Crusades were not Evil

[ScottH]

Genesis 12:3 “And I will bless them that bless thee and curse him that curseth thee; and in thee shall all nations of the earth be blessed.” (re: Israel)

Romans 15:27 “For if the Gentiles have shared in their (the Jews) spiritual things, they are indebted to minister to them also in material things.”

“Pray for the peace of Jerusalem, they shall prosper that love thee.” (Psalm 122:6)

 

[ScottH]

LoneRanger:

probably depends on which side of the spear or sword you were standing on… http://utah.indymedia.org/uploads/crusades.jpg

I bet the Phillistines felt the same way.

The truth of the matter was that going on a crusade- statistically- gave you only slightly better odds at survival than being in the Union Army at Little Big Horn, or being in the Alamo as a Texan.

We got our clocks cleaned, contrary to popular myth.

 

[Milliardo]

ScottH:

But the Muslims WON the crusades. The Christians lost, and lost BIG.

Warren H. Carroll’s books about the history of Christendom offers a different view, and that in the end Islam did lose the Crusades, which culminated in the Battle of Lepanto in 1571 between Catholic and Muslim fleets, and after that battle came the long and agonizing decline of the Ottoman Empire.

 

[Philip_P]

ScottH:

As a non-catholic, I usually have no problem saying that Catholics were wrong on any given issue. But I cannot say that on this one. I would urge you to read the article and the book by Thomas Madden, a professor in medeival Studies, associate professor and chair of the Department of History at Saint Louis University in St. Louis, Missouri.

However, my apolgies to you in advance if your certifications trump his on the subject of medieval crusade history, and know better.

Well I guess we could each trot out our respective lists of experts and then…count who has more experts? Rent out Madison Square Garden and have them duke it out? Drop them on a deserted island with TV cameras for Survivor: Crusading Academics Edition?

Maybe it would be better to specify which crusade and which personalities we’re talking about, since there were so many over so many years. For instance, was the Children’s Crusade a good idea? And how about that burning down of Constantinople? Was the Spanish Reconquista a crusade (How 'bout that Cid Campeador, eh)?

 

[Franze]

Philip P:

Well I guess we could each trot out our respective lists of experts and then…count who has more experts? Rent out Madison Square Garden and have them duke it out? Drop them on a deserted island with TV cameras for Survivor: Crusading Academics Edition?

Maybe it would be better to specify which crusade and which personalities we’re talking about, since there were so many over so many years. For instance, was the Children’s Crusade a good idea? And how about that burning down of Constantinople? Was the Spanish Reconquista a crusade (How 'bout that Cid Campeador, eh)?

Not only Cid but Jaime I king of Aragon and conquer of Valencia and Majorca, the two sieges to Vienna, the first saved by spanish in 1529 and the second saved by the polish in 1683 commanded by Jan Sobieski.
And all europeans are agree with saving Europe from muslims except France. It was very different from the crusade to Jerusalem that was commanded by french.

 

[James_Cody]

Dagnarille:

You mean genocide is not evil?

I won’t buy that. Murder is murder. Murder in the name of God is not a good thing. Why would God want you to kill off a race of people, who are your brothers and sisters?

And what does genocide ever had to do with the Catholic Church?

When did the Catholic Church ever advocate Genocide? Or the eradication of any ethnic group?

So to answer your question: Yes, genocide is evil, which is why the Catholic Church never advocated it.

 

[James_Cody]

I must agree that the great Crusades were not evil.

The Crusades were called for the protection of Christian pilgrims to the Holy Lands AFTER the Moslem takeover of Jerusalem.

The Crusades were also employed to curtail Muslim imperialist designs. After sweeping across North Africa with unprecedented fanaticism, the Moslems under their caliphs bragged that they would enter Europe and capture the Pope, but were stopped by Charles Martel (Chuck the Hammer).

Of the six Holy Crusades, only the fourth was of dubious practice, and it was this fourth Crusade and its concurrent sack of Constantinople which has given a bad name to all the Crusades by critics of Catholicism.

The first Crusade was called by Urban II in 1099.

The second Crusade preached by Bernard of Clairvaux in 1146.

The third Crusade was 1189-1192 turned out to be inconclusive.

The fourth Crusade of 1204 was proclaimed by Innocent III and sacked Constantinople.

The fifth Crusade of 1228-1229 was led by Emporer Fredrick II and briefly retook Jerusalem.

The sixth and final Crusade of 1248-1254 by led by King Louis IX of France.

And I feel that all these events were justified in light of their historical times and periods.

 

[atheos_sum]

Salvete Catholici

If the Crusades were in defense of the “Christian West,” as some of you say, why then did the Crusaders need to occupy Jerusalem and the Holy Land? Is it justified if one is attacked in war, and then drives the enemy back, but ends up conquering more land than was originally one’s own. Since Jerusalem was never wholly Christian, what grounds did the Crusaders have in occupying it? Certainly it could not have been “reclaimed,” on account of it never being “claimed” in the first place.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Ruthmary:

From time to time I’ve noticed references to the Crusades which imply that the poster considers them to have been evil. Catholics need to learn their history so they can teach others the truth. Below is a website which will lead to many articles which explain the true nature of the Crusades for any who wish to learn the truth about them.

ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ421.HTM#The%20Crusades

God bless you,
Ruthmary

The Church does not tell us what to think about events in Church history (those in the NT excepted) - so we are perfectly at liberty to consider the Constantinian settlement of the Church, the Crusades, and all mamnner of events, anything but unmixed blessings.​

Besides, the Crusades cover almost 200 years - so making judgements applicable to all is difficult.

IMO, the barbarity which which the Crusaders behaved at times is sub-Christian. And as for the massacres of Jews which accompanied the first crusade, the less said, the better.

Thanks to the sack and pillaging of Constantinople, the Orthodox have still not forgiven the CC.

Another evil result of the movement: the spreading of heresy into Western Europe. There might have been no Cathars, nor crusades against them, had there been no Western attacks on Eastern Europe. Perhaps even no Reformation. ##

 

[Cubsfan]

Having read through some of the posts on this subject I would like to point out that if you applied the the Just War concept to the Crusades they would be a Just War. Christian pilgrims were being murdered on the way to the Holy Land.

As for Gottle of Geers contention that had the Crusades not happended then a number of other odious events might have been avoided. If “ifs” and “ands” were nuts and candy…:yawn:

This is an excerpt from Crusades: Truth and Black Legend by **VITTORIO MESSORI **
According to Italian Catholic writer Vittorio Messori, the Enlightenment cast a “black legend” shadow on the Crusades, and used it as a weapon in its psychological war against the Roman Catholic Church. In an article in “Corriere della Sera,” Italy’s most important newspaper, Messori wrote, “In order to complete the work of the Reformation, it was 18th century Europe that began the chain of `Roman infamies’ that have become dogma.” :clapping:

Most of the opinion used against the crusades was formulated from the “Black Legends” during the enlightenment (or shall I say the “not so enlightenment”)

 

[Vox_Borealis]

Cubsfan:

Having read through some of the posts on this subject I would like to point out that if you applied the the Just War concept to the Crusades they would be a Just War. Christian pilgrims were being murdered on the way to the Holy Land.

There is no doubt this occurred, but that fact in itself does not necessarily justify the Crusades according to the Church’s just war doctrine. One has to look at all the componenets of the doctrine:

"2309 The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:

• the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
• all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
• there must be serious prospects of success;
• the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.
  These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the “just war” doctrine.
  The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good."

So,

1. the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;

This condition might have been met if we consider the murder of pilgrims as damage to the nation. But, if we consider that by 1100 Muslims had controlled the Holy Lands for hundreds of years, the pilgrims could be seen as outsiders! Now, if we consider that the Muslims had recently expanded their power in Asia Minor at the expense of the Byzantine Empire, then certainly the Muslims could be seen as the aggressor nation against Byzantium.

1. all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;

Almost certainly this condition was not met. One would have to produce evidence that EVERY diplomatic avenue was exhausted.

1. there must be serious prospects of success;

Yes for the first crusade; for some of the later crusades, not so clear.

1. the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated.

This is the most problematic one. How many pilgrims had been killed? How oppressive was Muslim rule in the Holy Land? ALmost certainly these serious evils were outweighed by the slaughter produded on both sides during the seven official crusades. Again, we can turn to the fourth crusade example–even though, as has been pointed out repeatedly–the church condemned the sack of Constantinople, this most grave evil act was the (unintended) product of the crusades.

That is why the Church strongly discourages war as a solution even to the most grievous international situation, because war itself is so evil and disordered that it tends almost inherently to produce more evils. See CCC 2307: “The fifth commandment forbids the intentional destruction of human life. Because of the evils and injustices that accompany all war, the Church insistently urges everyone to prayer and to action so that the divine Goodness may free us from the ancient bondage of war.”

 

[Vimalakirti]

ScottH:

Okay- how’s this for irony- me, a non-Catholic Christian- defending the Crusades and the actions of Pope Urban II!!

(A true sign that we are living in the end times!!!)

Anyway- I think we need to examine war a little. Was David evil for his slaying of the Phillistines in defense of Israel? Keep in mind, the Jews were (and are) savage fighters- and even back then, the bible speaks of them taking a certain part of the male anatomy off of the fallen Phillistines as proof of how many were killed.

Did God show the Phillistines kindness when they captured the Ark of the Covenant? No… the Phillistines put the Ark in the pagan temple of Dagon (fish-man God of the Phillistines) and left it there as a trophy. The next morning, the Phillistines awoke to find that the God of Israel (via the Ark) had destroyed the huge statue of Dagon in the temple, and brought it face down before the Ark.

The Phillistines quickly latched the ark on to a mule (or cow… I forget) and let it guide itself back to the Israelites. They were terrified. God showed them no mercy, nor did he expect Israel to do so either.

(I recall in Presbyterian Sunday School- they always wimp out and leave out the David and Goliath part about David beheading Goliath with Goliath own’s sword… argh! I hate when stories are “sweetened” for consumption!)

God expects his people to defend themselves.

1 Samuel would be a good read on this topic.

–It always astounds me when people who call themselves Christians turn to the most savage, primitive portions of the Old Testament and take it literally as moral guidance. So when God - as he is said to do - orders the slaughter of innocents, men, women and children - and even the unborn, in the case of the murder of the Midianite women reputed to have had sex with Israelite males - are we to take this literally as wise counsel, forgetting that the vast majority of denominations, including the Catholic Church, quite reasonably allow some room for interpretation of such passages? I would pose the simple question: has the poster read the NEW Testament lately? Does the sermon on the mount and analagous teachings which by common accord are absolutely basic to the faith (no matter what theologies may have followed) register with him at all?

 

[Cubsfan]

Vox Borealis:

1. the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain

Vox Borealis:

Well, lets see the Chrisitians were given a status of second class citizens and were heavily taxed (unless they converted to Islam). I think this alone is a grave injustice as well as state sanctioned murder and robbery.
Vox Borealis:

1. all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;

Vox Borealis:

It is 1100 A.D. and the caliphs are sworn to convert the world to Islam. I hardly think that Caliph and his lesser lords were about to sit down and discuss a peace treaty.
Vox Borealis:

1. there must be serious prospects of success

Vox Borealis:

The average Crusader was much bigger and stronger then the soldiers of Islam, they fought well and usually won the initial battles. The problem that they encountered is that over time the Crusaders had a hard time sustaining the Levant.
Vox Borealis:

1. the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated.

Vox Borealis:

PHP]/PHP]

It is a fact that some of the Crusaders engaged in what would be called war crimes, however, I believe that this was an act of free will so lets not lay the blame at the foot of the Popes. Also, as for the “Sack of Byzantium” I wouid caution you that there is always two sides to the story. I believe that the Byzantine Emperor was not an innocent victim in all of this.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Cubsfan:

Having read through some of the posts on this subject I would like to point out that if you applied the the Just War concept to the Crusades they would be a Just War. Christian pilgrims were being murdered on the way to the Holy Land.

As for Gottle of Geers contention that had the Crusades not happended then a number of other odious events might have been avoided. If “ifs” and “ands” were nuts and candy…:yawn:

This is an excerpt from Crusades: Truth and Black Legend by **VITTORIO MESSORI **
According to Italian Catholic writer Vittorio Messori, the Enlightenment cast a “black legend” shadow on the Crusades, and used it as a weapon in its psychological war against the Roman Catholic Church. In an article in “Corriere della Sera,” Italy’s most important newspaper, Messori wrote, “In order to complete the work of the Reformation, it was 18th century Europe that began the chain of `Roman infamies’ that have become dogma.” :clapping:

Most of the opinion used against the crusades was formulated from the “Black Legends” during the enlightenment (or shall I say the “not so enlightenment”)

There seems to be an awful lot of Catholic revisionism around ​

I’m as happy as any to be told that phenomena commonly deemed indefensible or shameful were quite possibly not as bad as they are said to be: but where will it end ?

Rape, pillage, and murder are evil - even if those who commit them are western Catholics raping Byzantine nuns, plundering Byzantine relics, and defiling Byzantine Churches.

Such things are nothing but war crimes. Was Christ a rapist and murderer ? The Pope called the sack of Constantinople “a work of darkness” - but he was happy enough to profit it from it none the less, by installing a Catholic as Patriarch; which makes his denunciation and excommunication of those who did it, ring rather hollow.

When the Crusaders entered Jerusalem during the Third Crusade, they ignored their promise to spare the Muslim defenders, and massacred the lot of them. The Muslims behaved with more knightly chivalry, and in a more Christian manner, than their enemies did.

As for the First Crusade, the progress of the ill-disciplined rabble who made up the bulk of the Crusaders through the Rhineland was marked by a string of massacres of Jews. The Jews were so terrified, that they asked some of the bishops for protection against the Christian murderers - but even the bishops were not always successful in saving them.

Which atrocity is going to be prettified next ? The extermination of hundreds of thousands of Serbs in Croatia under the puppet Fascist regime of Ante Pavelic during WW2 ?
The torture and massacre of Protestants forcibly converted to Catholicism after the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes in 1685 in France ?

Fortunately, such abominations never go unpunished.

Murder, treachery, lies, deceit, torture, and cruelty are utterly indefensible - and a religion able to defend them would be rotten to the core.

If the Enlightenment movements - there are at least two - have forced the Church to look her past in the face, honestly, then so much the better. A religion built on fantasy and forgery and superstition and ignorance and untruth, is certainly not Christianity: so the less we have those, the better; however much it may hurt at first to get rid of them.

Besides, “defending the ill done” is a sin anyway.

Honesty in studying historical matters, is not the same as try to justify every last action of the Church or of Catholics. Some things - mutilating boys for their singing voices, murdering Orthodox clergy, killing Protestants who will not be converted from their own faith, trafficking in relics & indulgences, and slaughtering Jews and Muslims who are not even fighting, are indefensible. The wonder is that any Jew or Muslim would want to be Catholic, after what they have had to endure from so-called Catholics ##

 

[Axion]

Gottle of Geer:

Rape, pillage, and murder are evil - even if those who commit them are western Catholics raping Byzantine nuns, plundering Byzantine relics, and defiling Byzantine Churches.

Hello, Gottle of Geer,

I see that in your hate-filled post you are repeating some of the scandalous accusations that were raised and refuted in another thread.

1. The sacking of Byantium was done in spite of the direct intervention of the Pope and a backed-up threat of excommunication.
2. It came about as part of the trickery of Doge Dandolo of Venice, who side-tracked the fourth Crusaders by promising to fund their transportation to the Holy Land if they supported his ends.
3. It came about as a result of internal factions within Byzantium asking the Crusaders to help them gain power.

Since the purpose of the Crusades was not to attack Constantinople, the raising of the whole episode is a diversion, and a red-herring from the main argument.

Such things are nothing but war crimes. Was Christ a rapist and murderer ?

Again you are taking the actions of renegades and trying to smear the effort of the true Crusaders with them. You are being highly dishonest.

( The Pope called the sack of Constantinople “a work of darkness” - but he was happy enough to profit it from it none the less, by installing a Catholic as Patriarch; which makes his denunciation and excommunication of those who did it, ring rather hollow.

Yet again, a dishonest attack. The pope condemned the diversion of the Crusade at every single stage. He did not “profit” from it. And is he now expected to affirm a Patriarch who wished to continue the recent schism with Rome in order to please you? How indeed could he “appoint” someone who rejected his authority? This is nonsense.

When the Crusaders entered Jerusalem during the Third Crusade, they ignored their promise to spare the Muslim defenders, and massacred the lot of them. The Muslims behaved with more knightly chivalry, and in a more Christian manner, than their enemies did.

Again you are spreading untruths.

1. The Muslims committed greater and more systematic massacres than the Christians ever did. The conflict started with the massacres of the Christians of the East. It ended with a series of appalling massacres of the entire Christian population of cities like Antioch tyre and Acre. In other threads here, which you have seen, evidence has been posted of all this, but you ignore it.
2. What promise was there that the resisting citizens would be spared? Again, as has already been posted several times, the practice of war at this time was that citizens were spared or ransomed when a city surrendered. If a city refused to surrender, and was taken by force at cost of life to the attackers it was subject to sack, as all within were considered combatants.

As for the First Crusade, the progress of the ill-disciplined rabble who made up the bulk of the Crusaders through the Rhineland was marked by a string of massacres of Jews. The Jews were so terrified, that they asked some of the bishops for protection against the Christian murderers - but even the bishops were not always successful in saving them.

Again dishonest. This has been gone through in the other threads too. The massacres in the Rhineland had nothing to do with the 1st Crusade as you imply here. They were performed by local groups of renegades who were opposed and condemned by the Church and dispersed and defeated by Catholics. Again you spread slanders against the Church and the true crusaders.

 

[Axion]

Gottle of Geer:

Which atrocity is going to be prettified next ? The extermination of hundreds of thousands of Serbs in Croatia under the puppet Fascist regime of Ante Pavelic during WW2 ?
The torture and massacre of Protestants forcibly converted to Catholicism after the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes in 1685 in France ?

I have again to respond to the twisted series of implications, allegations and outright untruths in your post. Your eyes seem to see only “wrongs” done by Catholics - whether real or invented - and overlook all the actions of their enemies.

The Croatian puppet regime was established and run by the Nazi and largely protestant-supported German Government.

The Edict of Nantes was virtually the only attempt at Religious Toleration anywhere in Europe in the Reformation period - and it was a Catholic Government that granted toleration to Protestants. The English government was killing and mutilating its Catholics at the time. The Edict was revoked in 1685 because foreign powers were intervening in French affairs using the protestants as an excuse. This restored the position in France to that of the Rest of Europe. The revocation involved no massacres or “forced conversions”.

Murder, treachery, lies, deceit, torture, and cruelty are utterly indefensible - and a religion able to defend them would be rotten to the core.

Then you had better look to the shameful and bloody history of protestantism.

If the Enlightenment movements - there are at least two - have forced the Church to look her past in the face, honestly, then so much the better. A religion built on fantasy and forgery and superstition and ignorance and untruth, is certainly not Christianity: so the less we have those, the better; however much it may hurt at first to get rid of them.

There is a differenc e between looking the past in the face, and spreading lies, untruths and malevolent distortions about Catholicism.

Honesty in studying historical matters, is not the same as try to justify every last action of the Church or of Catholics. Some things - mutilating boys for their singing voices, murdering Orthodox clergy, killing Protestants who will not be converted from their own faith, trafficking in relics & indulgences, and slaughtering Jews and Muslims who are not even fighting, are indefensible. The wonder is that any Jew or Muslim would want to be Catholic, after what they have had to endure from so-called Catholics ##

The number of lies and malevolent distortions in this passage is astonishing. You clearly bear a deep hatred for the Catholic Church that you bear false witness in this manner.

When did the Church mutilate boys for their singing voices - evidence please? And what you find “indefensible” in Catholics does not seem to bother you when practiced by Muslims or Protestants. As in the massacres of Catholics in England, Ireland and elsewhere.

As for presenting Muslims as the victims of evil Catholics - who invaded the Catholic lands of Syria, Egypt, North Africa, Spain, the Holy Land, Turkey in the first place, oppressing and slaughtering the people? Talk about blaming the victim! Your hatred for “fellow” Christians is perverse.

 

[Axion]

Just War doctrine

Vox said:
Vox Borealis:

1. the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;

This condition might have been met if we consider the murder of pilgrims as damage to the nation. But, if we consider that by 1100 Muslims had controlled the Holy Lands for hundreds of years, the pilgrims could be seen as outsiders! Now, if we consider that the Muslims had recently expanded their power in Asia Minor at the expense of the Byzantine Empire, then certainly the Muslims could be seen as the aggressor nation against Byzantium.

Agreed.

1. all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;

Almost certainly this condition was not met. One would have to produce evidence that EVERY diplomatic avenue was exhausted.

You are trying to impose very “civilised” 21st Century standards here. The Turks had invaded and despoiled Armenia, Georgia and Byzantium, sacking cities and massacring Christian civilians. Telling them to cease and desist had clearly had no effect. These people prided themselves as “Holy Warriors” or Ghazis. Attacking Christians was their chief purpose. They weren’t going to apologise and go home.

Consider World War 2. Britain gave Germany 24 hours to pull out of Poland before declaring War. In the circumstances, was that unjust? The Turks had been plundering the east for at least 40 years before the 1st Crusade was launched.

1. there must be serious prospects of success;

Yes for the first crusade; for some of the later crusades, not so clear.

Okay

1. the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated.

This is the most problematic one. How many pilgrims had been killed? How oppressive was Muslim rule in the Holy Land? ALmost certainly these serious evils were outweighed by the slaughter produded on both sides during the seven official crusades.

First: You are looking on it with hindsight. No-one really knows when a war starts how long it will be, and what the casualties will be. The question is, are the evils you are fighting worse than the evils the war might probably produce.

If the situation were merely attacks on Pilgrims, you might have a point. Was that worth a major war?

However, the situation was:

1. Attacks on Pilgrims
2. Destruction of the Christian Holy Places.
3. Bloody attacks on Armenia and Georgia.
4. The taking of the Christian PAtriarchate of Antioch.
5. A major assault on the Byzantine Empire, which had laid waste and captured half its territory, and which showed no sign of letting up.
6. A consequent threat of the fall of Constantinople, and a Muslim sweep into Europe from the East.

Under those circumstances, I would consider the Just War conditions to have been met.

 

[Philip_P]

In defending the Crusades, several posters have brought up atrocities committed by the other side (i.e Turks and Arabs). How do their atrocities possibly justify ours? Are you literally saying that all we have to do is count the bodies, and if their body count is larger than ours, then we’re justified? That sort of reasoning is a dangerous road…

 

[Axion]

Philip P:

In defending the Crusades, several posters have brought up atrocities committed by the other side (i.e Turks and Arabs). How do their atrocities possibly justify ours? Are you literally saying that all we have to do is count the bodies, and if their body count is larger than ours, then we’re justified? That sort of reasoning is a dangerous road…

No. The point is to correct a heavily misleading impression.

There is an agenda today that wants to demonise Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular by re-writing history in order to present the Church as an evil force in World History.

To do this the re-writers of history

1. Collect, exaggerate and embroider every atrocity committed by Christians in the last 2000 years, and forget everything good that has been done in the same period.

2 Never set the misdeeds in context of provocation, defence against attack attitudes of the time etc.

1. Assume that every evil deed done by any group of Christians was done at the orders of the Church.
2. Deny all the achievements of Christian society and imply that all advances in science, art, philosophy, technology etc. were made by Atheists, people of other faiths, in the teeth of Church opposition.

The distortion of the Crusades is a major part of this agenda. Many people now believe that the Crusades were an unprovoked and brutal attack by greedy, violent, bloodthirsty Christians, on a group of peace-loving, tolerant and cultured Muslims.

Christians beating their chests and accepting this reversal of history not only betrays the memory of most of the Crusaders, but encourages the false perception of Christianity as an evil force, which our enemies want to give it.

Yes. There have been misdeeds done by Christians in the past 2000 years. But our detractors want to isolate them, and present Chrisianity as particularly evil - whilst giving Atheists, pagans, muslims or other groups whose record is infinitely worse, a free bill of health.

 

[Deus_Solus]

I’m anxious to see how the whole Crusades ordeal is portrayed in the movie “Kingdom of Heaven” thats coming out this Friday, May 6. Looks like a sweet movie, but dunno about the ideology and agenda behind it.