Summary: <br> <br> This week Jeff covers a range of topics, focusing on the controversy over Obama’s remarks about the historical sins of Christianity such as the Crusades, the Inquisition and slavery. Jeff also explores the mindset of the perpetrators of such brutalities, which we saw erupt anew this week with the immolation of the Jordanian pilot by ISIS. In other matters, Jeff notes the explosive growth in Chinese cinema, and it’s evolutionary power. Plus we revisit vaccines…and get to meet the Integral community’s own Navy Seal sniper.<br> Did Obama blow it in <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/02/05/remarks-president-national-prayer-breakfast" target="_blank">his speech at the National Prayer Breakfast?</a> He certainly got blow-back, especially for the following comments:<br> Lest 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.<br> Murderous extremism is not unique to one group or one religion. There is a tendency in us, a sinful tendency that can pervert and distort our faith.<br> I must say, when I first heard he had said this I thought, “No Barack, please! You let me say this shit, not you. You just stand up there and praise Jesus for another two years, and I’ll take care of this other stuff.”<br> But he never listens to me, and so he has gotten creamed from pretty much all sides. Especially from the traditionalists (amber altitude) because his comments feed into their fears that this Obama, which rhymes with Osama, is not really a Christian at all and is actually tilling the land for the Enemy. But even moderates saw it as a gaffe, simply for the unfortunate timing and lack of context of larger events in the world.<br> Indeed, his speech took place two days after the world saw <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/05/world/middleeast/arab-world-unites-in-anger-after-burning-of-jordanian-pilot.html" target="_blank">a shocking demonstration</a> of non-Christian atrocity: a thirty-minute, four-camera video edited like a video game with quick-cut graphics, sound effects and a grandiose narrative that led to a stark, brutal scene: a steel cage holding a man in an orange jumpsuit soaked in gasoline who is about to be burned alive.<br> So two days after this, at the National Prayer Breakfast, Obama brings up Christian atrocities of a thousand years ago. Bad timing in my opinion but I will defend his comments on one count: they are 100% true. Christians did all of these things — in numbers that dwarf the deeds of today’s Muslim fanatics.<br> But all of this is so much better understood in a developmental context — and Obama didn’t provide it. His explanation of ISIS was basically that they are evil criminals who are perverting Islam. This explanation represents the orange/green sweet spot that Obama generally tries to hit as President. I’m not sure how much he believes it versus how much he thinks espousing it is proper leadership for the country. The former view would be orange/green and the latter would be integral.<br> Here’s how the view of ISIS evolves according to the altitudes of development:<br> Amber traditionalists: For traditionalists, evil is evil. It’s what the Devil and his minions do in their battle with God and God’s people. For them the whole religion of Islam is evil. Conversely, for Islamic traditionalists Christianity is a religion of heresy and infidels. There’s one true faith and you’re either with us or against us.<br> Orange modernists: ISIS is evil but Islam isn’t, and in fact ISIS is perverting a great religion. This is a more mature and complex view, but we’re still stuck with evil.<br> Green postmodernists: This view of ISIS is that they are power-mad psychopaths. The Obama administration,
