And anyway they, the Reconquista, and many Balkan wars were only efforts of Christians to reconquer territory previously overrun by Jihaders spreading The Religion of Peace in the only way it has ever been spread, so far as I know.
Is Indonesia an exception?
Obama's Comparison of Christianity to Radical Islam Defies Logic
What Christians may have done anywhere from a few hundred to a thousand years ago they are not doing today.
These are things Muslims are doing today.
On Tuesday, the so-called Islamic State released a slickly produced video showing a Jordanian pilot being burned alive in a steel cage.
On Wednesday, the United Nations issued a report detailing various “mass executions of boys, as well as reports of beheadings, crucifixions of children, and burying children alive” at the hands of the Islamic State.
I had not heard.
A current world record for savagery, I would guess, though Boko Haram is probably a pretty strong competitor.
And on Thursday, President Obama seized the opportunity of the National Prayer Breakfast to forthrightly criticize the “terrible deeds” . . . committed “in the name of Christ.”
In reply, Jonah Goldberg here has written a surprising apology for Christianity.
He is Jewish, after all, and Jews on the whole and neither surprisingly nor mistakenly take a somewhat jaundiced view of Christian history.
He's quite right about this, though, as well as much else he says in this piece.
It is perverse that Obama feels compelled to lecture the West about not getting too judgmental on our “high horse” over radical Islam’s medieval barbarism in 2015 because of Christianity’s medieval barbarism in 1215.
But he goes on and this is not fair at all.
It’s also insipidly hypocritical.
President Obama can’t bring himself to call the Islamic State “Islamic,” but he’s happy to offer a sermon about Christianity’s alleged crimes at the beginning of the last millennium.
And the piece as a whole is still, despite its accuracies, just another conservative attack on Obama-the-Muslim-lover.
I really can't say how far O is just saying the prudent thing, given the necessities of propaganda for the struggle against contemporary Jihad - not the Jihad of 1300 years ago, but today's - and how far he is talking what is truly his own nonsense.
Any more than I can tell how or how far he meant the nonsense he said about Uncle Ho, Thomas Jefferson, and the US Constitution.
Sometimes he just mystifies me.
No comments:
Post a Comment