Obama Compares Crusades To Radical Islam, Part 2

At the National Prayer Breakfast on Wednesday, President Obama made an incredibly naive and inaccurate comparison:

Unless 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.

In yesterday’s piece, I argued that the President was incorrect in comparing the Crusades, and other deeds committed “in the name of” Christ, with modern Jihadism. I argued that to do something in the name of Christ, when what one is doing contravenes Christ’s nature, and teachings, is not the same as to do something expressly condoned by radical Islamists’ interpretation of the Koran.

Now, I will move on to Obama’s second inaccurate idea. Despite many scholars arguing that the Crusades were more of a defensive, and territorial fight—a battle to take back land which had been stolen from them by Islamists—let’s say for the purposes of this argument that Obama is correct. Let’s say that the Crusades were a vile Christian holy war that barbarized the Muslim community. Even if we take that position, it is not arrogant to decry radical Islam because of something Christians did over 800 years ago. Do you know why? Because in 2015, Christians aren’t the ones strapping plastique to their abdomens, and blowing themselves up to get their virgin orgy fix.

Critics of radical Islam are not getting on their high horse—to borrow a particularly obnoxious phrase from the President—they are simply calling reality as they see it. Now let’s take a brief detour.

The President is arguing that to condemn radical Islam (or God forbid utter the phrase “radical Islam”) is to blame all of Islam for the atrocities of groups like ISIS, and Al Qaeda. This is intellectually dishonest (shocker), and patronizing (again, shocker). He is admonishing us to not beat up our neighbors because they have the last name Hussein. Yeah, he’s that much of a pretentious douche that he believes this would happen on a large scale, outside of outlier wackos.

Obama is tsk tsking the American people for being so cruel as to call out evil where they see it standing. He is reminding all the Christians that we are not perfect either. REALLY?! WHAT?! NO!

Again, let’s go with Obama, and the rest of publicly educated America, and say that the Crusades were a vile Christian holy war. Let’s also distill Obama’s argument: the Crusades were done in the name of Christ, and therefore, we cannot judge Islam based on the atrocities committed in its name. That’s what he’s arguing. But why can’t we judge a faith based on its adherents? Let’s play this out.

Although many Muslims are peaceful—somehow interpreting the numerous open-ended texts in the Koran which authorize violence, and killing within a non-violent context (one might call them “cafeteria muslims”)—there is a large portion of the Muslim community that adheres strictly to the violent commands in the Koran. These people are the ones that join organizations like ISIS, and Al Qaeda. These people are the ones responsible for the vast majority of terrorist attacks in the world today. The word vast doesn’t even catch the enormity of how prevalent radical Islam is compared to radicalanything else.

So, we must acknowledge that there is a dangerously large portion of Muslims who have not evolved. There are Muslims that adhere to an interpretation of the Koran that condones these killings, and executions. Whether or not you believe these are true Muslims is irrelevant. They believe they are true Muslims. And so we must call them what they are, which is radical Muslims. They are not nihilists, or whatever Obama’s word-of-the-day calendar happens to say.

You don’t open up your laptop every morning, and read of all the terrible atrocities committed by radical Lutherans, radical Catholics, or radical Christians. That’s because they are not religions that can be easily interpreted to condone violence, aggression, and murder. But again, let’s say that the Crusades were a horrible Christian atrocity. Even if that were the case, you don’t see that alleged aggression today, and that’s because—if you’re going with this argument—Christianity has evolved. If Christians were once these horrible, violent people like Obama argues in the context of the Crusades, they are no longer. They have evolved!

If we are not allowed to condemn radical Islam because Christians committed alleged atrocities hundreds of years ago, what are we allowed to condemn? If time is no barrier, then nothing can be condemned. For that matter, no progress can be praised. We are all what we always were, and willcontinue to be. It’s the most idiotic, arbitrary argument one can make–and big surprise, our Rhodes Scholar in Chief made it.

Obama doesn’t want us getting on our high horse because our ancestors were allegedly evil Christians once too. Well, Mr. President, radical Muslims are evil now. They, unlike the evil Christians, have not “evolved.” So let’s deal with this problem now, and not pansy around it to protect whatever PC nonsense to which you’re catering. Thanks!