The good news: After a number of atrocities that have victimized Christians from Syria, Iraq, Egypt, and Kenya over the past few months, Barack Obama finally has spoken explicitly about Christians. The bad news? At the Easter prayer breakfast, Obama chose not to pray for all of those victims of genocidal Islamist terror, but to scold Christians in the US for what Obama calls “less-than-loving expressions[.]” He then reversed course, to much laughter:

“On Easter, I do reflect on the fact that, as a Christian, I am supposed to love,” the president said during the breakfast at the White House. “And I have to say that, sometimes when I listen to other less-than-loving expressions by Christians, I get concerned.”

Obama paused, then remarked “that’s a topic for another day,” sparking laughter from the audience gathered in the East Room.
“I was about to veer off; I am pulling it back,” the president said, chuckling as he gathered himself.

Ahem. In Kenya last week, almost 150 Christians got slaughtered in an al-Shabaab terrorist attack, deliberately chosen by the terrorists for murder, but nowhere in Obama’s official statement on that atrocity can one find a mention of their religion. Neither can one find in the statement any mention of the “less than loving expressions” of Islam. Two months ago, when a group linked to ISIS butchered 21 Christians from Egypt specifically for their religion, the White House statement on that mass murder not only didn’t mention either religion, it emphasized that ISIS’ attacks were “unconstrained by faith, sect, or ethnicity.” Riiiiiiight.

Furthermore, Obama seems very unconcerned when it comes to “less-than-loving expressions” from his negotiating partners. Recall this moment from his NPR interview, conducted the day after this “prayer”?  Obama seems less-than-concerned about the virulent anti-Semitism of the Iranian mullahs, whom he wants to trust to adhere to a deal which would keep them from threatening millions of Jews in Israel:

So there’s still going to be a whole host of differences between us and Iran, and one of the most profound ones is the vile, anti-Semitic statements that have often come out of the highest levels of the Iranian regime. But the notion that we would condition Iran not getting nuclear weapons, in a verifiable deal, on Iran recognizing Israel is really akin to saying that we won’t sign a deal unless the nature of the Iranian regime completely transforms. And that is, I think, a fundamental misjudgment.

Finally, when it comes to “less-than-loving expressions” and Christians in this country, which was less loving? The shopkeepers who welcomed LGBT customers but decline to participate in same-sex marriage events, or the people who threatened to burn them down and run them out of town? And which should concern public officials more? Kirsten Powers wondered the same thing:

How many gay people had asked to have their wedding catered by this small-town pizza joint? None. What number of gay people had been denied a slice by O’Connor? Zero. In fact, the owners told the reporter that they would never refuse to serve a gay customer who came to the restaurant to eat. The wrath of gay rights supporters rained down on Memories Pizza because O’Connor committed a thought crime. She discriminated against nobody, but thinks the “wrong” thing about same-sex marriage and she said it out loud.

Here’s the thing: I didn’t support the original Indiana law. I am both a Christian who doesn’t believe the Bible prohibits serving a same-sex wedding and a vocal LGBT rights supporter who has blasted laws similar to Indiana’s for fear that they could provide legal protection to those who discriminate against gay people.

But I’m starting to wonder: who needs the protection here?

Indeed.