episode.

            2. To be fair to the Argentines – the Top Gear guys were total arseholes, rubbing in their faces Argentina’s loss in the Falkland’s war.

              1. the Top Gear guys were total arseholes

                Well, yeah. That’s their shtick.

          2. What do you call Irish Alzheimer’s?

            They forget everything but the grudges.

            1. Pretty much. The Scots aren’t much better.

              1. Yeah, even a mild mannered, good natured, fanatically zealous Irish-American anarchist like me, holds grudges.

            2. This too. She can’t remember conversations from the day before, but can remember insults, slights, and offenses from decades ago. *facepalm*

          3. Oh my fucking God they do. I have an ex-girlfriend, who very strongly identifies as Irish, who has a deep and abiding personal hatred for Cromwell. Despite his having been dead for like, 325-some years before she was born.

            It’s a cultural thing, though, because I’m a good 75% scots-irish by volume, but I identify as “American Mutt”, and totally don’t hold grudes for even months, let alone, err, centuries.

            1. To be fair, Cromwell *was* a bit of a douche.

              1. But he’s dead! DEAD! *shrug*

      2. The Russian blood in me has been considering suing my German blood for WWII reparations for some time now.

      3. That the majority of Americans condemned and put a stop to!

        Exactly. Applying the logic of Hinkle’s reasoning, you’d say there is no difference between the animals in ISIS and, say, King Abdullah. Isn’t that the sort of mindless collectivism libertarians reject?

    4. I’m Canadian, so I get free rein in saying that what ISIS does is fucked up.

      *Hides country’s own atrocities under carpet*

      1. The poutine is gonna stink if you leave it under the carpet for very long.

    1. It doesn’t seem to be very persuasive. Contagious, I mean contagious.

    2. I had to scroll back up to check the author. I definitely thought ole’ Sheldon was at it again.

    3. Reason is turning Proggylicious.

  6. The Peanuts won’t like this one.

    1. “Let us turn ours into a country of mushrooms by making mushroom cultivation scientific, intensive and industrialized!”

  7. What exactly was the point of this article? Yes, ISIS practices brutal methods of control over the people under their rule. Pointing out our own sorid past won’t change that. So his solution here is….feel generational guilt and wait for the Islamic world to catch up? Fine. I just assume we stay out of it and let the crazies cannibalize each other. Interventions have proven foolhardy.

    So why write this aside from saying: “Hey! You’re ancestors may have been assholes! Don’t judge ISIS!”

    1. The only point of this article is to excuse and obscure what ISIS is doing.

      1. The subject is terrorist relativism. Christians do it too. (Although nowhere nearly as often).

        1. What you’ve just said… is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever seen. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having seen it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul…

        2. Which has nothing to do with what ISIS is doing. Bringing it up only serves to obscure and excuse ISIS’ actions.

      2. The only point of this article is to excuse and obscure what ISIS is doing.

        OR…

        The point of the article MIGHT be…that the atrocities that happened in America, weren’t performed by Christians, anymore than the atrocities in the ME are performed by Muslims. And that you don’t condemn an entire religion based upon the barbaric acts of a small portion of it’s population. Hence:

        It’s also important to note that America transcended the barbarity of racial terrorism with much help from people of true Christian faith.

        1. John and Bo might agree with you.

          Good perspective.

        2. You certainly can’t condemn an entire religion based on its bizarre extremists, but the opposite, to say that those extremists aren’t true Scotsman and their religion has nothing to do with their actions (despite their actions being based largely on actual religious doctrine) is equally ridiculous.

          1. to say that those extremists aren’t true Scotsman and their religion has nothing to do with their actions (despite their actions being based largely on actual religious doctrine) is equally ridiculous.

            So, just like attacks on abortion clinics?

            Can we agree, then, that these perpetrators are true Scotsmen and Christianity is at the root of their actions?

            1. Look, as I said above, you can’t condemn an entire religion based on its bizarre extremists (else I’d hold the Buddhists responsible for everything the Burmese government does) but failing to recognize that their actions are driven specifically by their religious beliefs is absolutely absurd. Yes, attacks on abortion clinics are primarily driven by anti-abortion belief spawned from Christian concepts of the right to life. You can certainly argue that what they do is wrong morally or in the context of other Christian beliefs, but saying that their Christian beliefs had NOTHING to do with their actions is insane when it’s their primary motivator.

              That’s the problem in regards to how Obama and others discuss ISIS. They are entirely unwilling to admit that ISIS is just as legitimate an interpretation of Islamic scripture as secular Muslims who pick and choose what they want to follow as well. ISIS is certainly a radical interpretation of Islam, yes, but its actions and methods are largely based on doctrinal concepts established for ‘wartime Islam’ during the rise of the Rashidun Caliphate. They are a legitimate interpretation of Islam, and ignoring that is dangerous. The goal should be moving Islam beyond that interpretation, challenging that and pushing towards a more secular view that is starting to emerge, not outright denying that it has any legitimacy, because it does.

              This is how religions are reformed and improve, you hold them to actual standards.

        3. That’s a good point, but Obama and now Hinkle don’t phrase it that way. They seem to say the exact opposite, by engaging in collective guilt. They don’t say, “Some Christians lynched people, but we don’t use that to smear all Christians, do we?” They’re saying that some Christians have done bad things, so if you’re a Christian, you can’t be “on a high horse.”

          It’s important to note that people do generally talk about ISIS committing these heinous acts, not simply, “Muslims.” ISIS butchers people, the KKK butchered people. Suggesting ISIS represents Islam and Muslims is stupid, so how is it not stupid to suggest that the KKK, or Crusaders, represent Christianity?

          1. It’s important to note that people do generally talk about ISIS committing these heinous acts, not simply, “Muslims.”

            True. Intelligent people make that distinction. There are, however, those right here on this very site, who do not.

            Suggesting ISIS represents Islam and Muslims is stupid, so how is it not stupid to suggest that the KKK, or Crusaders, represent Christianity?

            I think that’s Hinkle’s point. That’s why the line about “true Christian faith”. At least that’s how I read it. But there are no small number of SJWs here who are just itching to accuse Reason of dissing their religion.

            1. The problem is that the best you can do for current Christianity is a single murder of an abortionist nearly 20 years ago and objecting to gay marriage.

              If you want to hang that on Christianity, go ahead. In return however, lets have an honest talk about Islam’s violence and beheading problem.

              1. The problem is that the best you can do for current Christianity is a single murder of an abortionist nearly 20 years ago and objecting to gay marriage.

                Single murder? Did you even look at the link? I count 8 murders, 11 Attempted murder/assault/and kidnappings and 19 arson/bombing/property crimes in 33 years.

                This is a real problem.

        4. Well, the Klansmen who carried out those castrations and burnings may have been Christians (I’m not going to fall into the no-true-Christian fallacy here), but they didn’t do it *because* they were Christians. The people who burned Mouath al-Kasaesbeh to death and who beheaded the Copts on the shores of Tripoli did not precisely *as* Muslims.

          1. “did so precisely as Muslims” (When is H&R going to get an edit feature so people can correct errors like this?)

    2. Shit. John beat me to it. Sorry for the redundancy.

  8. Awww, someone upset all the Yokeltarians.

    1. Let the strong wind of mushroom country blow across the annihilated enemy fairyland!

  9. “But Mommy! He did it first!”

  10. America today is not what America was then. (And even then, many Americans were horrified by the depravity of lynching.) It’s also important to note that America transcended the barbarity of racial terrorism with much help from people of true Christian faith. But to recognize that America transcended such barbarity implicitly is to concede that others can, too. Christians of all people should be wary of declaring anyone beyond redemption.

    Yeah, that’s true. But if that’s your conclusion, it really does not fit in with the rest of the article. Not your best, Hinkle, especially considering that their are plenty of non-Christians denouncing ISIS.

    1. So people can get better. So what? Does that mean you should never deal with evil through violence? Are we supposed to just let ISIS do what it wants on the hope that they will on their own decide to quit doing it?

      Also, the reason why lynchings and such stopped is because the federal government used violence and the threat of violence to stop it. It is not like we just asked the people doing such things to please stop and reconsider.

      This article might actually be more idiotic than the crap Richman has been writing.

      1. So what? Does that mean you should never deal with evil through violence? Are we supposed to just let ISIS do what it wants on the hope that they will on their own decide to quit doing it?

        Chill, Red Tony. I didn’t say that.

        1. I didn’t say you did. I was referring to Hinkle. I was a agreeing with you.

          And go fuck yourself with a chainsaw for the Red Tony remark. Your initial post indicated you were not a retard. Why did you have to self identify in this one?

          1. John, the Red Tony remark is defamatory, per se.

      2. This article might actually be more idiotic than the crap Richman has been writing.

        Whoa, whoa, whoa! Let’s not get crazy, now!

  11. Not really OT – The return of the Bushpigs:

    But as he prepares to launch a presidential campaign, Bush will be relying on at least 21 veteran foreign policy and diplomatic experts, including former secretaries of homeland security and state, former CIA directors and national security advisers.

    The list includes two former secretaries of homeland security, Tom Ridge and Michael Chertoff, who worked for George W. Bush; two former secretaries of state, James Baker and George Schultz, who served under George H. W. Bush and Ronald Reagan; two former CIA directors, Porter Goss and Michael Hayden, who also served during the second Bush presidency; and former attorney general Michael Mukasey.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..al-office/

    But he is not like Dubya!

    1. BUSHPIGS!!11!!!!CHRISTFAGS!!!11!!!!

        1. “…this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal…”

    2. “George Shultz” is spelled without a “c”.

  12. By this logic, France had no right to criticize the US invasion of Iraq because of their actions in Algeria. I somehow doubt Hinkle ever wrote an article saying such. He would only right this about the US criticizing even the most evil acts committed by ISIS. Given that double standard, why is the reader not free to conclude Hinkle supports ISIS or at least views them as a neutral alternative to the US?

    1. why is the reader not free to conclude Hinkle supports ISIS or at least views them as a neutral alternative to the US?

      I don’t think that, I just think Hinkle has fallen to stupid knee-jerk moral equivalency.

      1. Isn’t moral equivalency the same as viewing ISIS as a neutral alternative to the US?

        1. Yes, I’m just saying I think it is a knee-jerk reaction, and that he likely doesn’t really believe it. Of course, I could be wrong.

      2. Some Americans from the not-too-distant past behaved just as barbarically as ISIS is now. Fact.

        I think the point is that we shouldn’t make our problems worse by misidentifying the problem (e.g., it’s not the inherent evil of Muslims).

        1. “Let the strong wind of fish farming blow across the country!”

        2. past != now

          1. Good, now stop blaming modern liberals for Stalin.

            1. Holy fuck, just when I think ‘Tony’ can’t get any stupider. They are not necessarily being blamed for Stalin (although he did have fellow travelers on the left in the US), they are being blamed for advocating the same political philosophy as Stalin, with all of its attendant woes.

    2. Did he say we had no right to criticize ISIS?

      1. “Should the enemy dare to invade our country, annihilate them to the last man so that none of them will survive to sign the instrument of surrender!”

      2. Yes he did. He just wasn’t honest enough to say it so many words. If we can’t condemn these actions without also having to admit that we are just as bad, then we effectively can’t condemn ISIS.

        One thing has nothing to do with other. Hinkle only brings up our history in this context as a way of diminishing and contextualizing ISIS’ evil.

        1. Tony’s tiny brain can’t comprehend implications. Things must be literally spelled out. Letter by letter. Out loud.

          1. And his entire world view is based on excusing evil committed by his side against anyone he doesn’t like. I think he has done it so long and so reflexively he doesn’t even realize he is doing it.

            1. ‘Tony’ realizes what he’s doing, he just doesn’t have any moral principles.

          2. I’ve seen no evidence that Tony can comprehend anything.

        2. Our evil and their evil are separated by mere decades. Nevertheless, he did call their actions heinous, hideous crimes. I don’t think anyone who’s not in ISIS would suggest we can’t criticize their behavior. That would be nuts.

          1. Again, if you can’t criticize it without admitting you are just as bad, you are not criticizing it. Moreover, you can criticize them for doing it. You only say “behavior” because you judge people by their skin tone and think no brown person should ever be condemned or judged the way your white political enemies should be. To people like you and Hinkle, this whole ISIS thing is just a distraction from the real work of going after the real enemy; white people you don’t like.

            1. And it goes without saying that your entire shtick (not that you’re alone) is whining about how rough white people have it in this world because, for example, some guy on a blog noted that white people used to lynch black people for fun. Aww.

              Wouldn’t we be remiss not pointing out that ISIS was created by the Bush administration? Yeah, I believe in putting blame where it belongs.

              1. Bush… is there anything he can’t do?

                1. His baked beans are pretty good too.

                2. Is there anything you won’t excuse him for?

                  1. “Tony” apparently doesn’t realize BOOOSH!!11!!! has been out of office for the last 6 1/2 years.

                    1. Now we know the time it takes for military commanders ousted in an American Sunni cleansing program to turn into the ISIS we know today.

                    2. *folds a sheet of tinfoil into a hat, hands it to Tony*

                    3. You approach the world as if there is no need for you to learn facts, as you simply know everything already, don’t you?

                    4. Shorter Tony: I read it on the internet so it must be true!

                    5. All right, you tell me about the origins of ISIS in detail.

                    6. All right, you tell me about the origins of ISIS in detail.

                      I haven’t done the research, but I seriously doubt it was Bush. I do think it is comical how lefttards like you simultaneously say he was the dumbest person to ever enter the White House while also being so brilliant as to start something like ISIS.

                      Your doublethink abilities are frankly amazing.

                    7. Um, I didn’t mean to imply it was intentional. Two major criticisms of the Iraq occupation: that it was done at all, and that it was executed with monumental incompetence.

                    8. You approach the world as if there is no need for you to learn facts, as you simply know everything already, don’t you?

                      Fucking self-awareness! How does it work?

          2. Our evil

            I don’t know about you, but I’ve never lynched anybody.

            1. ‘Tony’ lynches people in his heart. But it’s okay because they’re mostly hoarders, wreckers, and kulaks.

              1. Well, he has advocated that global warming heretics should be murdered.

      3. That was most certainly implied.

    3. I’m not sure he thought through the implications, he just wanted to tweak all those rednecks who are feeling *so superior* just because they haven’t burned anyone in a while.

      1. That’s the impression that I have, too.

      2. You know who else felt superior for burning people?

          1. Goddamn 80’s punk bands! Always looking to subvert the common good! Here’s Camper Van Beethoven funding the leisure activities of Neo-Nazis.

            http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=INnFvMgET1E

      3. Never miss a chance to self-righteously rub people’s noses into shit other people did.

  13. If Obama told me I was in the Crusades, he’s simply retarded.

  14. Christians had done some pretty ferocious things themselves, Obama said (citing, e.g., the Crusades)

    This is getting to be a dumb, pathetic hobby horse of western progressives.

    Don’t they realize that when the compare the atrocities of modern Muslims to a medieval culture, they’re doing the modern Muslims a disservice?

    It wasn’t an isolated incident, either. Things like that happened a lot in the U.S.?not several centuries ago, but within living memory. Last week the Equal Justice Initiative in Montgomery, Alabama, released a report with details about 3,959 such “racial terror lynchings” in 12 Southern states between the Civil War and WWII. (Not 39, or 390, but nearly 4,000.)

    And we talk about it, and we condemn it, and the behavior is and was illegal by statute.

    America today is not what America was then.

    Which is an excellent point. This country grew and matured remarkably in what, a couple of decades? You know where I’m going with this…

    1. And the Crusades themselves were a mixed bag. Sometimes the Popes proclaimed crusades to rally people against the Ottoman invasions – and defeating the invasion was a really close-run thing.

      The Ottomans weren’t defeated by hippies breathing marijuana on them.

      1. Yeah, the Muslim conquests that preceded and eventually precipitated the Crusades are for some reason rarely mentioned.

        1. Even though “Jihad” and “Crusade” are essentially synonymous – and neither in practice were particularly spiritually motivated . . .

      2. James Burke has an excellent series “The Day the Universe Changed”. One of my favorite episodes is the one on the Crusades.

        He deconstructs the view of Christian crusaders charging across the land, laying waste to everything in their path, and instead tells a more nuanced historical account of political deals, mercenaries who weren’t Christian, and trade and intermarrying going between the crusaders and the people they were crusading against.

        The version that Obama and everyone else who keeps yelling “Crusades” believes is actually the version the Church wanted people to believe.

        1. ^This. During the Spanish Reconquista, Christian and Muslim kingdoms were about as likely to ally with each other as they were to fight against each other. Chaucer’s Knight recounts several battles that he fought in where he was fighting on behalf of Muslim lords.

      3. Hmmm…a quick Google search indicates that the last formal crusade was in the 15th century, but in the 16th and 17th centuries the Popes tried to rally Europeans against the Turks (when the EUropeans weren’t fighting each other).

        1. The first Crusade was called by the Pope in response to the Seljuk invasion of Anatolia – the Ottomans broke off from the Seljuks a couple of centuries later and pushed further west, taking Constantinople in 1453. The Europeans were more concerned about the Turks than they were about the Arabs because the Turks closed the pilgrim roads to Christians.

      4. The Ottomans gave as good as they took for centuries. The siege of Vienna was of course their high mark, and I don’t think anyone could call that (or the defenses of Rhodes and other territories) as anything but ‘defensive’.

        1. Given the number of times the Crusades are thrown around in political discussion, I think the history of the military conflicts between Christians and Muslims should be taught in school. Help kids grow up to be informed citizens!

          But it won’t work – it will all be “murderous Christians slaughtering peace-loving Muslims who only wanted to sit around and sip coffee and invent algebra!”

    2. a report with details about 3,959 such “racial terror lynchings” in 12 Southern states between the Civil War and WWII. (Not 39, or 390, but nearly 4,000.)

      So, about 50 or so a year. ISIS just about racked that up in a single day. And lynchings were not American policy, as atrocities are for ISIS. In fact, the majority of Americans and American government condemned it and tried to (and eventually did) stop it. So quite a bit of a stretch to try to draw an equivalency in any case.

    3. Don’t they realize that when the compare the atrocities of modern Muslims to a medieval culture, they’re doing the modern Muslims a disservice?

      *files this one away in the quiver of ready responses*

  15. But did America ever use kittens and Nutella to lure women?

  16. whenever a person or group mentions that America has committed atrocities in its past they should then also add that Americas itself also realized the error of those actions and took upon itself to stop those acts. And that anytime a society does not or can not stop itself from committing such horrible acts then it is incumbant upon other societies like the U.S. to step in.

    1. And that anytime a society does not or can not stop itself from committing such horrible acts then it is incumbant upon other societies like the U.S. to step in.

      No. It’s not our job to play world cop.

    2. Should Europe have waged war against the US to end slavery?

      1. Eventually, yes.

      2. Trade embargoes against the South by the British to pressure an end to slavery might have had some benefits, yes.

    3. Perhaps we were a little too quick to abandon burning people alive.

      Let’s start with the opinion journalists.

  17. Here’s a question for you, Mr. Obama. What is the only organization which has committed atrocities throughout history?

    Hint: You’re a member.

    1. The male gender?

      1. Woman getting into car with man she’s going on blind date with: So, where are we going?

        Man: To your death, statistically…

        1. That sounds like a poor response for a continuation of the date… 😉

    2. Government isn’t the only organization, but it does have the most impressive body count.

  18. Still waiting for you guys to acknowledge that Obama was a Muslim as a child. Not that it means anything for his person/character now, aside from the fact that he’s repeatedly lied about his history.

    1. Why would we need to acknowledge that?

      If, as you say, it makes no difference to his character now then what’s the point? To make some sort of ‘he’s not a real American’ point?

      He had a Kenyan father who was absent most of his life. I sincerely doubt that his mother raised him Muslim.

      1. Because he’s lied about it many many many many times, and talked about being a Christian a lot, and about his “respect for Islam” and who knows how many other reasons.

        But primarily because he’s lied his ass off about his religion for who knows how long

        1. Obama lies about everything, constantly. Focusing on whether or not he was a Muslim at some point just makes you look like a moron.

        2. Look, Obama’s atheism is one of my favorite things about him. I’m not pissed off that he wasn’t always a “Christian”

          But, like my time as a Christian had an effect on me, his time as a Muslim must have had an effect on him, and he’s lying about it even happening. That’s a big deal, when you’re president

          1. First, why do you ask a question with such an obvious answer as “Why would a candidate for president suppress his secret Muslim past”?

            Second, he was never a Muslim. His father was a Muslim-turned-atheist, and while in Indonesia Obama went to a Catholic school. He was raised, his entire childhood, by his white, non-Muslim relatives.

            1. Ok, here’s the thing about Indonesia, and more or less all Muslim countries (and all Christian countries not that long ago): you’re required to have a religion. Atheism is illegal. He had a Muslim father. He was a legally registered Muslim, which means he took legally required classes in Islam, was required to do Muslim prayers, etc.

              1. Uhm, no – that’s not how Muslim countries work.

                *None* require prayer – not even Saudia Arabia. Though you’re certainly not sleeping through the morning call.

                *Some* (OK, most) make it illegal for a Muslim to change (or renounce) his religion but not all. Not Kenya.

              2. “He was a legally registered Muslim, which means he took legally required classes in Islam, was required to do Muslim prayers, etc.”

                I feel like when I was in a fundamentalist boarding school. It was during the backward masking craze. They had this guy come to our dorm and play us all these backwards masking examples. One of the records they played was by Venom–an explicitly Satanic band in case you don’t know.

                I’m sitting there thinking, you’re playing these records backwards to find Satanic messages in them? Have you tried playing them forwards?

                It doesn’t matter to me if Obama were a Muslim before. What matters to me is the shit he’s saying now. And what he’s saying now–is contemptuous of average American Christians today and supportive of the ideology behind ISIS.

                I don’t have to play what Obama said backwards. I don’t have to speculate about how he grew up of whether he’s a Muslim. Look at what he’s saying played forwards. It doesn’t matter where it came from–it’s entirely awful all by itself.

                1. It doesn’t matter to me if Obama were a Muslim before. What matters to me is the shit he’s saying now.

                  Correct. Aside from the fact that I already said that

                  1. Well then why bring up the whole “secret Muslim” thing?

                    Obama’s supporters use us saying shit like that to marginalize us.

                    If you don’t even care whether it’s true, why play into the hands of your enemies?

            2. “He was raised, his entire childhood, by his white, non-Muslim relatives.
              reply to this”

              flagrant lie, asshole

              1. Also, probably racist, as you’re screwing over his Indonesian adoptive father.

            3. And I didn’t ask why he’d suppress it, I asked why he lied about it.

              1. If he lied about it, he lied about it because idiots would make a big deal about it.

                As you say, it makes no difference, so “admitting” to it is only a negative for him.

                This isn’t a puzzle.

                1. Yeah, jimmy Carter is quite possibly the only completely honest president we’ve *ever* had and look how well honesty worked for him.

              2. He *didn’t* lie about it.

                I’m sure he was familiar with Muslim practice, growing up. That doesn’t make him a Muslim any more than I’m some flavor of Hindu.

                I was exposed to *Catholicism* early (and often – came *this* close to taking communion) but I was never Catholic. Even when I thought I was Catholic I was an atheist.

                rambling digression aside – *you’re* making a claim about him. A claim you can’t back up with evidence. Add in that your statements on how Islamic states work differ greatly from my experience in several of those countries and I simply see no credibility here.

                1. Well, go on, tell us about those Islamic states that don’t do that (bearing in mind, the only one I’ve lived in is Indonesia)

                  1. Saudia Arabia, Bahrain, Oman.

                    None of those states requires *anyone, not even Muslims to attend religious services nor to take religious instruction.

        3. But primarily because he’s lied his ass off about his religion for who knows how long.

          But . . . you don’t actually *know* that. You’re just assuming it.

          And I still don’t understand why *our* ‘acknowledging’ his being a secret Muslim is important at all.

          Its not like we’re singing his praises here.

          1. Well, it’s possible he has retrograde amnesia and doesn’t remember his life before age 8. Which would be sort of a big deal if it was the fucking president we were talking about and not a soap opera character.

            1. *I* barely remember my life before age 8 and I’m a decade younger.

              1. Do you remember saying the Pledge of Allegiance? What if the Pledge was a 40 minute class every day? Think you’d remember having done that?

                1. Do you remember saying the Pledge of Allegiance?

                  Not really, I think the last time it was a regular thing to say the pledge was in 2nd grade.

                  Apparently loyalty oaths are bug things *nowadays* but when I was growing up we did not start the school day with the pledge.

    2. Children basically know shit about the religion they are being raised in. Until they can intellectually understand their religion, then they can’t be accused of “being” a member.

      1. First sentence: correct. Second sentence: false.

      2. It’s mind-boggling how far you guys are willing to bend over backwards to defend this guy lying about his past.

  19. President Barack Obama reminded Christians not to cast the first stone. Christians had done some pretty ferocious things themselves, Obama said (citing, e.g., the Crusades) and ought to be careful about getting on their “high horse” over heinous crimes committed by Islamic fanatics.

    Here’s what I don’t get about this.

    I will freely admit that I think that Christianity’s history of violence is not in the distant past like so many try to claim, but . . .

    Using the Crusades as an example is simply retarded.

    1. The Crusades were a millennia ago.

    2. Islam gave as good as it got during the same time period – in my book I’d say Christians and Muslims are about even as for as Crusades tit-for-tat goes.

    He could at least pull up examples from the last 100 years, like:

    Forceably (violently) ‘Christianizing’ aboriginal populations.
    Justification of slavery
    Jewish Pogroms
    KKK
    Anti-Hindu violence in India
    Sabra and Shatila massacre

    You’d think that ‘the smartest man in the room’ would be able to get a staff who could do a better job making that case than these bozos.

    1. Forceably (violently) ‘Christianizing’ aboriginal populations.

      Like the peace corps?

      I cannot think of a better launch pad into a missionary life than the Peace Corps. As I observe many of the missionaries we come into contact with ? in Zambia and elsewhere ? I notice a frequent return to certain themes. As I listen to these missionaries share about their life and work, I find myself often thinking (but of course never saying), “It’s a shame your sending organization didn’t train you as well as the Peace Corps.” Despite being a completely secular organization, The Peace Corps does a lot of things right, and quite likely has something substantial to teach global Christian missionaries.

    2. “The smartest man in the room” doesn’t seem to know much about Christianity.

      It’s just another symbolic word that’s ripe for manipulation.

      When Obama talks about Christianity, he sounds like Jeremiah Wright talking about “America”.

      Christians can’t condemn burning a defenseless victim alive today–because some people committed lynchings in the name of Christianity in the past?

      Gandhi: “An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind”.

      Obama: “What your some Christians did generations ago renders you incapable of condemning terrorists for burning a defenseless victim alive today”.

      Never mind that plenty of Christians condemned lynching at the time or that Jesus’ words and actions plainly condemn the practice of lynching throughout the New Testament. Never mind that–Obama is spouting the same perverted logic as the terrorists in ISIS.

      1. Never mind that the abolitionist movement was largely a Christian one.

        1. Nevermind that slavery and prohibition were strongly supported by Christians also.

          My point is not that Christians can’t point fingers at *current* atrocities just because of their past ones.

          My point was that calling up the fething *Crusades* as that atrocity is idiotic as there are so many more recent ones – if you’re going to make that point, pointing to something that happened a millennia ago as justification for *anything* is insane – these are supposed to be highly intelligent, capable, *competent* people yet they actually let the man give a speech written on the level of a half-arse high school essay.

        2. Or that Martin Luther King’s movement to end segregation was Christian, too.

          Heck, it doesn’t even need to be thought of as Christian.

          Anybody else out there ever read Tolstoy’s “The Kingdom of God is within You”? Tolstoy became an ascetic and, essentially, a Christian Anarchist in later life. He makes the case in that book that when Jesus told people to “turn the other cheek”, that’s exactly what he meant.

          In the book, he mentions that if India wanted to be free of British domination, they should employ this tactic in their resistance. A Indian living in South Africa wrote Tolstoy a letter asking him to explicate, and Tolstoy responded with a letter of his own. The Indian published it in his South African newspaper catering to Indians in South Africa, and you can still read it today as Tolstoy’s “Letter to a Hindu”.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Letter_to_a_Hindu

          You may have heard of that Indian Newspaper editor in South Africa. He later used “turn the other cheek” to drive the British out of India. First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.

          Anyway, points is that Gandhi was by no means Christian. The Muslims who overthrew the dictatorship in Tunisia weren’t Christians either. It’s just that the tactic works–by whomever uses it.

          1. Ken, thank you.

            Just perused the Letter to a Hindu after having read Gandi’s introductory letter.

          2. Doesn’t always work in every case. See the Jews in Germany and Poland circa 1941-1945.

            1. I don’t know if you can say the Jew ultimately won that contest, but the Nazis definitely lost. And the reason the Nazis so thoroughly despised is in no small part due to what they did to the Jews.

              And did the Jews ever really mount a public protest movement against the Nazis?

              Regardless, civil disobedience is much more effective than terrorism.

              1. And did the Jews ever really mount a public protest movement against the Nazis?

                No, they employed the “turn the other cheek” strategy. They mostly got on board the cattle-car trains when told to and marched into the gas chambers when told to.

                That got six million of them killed, and it would have certainly been a lot higher had not the Allies shelled and firebombed Germany into total submission.

                My point is that the idea that “turning the other cheek” always works to beat great injustice, tyranny, and oppression simply isn’t true.

                1. What Mike M said. And they also spent a lot of time listening to non Jewish elites that were convinced that Hitler didn’t mean what he said and it cold never happen in Germany anyway.

                2. My point is that the idea that “turning the other cheek” always works to beat great injustice, tyranny, and oppression simply isn’t true.

                  I think it depends on the nature of your opponent (or, more precisely, the person you’re asking for change). If the person you’re asking for change is basically good and acting badly, it is an incredibly powerful tactic. If the person you’re asking for change is an evil bastard, it’s only going to empower them.

                3. First off – turn the other cheek as you describe is not the same as Civil Disobedience. Non-confrontational compliance is, in fact, the exact opposite. Civil Disobedience is non-violent non-compliance.

                  You are correct, though, that civil disobedience is only effective if it would force your opponent to publicly cross a moral line that violates their own limits or could result in radicalizing the rest of the populace and overthrow of the government.

                4. Doing what you’re told isn’t exactly civil disobedience.

                  And let’s not forget that the Nazis are still reviled because of how they were seen to have treated the defenseless.

                  The Nazis lost in no small part because of how they were seen to have treated the defenseless.

                  The Jews got their own state.

                  If the Palestinians had tried civil disobedience rather than terrorism,…

              2. And did the Jews ever really mount a public protest movement against the Nazis?

                They did in the Warsaw Ghetto and… well, yeah.

          3. It’s just that the tactic works–by whomever uses it.

            As much as I appreciate the sentiment, only sometimes. The tactic worked for Ghandi or MLK because of the sensibilities of the British and most Americans, respectively. For most of history, in much of the world, it wouldn’t have done all that much.

            1. Martyrs and persecution did nothing to stop the spread of Christianity.

              In the end, you couldn’t be emperor unless you were a Christian.

              You think the Roman Empire was particularly susceptible to compassion?

  20. But to recognize that America transcended such barbarity implicitly is to concede that others can, too. Christians of all people should be wary of declaring anyone beyond redemption.

    Redemption but verify.

  21. There is a significant difference between condemning what people have done in the past, in the name of Christianity, and what people are doing now for the same reason.

    Seems to me that if Obama wants to condemn perversions of Christianity in the past, he should also condemn present tense perversions of Islam in the same breath. Otherwise, he’s suggesting that what Christians have done in the past somehow legitimizes what perversions of Islam are doing now.

    And Christian doctrine is straightforward about how what they do to you doesn’t justify anything you do to them.

    38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:

    39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

    —-Matthew 5: 38,39 KJV

    1. “Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.”

      – Matthew 10:34

      For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother . . .

      – Matthew 10:35

      As with the Koran, you can find something to justify whatever you want to do in the Bible (Old *and* New Testaments).

      1. There’s no question that Jesus was a revolutionary, or that becoming a Christian, back in the day, could set family members against each other.

        He’s certainly not telling family members to kill each other.

        And anyway, I’ve read the Quran. I’ve studied the Quran and the hadith at mosque. No question, I prefer Christianity, but I’m not trying to suggest, here, that orthodox Islam is inherently violent. I’m talking about Obama comparing orthodox Christianity to the non-orthodox perversion of Islam that is ISIS.

        Obama is telling standard Christians today that they have no right to criticize the perverse Islam of ISIS–because perversions of Christianity, like the Klan, used to lynch people in the past?

        Obama’s logic is sick. It’s the same logic ISIS uses:

        What perverse Christians have done in the past justifies what we as ISIS are doing today! Yes, yes, Obama–finally, someone in the West truly understands us!

    2. He can condemn Christianity by name, but not Islam.

  22. It should be noted that this “turn the other cheek” strategy has proved remarkably effective over the centuries.

    This is how Christianity conquered the Roman Empire.

    This is how Gandhi chased the British out of India.

    This is how Martin Luther King brought an end to segregation.

    Although many seem to have forgotten, this was how the people of Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya galvanized resistance to their respective dictators during the Arab Spring. I was hoping more people would remember what vicious dictators firing on peaceful protesters–who kept protesting despite the killings–did to the dictators of North Africa.

    At the time, it was a huge embarrassment to terrorist groups–like Al Qaeda and ISIS. Where decades of terrorism achieved absolutely nothing, civil disobedience and turning the other cheek got rid of a slew of tyrants in a matter of months. I suppose the terrorists had to reassert themselves. Their own failure and the success of civil disobedience was just so embarrassing.

  23. Namely, the widespread lynching of African Americans by white mobs well into the second half of the 20th century.

    Hey Everybody! We’re picking scabs again!!!1111111!!!!1111

  24. Alright, A. Barton, let’s get some things straight.

    The Crusaders weren’t practicing terrorism when they finally responded to Islamic conquest and invasion. They were defending themselves or aiding in the defense of local Christians(so many people forget that Christianity is a middle eastern religion that had indigenous practitioners).

    I wouldn’t mind your lynching distraction so much if you’d point out who was committing and enabling lynching–the president’s own party–and some of his heroes actively fought against anti-lynching laws.

    Bring up lynching all you want–as long as you always make it clear that the people tying those nooses were Democrats, Progressives and other leftist garbage–and that the people trying to stop them were republicans, conservatives, and liberty minded folks on the right.

    Finally, the idea that one can never mount a ‘high horse’ if some other person, at some time in the past, did something regrettable is asinine. I have never crusaded, lynched or terrorized. I would suspect that most people can say the same. So I’m staying right here, on this high horse, free to have a bee up my nose because the moron-in-chief can’t seem to comprehend any more than A. Barton Hinkle that I am not responsible for the sins of my father, much less someone elses father.

    1. The Crusaders weren’t practicing terrorism when they finally responded to Islamic conquest and invasion.

      The Crusades began 600 years after the invasion they were supposedly in response to. This would be like France nuking the UK tomorrow and claiming it was a justified response to them invading during the Hundred Year War.

      They were defending themselves or aiding in the defense of local Christians

      Crusaders “protecting” the local Christians:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Crusade

      1. So what? The Turks spend hundreds of years trying to conquer and forcibly convert Europe. How are the crusades anything but a wash? More importantly, well after the Crusades, the Turks terrorized the western med raiding Christian towns and villages and selling their populations into slavery.

        It looks to me like the Europeans have a lot more of a grievance against the Muslims than the Muslims do against them.

        And since we are talking about slavery, the biggest slave traders in Africa were Arabs and the forced march slaves took to get from Central Africa to Islamic countries made the middle passage seem like a pleasure cruise.

        The actual history of Middle Eastern Islam is an utterly horrific history of enslavement and conquest of non Muslims.

        Not that that should matter today. The point is Muslims are the last people who should start talking about historical crimes by other groups.

      2. The Spanish were trying to take their country back from the invading Muslims from the 8th century onwards, so your notion that there was no response for 600 years is laughable.

        There may have been no Crusade, but people were fighting the Muslim invaders from the get go.

    2. The Cathars weren’t muslim, there were just a slightly heretical form of Christianity.

  25. Finally, the idea that one can never mount a ‘high horse’ if some other person, at some time in the past, did something regrettable is asinine. I have never crusaded, lynched or terrorized. I would suspect that most people can say the same. So I’m staying right here, on this high horse, free to have a bee up my nose because the moron-in-chief can’t seem to comprehend any more than A. Barton Hinkle that I am not responsible for the sins of my father, much less someone elses father.

    This.

  26. I am making a good salary from home $5500-$7000/week , which is amazing, under a year ago I was jobless in a horrible economy. I thank God every day I was blessed with these instructions and now it’s my duty to pay it forward and share it with Everyone,
    Here is I started,,,,,,
    ?????? ?????? ?????? http://www.netpay20.com

  27. Good to see Reason devolving to the level of Facebook memes (this is almost a carbon copy of one with a picture of ISIS and the KKK that says “if this is representative of Islam, why isn’t this representative of Christianity?”).

    So, let’s talk about the reasons, however fucked up, for both these scenarios described. Lynchings in the United States were primarily a result of racial divisions, i.e. were primarily a product of violent, racist attitudes. This was a poisonous ideology of racial superiority and belief in the ‘black man’s place’ in white society. Meanwhile, in the modern day, in regards to ISIS, we have atrocities being committed as a product of religious divisions and the style of ‘wartime Islam’ that drove the initial Rashidun Caliphate. This is a poisonous ideology of religious superiority and belief in the ‘dhimmi’s place’ in Islamic society. Now, if this were in regards to lynchings, would Hinkle be disregarding the influence of their racist ideology on why they do those atrocities? One would never hold the violent, racist ideology that drove lynchings as something worthy of ‘redemption’, but violent, theocratic ideology apparently does.

    1. This was a poisonous ideology of racial superiority and belief in the ‘black man’s place’ in white society.

      Which had absolutely nothing to do with Christianity. Sure, the people who practiced it twisted Christianity into a justification, but Reason and a good number of its comenters get the causality backwards. It wasn’t that they didn’t believe this and Christianity somehow changed their minds. It was that they already believed this and used their religion as a rationalization for doing so.

      It is not Christianity’s fault that racial supremacists used it to rationalize their evil. Is it Islam’s fault that ISIS is using it? Perhaps not but perhaps so. That is the entire question that Reason begs here.

  28. The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other guy die for his as you whisper sweet tu quoques in his ear.

  29. I guess I can’t drive a German or Japanese car since the manufacturers at that time helped in a way to bring death to millions. Though one could also say the same with car / airplane makers from the U.S, Britain, USSR, etc etc etc

  30. Jesse Thornton was lynched in Lucerne, Alaba,a, for failing to address a white police officer as “mister.” Many lynchings happened for similar detestable reasons.

    Ok. What does this have to do with Christianity?

    Christians had done some pretty ferocious things themselves, Obama said

    Or the Aztecs. Don’t forget those awful Aztecs! They cut people’s hearts out in the name of Huitzilopochtli!

    1. And I can’t even pronounce Huitzilopochtli.

  31. I believe “we” grappled with this problem already.

    1. Seriously. Are we supposed to believe that if the Klan beheaded 21 African-Americans on film that the government wouldn’t do everything it possibly could to find the perps? Heck, their houses would probably be burned down to the ground.

  32. Some Americans from the not-too-distant past behaved just as barbarically as ISIS is now. Fact.

    Except that Muslims were doing it then, too. They’ve been doing it since the inception of Islam. They were doing it at the time of the founding of the country.

    Do you not get that this is the problem? Wave after wave of Muslim conquest–successful conquest whenever the west is disorganised.

    This didn’t just start as a result of some ‘western imperialism’ that marxist thought has demanded we see everything the west does as. It is, and has been, ongoing.

    It will not stop if we decry that false ‘imperialism’. It will not stop if we adopt a policy of ‘nonintervention’. It will stop when we are either converted or dhimmi. Or if we destroy Islam.

  33. i get ‘cultural relativism’… but ‘historical relativism’?

    I think its fair to say that we should hesitate to judge other contemporary cultures by our contemporary standards without due consideration of some inherent differences in development…

    …however, i don’t see there being any validity at all to saying, “Uh, well just because ISIS cuts the heads of dozens of people and puts it on TV… uh, CRUSADES?!”

    meaning = what happened 100 years ago (or more) isn’t relevant at all. Yes, there were lynchings 100 years ago. Also, people were more-racist 100 years ago. What the fuck does that have to with the fact that you’ve got some crazy motherfuckers TODAY cutting people’s heads off on TV? We’re supposed to pretend they’re *time travelers*?

    1. You must be one of those weirdos who think individuals are responsible for their own actions.

      The rest of us, educated folk, realize that everything that happens today is a result of history.

      Do I really need to explain your privileged status or where it comes from?

      And then there are those poor little people in ISIS. Victims of American aggression, American exceptionalism, and American privilege–your privilege.

      Do you have any idea how much you owe ISIS in reparations?

  34. Yet that didn’t happen in Raqqa, Haditha, or Tal Afar. It happened in Kirvin, Texas, in 1922.

    Quick survey: Was anyone, currently posting on H-ampersand-R alive in 1922? Has anyone on H-ampersand-R been to Kirvin, TX?

    If the answer to these two questions is no, then what is A. Barton Hinkleheimerschimdt attempting to prove? That humans are cruel and unjust jackasses? Congratulations! You’ve discovered what millennia of misanthropes already knew. Are you suggesting that this jackassery done in the South was done in the name of Christianity? Then by all means, prove it. You might say “they said it themselves!” Then I’ll submit counterproof that the Bible does not condone Christians engaging this sort of jackassery. The problem is, and what the left-arians aren’t getting is that Muslim terrorists are not wrong in their reading of the Koran. They are not wrong the understanding that Koran requires them to wage actual, physical warfare against kufir. They are not wrong in reading the Koran when it requires them not to submit to the rule of unbelievers.

    1. Was anyone, currently posting on H-ampersand-R alive in 1922? Has anyone on H-ampersand-R been to Kirvin, TX?

      And yet so many of the commenters are getting so weirdly defensive.

      1. Yeah funny how saying something you had nothing to do with a century ago means you can’t criticize the worst sorts of evil today makes people “weirdly defensive”.

        The people on this board just don’t know how to feel appropriately self loathing for the evil of being born Americans.

        1. We’re supposed to be self-loathing for being Christians, too, John.

      2. Ad hominem. Do you have any actual argument?

      3. You’ll forgive my if I’m not inclined to bow and scrape and apologize for the moral failings others. I have enough of my own.

      4. And yet so many of the commenters are getting so weirdly defensive.

        I know, like that guy who was falsely accused of rape.

    2. “H-ampersand-R”

      A+.

      You are hereby notified that I will use this in the future and when I do, I will employ my best efforts to make proper attribution to you.

      1. If you’re going to make proper attribution, I think it was sarcasmic who first employed this device shortly after our ampersand privileges were revoked.

  35. What was the point of this article?

    1. “HeteroPatriarch|2.18.15 @ 12:56PM|#

      What was the point of this article?’

      …to suggest that Westerners have no business ‘judging’ ISIS because….like, ‘historical sin’? or something?

      The application of cultural/historical relativism is always selective and tends to attempt to obscure its actual purpose = in this case, the gentle suggestion that …

      “Christians of all people should be wary of declaring anyone beyond redemption.”

      Nevermind that its not ‘Christians’ are the ones leading the charge against ISIS, but regular old Western Secular Humanists who think these fuckers are a resurgence of medieval horrors that should be purged from the face of the earth forever ….*and rightly so*.

      its basically an extended straw-man argument. Everyone’s Evil! How can you judge!?… nevermind the guy being burned alive, or the mass-decapitations on TV

      1. I find it funny how otherwise educated people believe in a kind of cultural original sin.

    2. He has the same exact point Obama does when he spouts this nonsense.

      The first point is to try to get people to shut up and stop criticizing both him and the Muslims he loves so much, and the second point is to try and justify doing nothing about the barbarism we’re all watching.

  36. Ken Shuzltz makes a good point about the role of Christianity in the civil rights movement. A couple weeks ago I flipped by a documentary on cable called the “MLK Assassination Tapes”. It was a collection of various local news broadcasts out of Memphis in the weeks leading up to MLK’s assassination and the riots that followed. In every instance MLK is referred to as The Reverend Martin Luther King.

    Funny how he is now universally referred to as Dr. Martin Luther King. He did have a doctorate in theology but his real title was Reverend. That was his chosen profession and that is what people called him when he was alive. A lot of ministers have PHDs, but none of them that I know of are called Dr. Yet, somehow we stopped calling MLK Reverend and started calling him Dr. I bet a good number of 20 somethings think the guy was a physician. It is almost like the media decided that the fact that MLK was a minister and a deeply committed Christian was just too horrible to contemplate and thus must be removed from his memory the same way his adultery was.

  37. Here is the deeper mendacity of people like Hinkle and sadly our President. When Muslims do evil things, they are quick to point out how that is not really Islam. Islam is a religion of peace. Hell, Obama won’t even say the words “Islamic terrorism” or even “Muslim extremism”. He will only say “extremist ideology”.

    This wouldn’t be so bad except that whenever they talk about Christianity, it is always about the sins of Christianity and how no one who believe in an ideology with that history cannot criticize anyone else without first acknowledging it. So for Hinkle and Obama the sins of the past or even the present never attach to Islam but always attach to Christianity. No Muslim is ever expected to explain or take responsibility for things like ISIS and every Christian must live in perpetual shame over the Crusades and Jim Crow.

  38. This is dumb.

    Christianity was the driving force in abolishing slavery. In England, it was largely due to the efforts of William Wilberforce, after he became an evangelical Christian, and the US is wasn’t much different, almost all the abolitionists were very religious (and Christian).

    People act like slavery is a universal bad thing, but in reality, it was an accepted practice in pretty much the entire world. It still is in a lot of places. just sort of overlooked It took a concerted effort by a few high minded people, almost entirely Christians, to convince the world it was a bad thing.

    1. The relevant question on slavery isn’t who did it – historically, everyone who could.

      The relevant question is who ended the worldwide practice – the evil white imperialists of Britain.

  39. Six months ago I lost my job and after that I was fortunate enough to stumble upon a great website which literally saved me. I started working for them online and in a short time after I’ve started averaging 15k a month… The best thing was that cause I am not that computer savvy all I needed was some basic typing skills and internet access to start…
    This is where to start???.

    ?????????? http://www.netpay20.com

  40. Damn, this comment section exploded fast.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.