Originally Posted by spence
Obama never stated there was moral equivalence.
Of course he never stated there was moral equivalence. One doesn't usually give examples of moral equivalence by actually using the words "moral equivalence." And even if in his own mind it didn't occur that he was pointing out moral equivalence, what he said actually amounted to doing that.
His mention of the Crusades was in a string of historic events making the point that the misuse of faith is a continuing challenge to humanity and no single religion can claim to be exempt.
A "continuing challenge" to humanity is the misuse of anything. And there is this massive, indescribable, string of historic events that point that out. And no single being can claim to be exempt. But the problem is nearly unsolvable when compounded by the differing opinions of what is "misuse." The participants in the actions of the Crusades or of ISIS did not believe they were misusing their faith. And what they did, if we can take their word, were, in the main, moral actions. Unless you think that the goals and actions of the crusades and ISIS are totally amoral, as in the "continuing challenge" to nature of lions having to kill wildebeests to satisfy their hunger. Or in the continuing challenge to existence in that all which exists must occupy some space and use resources that deny those spaces and resources to other beings. It seems that humans, whether they are religious or not, burden existence with the problems of morality. Except for those we label as psychopaths, we require some "higher ground" for our interaction with other humans, and even, for some, with other non-human beings. Maybe morality is not the most accurate word to describe that higher ground. But even in a strictly utilitarian view which sees all action as strictly accruing to the benefit oneself, and considering others is only reasonable if that enhances benefit to oneself, that is a morality of sorts, a basic rather than "higher ground" morality--and that, if not religion, may well be the origin of moral thinking.
That is all a long-winded way of saying that, unless he is a psychopath, Obama was, wittingly or unwittingly, comparing what he considered the immoral actions of crusaders with those of ISIS. Otherwise, what would he consider the "misuse" of religion to be. Especially since religion basically teaches and requires its version of the moral way. The required path to some salvation. And he was speaking to a religious group. Did he think they were all as strictly utilitarian in the view of their faith as you seem to imply Obama is? That there is no higher moral ground in their action with others than a utilitarian use of them for selfish reasons?
And if he wasn't speaking of a moral equivalence, what equivalence was he making? That they both committed atrocities? So what's wrong with atrocities if we remove our moral judgment of them? If atrocities are not immoral, wouldn't they be perfectly fine if they advanced our agenda? And aren't they usually required when defending against massive assaults, or even in preventing assaults? Isn't the argument against torture a "higher ground" moral one, not a strictly utilitarian one?
I think it's fair to question his use of the Crusades in this context as it's a grey area. Some of the violence from the Crusades initially was religious fueled conquest but a lot was offensive/defensive tension at a shifting border between cultures.
My guess is a speechwriter was trying to paint with a broader brush.
Yeah, very broad, sort of splashed off of the canvas and muddied the paint.
That's the pretty obvious subtext to his mention of the Crusades, the Inquisition or Jim Crow is that we've moved on.
|