Would the president have used the “high horse” argument 30 years ago regarding Western condemnation of South African apartheid?
Of course not. Because contempt for Western evils is noble, while contempt for non-Western, especially Islamic, evils is “to get on a high horse.”
The president then defends his statement that religious violence is not “unique to some other place” by providing Christian examples: first the Crusades and the Inquisition and then slavery and Jim Crow.
Before addressing the specific examples, a word about the timing. The Crusades took place a thousand years ago and the Inquisition five hundred years ago. Is it not telling that — even if the examples are valid (which they aren’t) — the president had to go back 500 and 1,000 years to find his primary Christian examples?
Doesn’t going back so far in the past render the argument a bit absurd? Imagine if the president had said, “When the Jews conquered Canaan in 1,000 B.C., they committed terrible deeds in the name of Judaism.” Anyone hearing that argument would have thought that the president had lost his mind.
Yet he and almost everyone else who wishes to defend Islam raise the Crusades and the Inquisition. The president also mentioned slavery and Jim Crow, but it’s the Crusades and the Inquisition that are almost always used to equate Muslim and Christian evildoing.
Furthermore, it is difficult to see why comparing Muslim behavior today to Christian behavior a thousand or five hundred years ago provides a defense of Islam. On the contrary, isn’t the allegation that Islamic evil at the present time is morally equivalent to Christian evil a thousand years ago a damning indictment of the present state of much of Islam?...