O
oldcatholicguy
Guest
I have a friend named St. Francis…
- Status
H
Hunter24
Guest
Old Catholic guy, the Spanish Inquisition is very well documented and im realy rather sad that christians cant just except that and quit asking for documentation, but if u REALY want me to i can get some for you.
I had a Turkish exchange student who lost family members then and im a bit of a WW1 history fan, the Turks and Greeks are enemies because the Turks are Muslems who ruled the Christian Greeks after they defeated the Byzantines. the ethnic hatred is rooted in religion, as is the Yugoslav conflict.
Lastly the following reasons you sighted would also eliminate nearly every Islamic war, people dont realize that even today while the common suicide bomber is motivated by religion, to many of the highest terrorists it is simply used as a means to energize and motivate the people to rise up and support them. The only purely, 100% religious wars caused by either group were Mohammads initial conquests and the speradic local wars that occured between different christian groups (catholic vs protestant and protestant vs protestant) during and after the reformation. besides these all other major wars, the Crusaids, Moorish conquest and the Reconquesta, the Ottoman defeat of the Byzantines, the exploits of the Barbary Corsairs, even WW1 and the modern War on Terror all have other contributing factors.
I had a Turkish exchange student who lost family members then and im a bit of a WW1 history fan, the Turks and Greeks are enemies because the Turks are Muslems who ruled the Christian Greeks after they defeated the Byzantines. the ethnic hatred is rooted in religion, as is the Yugoslav conflict.
Lastly the following reasons you sighted would also eliminate nearly every Islamic war, people dont realize that even today while the common suicide bomber is motivated by religion, to many of the highest terrorists it is simply used as a means to energize and motivate the people to rise up and support them. The only purely, 100% religious wars caused by either group were Mohammads initial conquests and the speradic local wars that occured between different christian groups (catholic vs protestant and protestant vs protestant) during and after the reformation. besides these all other major wars, the Crusaids, Moorish conquest and the Reconquesta, the Ottoman defeat of the Byzantines, the exploits of the Barbary Corsairs, even WW1 and the modern War on Terror all have other contributing factors.
O
oldcatholicguy
Guest
H
Hunter24
Guest
Your correct, there are a inumerable different versions of the Inquisition, however the Reconquesta and the inquisition were both rather violent, seeing as they were a war and a inquisition.
but i would just like to point this out, I do not blame the Spanish for commiting atrocitys during the Reconquesta. The Spanish had been forced from their lands and had fought a centuries long campaign to regain it. War is hell, people die, and people do terrible things to each other. I like to think i wouldnt but no one can really know untill they are there. I have no reservations against revenge, or for that matter even physical conflict when merited, but Christians do. and thats what bugs me, when Christians now try to leaveout or deny things their ancestors did in the past because they are not consitant with their beleifs. I dont bring up this stuff because i thinks its terrible (which i do) i bring it up because christians deny it.
The war im talking about in particular was fought because a post WW1 the Entente gave large portions of Thrace and other European Ottoman territory to the Greeks who then slaughtered the Turks who didnt leave in time. after the Turkish Revolution Mustafa Kemal turned around and kicked the Greeks out.
Lastly, after the death of Mohammad the first few Caliphs were still religion oriented, but soon the power and wealth they controlled made them just as much kings and sultans as religious leaders. much like many Popes of History, they were not just religious figures but politicians. in some cases even more so.
O
oldcatholicguy
Guest
For most of the Church’s history the position of Pope has been both a religous and political position. Some just ignored the religous part.
Y
YKohen
Guest
You don’t do it BECAUSE you are Christian and BECAUSE they’re Muslim. In fact, this reminds me of an article that I read nearly 10 years ago:
"The Real Roots of Arab Anti-Americanism", Foreign Affairs, November/December 2002
…Indeed, internal conflicts in the Arab world have posed impossible dilemmas for U.S. policymakers. When the United States helps friendly governments such as Egypt’s or Saudi Arabia’s, it is accused of sabotaging revolutionary movements against them. As soon as Washington starts to pressure Arab governments into improving their positions on democracy or human rights, however, it is accused of acting in an imperialist manner – as happened this summer, when the White House threatened to block any increase in aid to Cairo after Egypt jailed Saad Eddin Ibrahim, a prominent human rights advocate. If Washington did nothing and friendly regimes were overthrown, the radical conquerors would be unlikely to show any gratitude for U.S. neutrality.
All the same, when conflicts in the region did erupt during the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s pitting Islamists against more moderate governments, the United States avoided taking sides. During Iran’s 1979 revolution, for example, although Washington clearly wanted the shah to survive, it nonetheless restrained him from taking tougher actions to save his throne. And once the revolution had succeeded, President Jimmy Carter then sought to conciliate the new Islamist government. (It was American contact with moderates in the new regime, in fact, that provoked the seizure of the U.S. embassy in Tehran in November 1979.) Although the United States did not want Iran to spread its radical Islamism throughout the Muslim world, it nonetheless sought the best possible relations with Tehran in order to minimize its cooperation with Moscow. And even though relations subsequently soured, Washington has never seriously tried to overthrow the Islamic government; on the contrary, it has periodically sought detente with Tehran.
In fact, the only time the United States has ever become directly involved in a dispute between a government and Islamist revolutionaries was in Afghanistan during the Soviet occupation – and in that case, Washington backed the rebels.
A brief survey of U.S. policy toward the Middle East, furthermore, reveals just how hard Washington has tried to win the support of Arabs in particular and Muslims in general. Consider the following:
In 1973, the United States rescued Egypt at the end of the Arab-Israeli War by forcing a cease-fire on Israel. Washington then became Cairo’s patron in the 1980s, providing it with massive arms supplies and aid while asking for little in return.
The United States also saved Yasir Arafat from Israel in Beirut in 1982, when Washington arranged safe passage for the Palestinian leader and pressed Tunisia to give him sanctuary. Washington’s support for Arafat and his Palestine Liberation Organization overlooked a history of Palestinian terrorism and anti-Americanism as well as the plo’s alignment with the Soviet Union during the Cold War. In the 1990s, moreover, despite the Palestinians’ backing of Iraq during the Gulf War, the United States became the Palestinians’ sponsor in the peace process with Israel, pushing for an agreement that would create a Palestinian state with its capital in east Jerusalem.
Over the years, the United States has also spent blood and treasure saving Muslims in Afghanistan from the Soviets; in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia from Iraq; and in Bosnia and Kosovo from Yugoslavia. It has supported Muslim Pakistan against India and Muslim Turkey against Greece. Washington has courted Damascus, even tacitly accepting Syria’s control over Lebanon. The United States supported Arab Iraq against Persian Iran during the Iran-Iraq War and also refrained from overthrowing Saddam Hussein after pushing him out of Kuwait in 1991.
For decades, the United States kept its forces out of the Persian Gulf to avoid offending Arabs and Muslims there. They entered, in fact, only when invited in to protect Arab oil tankers against Iran and to save Kuwait from Iraq. In Somalia, where no vital U.S. interests were at stake, the United States engaged in a humanitarian effort to help a Muslim people suffering from anarchy and murderous warlords.
The United States showed moderation when U.S. oil companies’ holdings were nationalized by Saudi Arabia, Libya, and other countries, and prices rose steeply after 1973; Washington did not try to overthrow the offending regimes or force them to lower prices. Nor did it take advantage of the Soviet Union’s demise to dominate the Levant or take revenge against former Soviet allies there. Similarly, it did not use its overwhelming military strength to dominate the Persian Gulf region after 1990 or to force any local regime to change its policies. And when al Qaeda blew up two U.S. embassies in eastern Africa in 1998, causing an immense loss of life, Washington responded with only very limited retaliation. Finally, since September 11, American leaders have taken pains to remind the world (and the American public) that Islam and Arabs are not U.S. enemies.
The overall tally, in fact, is staggering: during the last half-century, in 11 of 12 major conflicts between Muslims and non-Muslims, Muslims and secular forces, or Arabs and non-Arabs, the United States has sided with the former group.1 U.S. backing for Israel has been the sole significant exception to this rule. Yet what credit has Washington received for its aid? Arab anti-American radicals have distorted the record, ignoring all the positive examples and focusing only on U.S. support for Israel. Even Arab moderates, direct beneficiaries of U.S. aid, virtually never express gratitude for benign American measures – or even mention them at all.
foreignaffairs.org/20021101faessay9993-p0/barry-rubin/the-real-roots-of-arab-anti-americanism.html
Not today, no.Or we the Christian west never exterminate members of other religions.
C
confucius
Guest
You are escaping the point. Are you trying to discussing 10000 bC.That’s right, we Christian America, never invade or occupy Muslim countries. Or we the Christian west never exterminate members of other religions.
Now your point: Yes we did, Yes, we sinned.
Now try to get this answer from a Muslim and you will have your head chopped off.
C
confucius
Guest
So, Christianity trying to re-conquer what was their is a sin for you…
Well, nice reasoning…
“Ethnic clensing of Muslems by Slav Orthodox Serbians in former YugoSlavia” - now let us see if you know History or you only see the Muslim viewpoint. Why did christians behave this way? Do you know why?
So, you are pro-turk and against the peaceful greeks? funny…
So, we cannot consider Saudi Arabia … they are out of this world … but you open your eyes wide for every Christian sin. which side are you in ?
C
confucius
Guest
You could not have a peaceful dialogue with Hitler, Estaline, North Korea, Fidel Castro, Napoleon, with all the fundamentalists., OK?
Peaceful dialogue with these is a nice way to have your head chopped off.
C
confucius
Guest
Me too…
And what did He get ?
S
sedonaman
Guest
This is a repeat of a previous post for the benefit of those who missed it:
There were 463 years between Mohammed’s death in 632 AD and the calling of a Crusade to free lands that had been Christian before the Muslim invaders arrived; but to hear what passes for common “knowledge” [from self-hating Christians at that!], the whole affair was solely the fault of power-hungry popes, greedy soldiers of fortune, and Christians who were persecuting harmless, pious Muslims minding their own business. Muslims are only too happy to help Christians perpetuate this mea maxima culpa attitude.
Stenhouse[1] lists only some of the events that took place in those 463 years, among them, 633 – Mesopotamia falls to Muslim invasion, followed by the entire Persian Empire
635 – Damascus falls
638 – Jerusalem capitulates
643 – Alexandria falls, ending 1,000 years of Hellenic civilization
648-49 – Cyprus falls
653 – Rhodes falls
673 – Constantinople attacked
698 – All of North Africa lost
711 – Spain invaded
717 – Muslims attack Constantinople again; repelled by Emperor Leo the Isaurian
721 – Saragossa falls, Muslims sights on southern France
720 – Narbonne falls.
732 – Bordeaux was stormed and its churches burnt down
732 – Charles Martel and his Frankish army defeat Muslims, turning back the Muslim tide
732 – Attacks on France continued
734 – Avignon captured by an Muslim force
743 – Lyons sacked
759 – Arabs driven out of Narbonne.
838 – Marseilles plundered
800 – Muslims incursions into Italy begin, Islands of Ponza and Ischia plundered
813 – Civitavecchia, the port of Rome sacked
826 – Crete falls to Muslim forces
827 – Muslim forces begin to attack Sicily.
837 – Naples repels a Muslim attack
838 – Marseilles taken
840 – Bari falls
842 – Messina captured and Strait of Messina controlled
846 – Muslims squadrons arrived at Ostia, at the Tiber’s mouth, sack Rome and St. Peter’s Basilica
846 – Taranto in Apulia conquered by Muslim forces
849 – Papal forces repel Muslim fleet at the mouth of the Tiber
853 – 871 – Italian coast from Bari down to Reggio Calabria controlled, Muslims terrorize Southern Italy.
859 – Muslims take control of all Messina
870 – Malta captured by the Muslims.
870 – Bari recaptured from the Muslims by Emperor Louis II
872 – Emperor Louis II defeats a Saracen fleet off Capua
872 – Muslim forces devastate Calabria
878 – Syracuse falls after a nine-month siege
879 – Pope John VIII forced to pay tribute of 25,000 mancuses (AUD$625,000) annually to the Muslims
880 – Byzantine Commanders gain victory over Saracen forces at Naples
881 – Muslims capture fortress near Anzio, plunder surrounding countryside with impunity for forty [40] years.
887 – Muslim armies take Hysela and Amasia, in Asia Minor.
889 – Toulon captured
902 – Muslim fleets sacked and destroyed Demetrias in Thessaly, Central Greece,
904 – Thessalonica falls to Muslim forces
915 – After three months of blockade, Christian forces victorious against Saracens holed-up in their fortresses north of Naples
921 – English pilgrims to Rome crushed to death under rocks rolled down on them by Saracens in the passes of the Alps
934 – Genoa attacked by Muslim forces
935 – Genoa taken
972 – Saracens finally driven from Faxineto
976 – Caliphs of Egypt send fresh Muslim expeditions into southern Italy. Initially the German Emperor Otho II , who had set up his headquarters in Rome, successfully defeated these Saracen forces
977 – Sergius, Archbishop of Damascus, expelled from his See by Muslims
982 – Emperor Otho’s forces ambushed and his army defeated
1003 – Muslims from Spain sack Antibes
1003-09 – Marauding bands of Saracens plunder Italian coast from Pisa to Rome from bases on Sardinia
1005 – Muslims from Spain sack Pisa
1009 – Caliph of Egypt orders destruction of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem, the Tomb of Jesus
1010 – Saracens seize Cosenza in southern Italy.
1015 – All Sardinia falls
1016 – Muslims from Spain again sack Pisa
1017 – Fleets of Pisa and Genoa sail for Sardinia, find Saracens crucifying Christians, drive Saracen leader out. Saracens try to re-take Sardinia until 1050
1020 – Muslims from Spain sack Narbonne
1095 – The First Crusade.
And it didn’t stop once the Crusades were over. While the pope has apologized for the Crusades, Muslims have never so much as acknowledged any responsibility, and why should they when there are billions of Christians around to self-flagellate over the issue?
For additional reading, see “The Real History of the Crusades” by Medieval historian Thomas F. Madden catholiceducation.org/articles/history/world/wh0055.html
Notes:
[1] “The Crusades In Context” by Dr Paul Stenhouse answering-islam.org.uk/Green/crusades-stenhouse.htm
[2] “Jihad Begot The Crusades”
Andrew Bostom americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=4467 [Two parts]
[3] “The Legacy of Jihad in Historical Palestine”
Andrew Bostom americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=4999
“Simply looking to expand their borders” ? Sounds like you are admitting they are out to conquer the world … motivated by religion.
C
Contarini
Guest
Middle of the night? The latest time for the last of the five prayers is about 9:30. That’s hardly the middle of the night.
And it’s not reasonable to use the actual frequency and loudness of church bells as the standard, but the legally possible frequency and loudness. In other words, at what point would it be reasonable for non-Christians to say that the church bells were too frequent or too loud?
As someone who loves to hear the sound of church bells, I’d set the bar pretty high for that kind of complaint.
Edwin
M
manualman
Guest
Oh please, don’t drag out the old equal dignity and value = sameness canard. The fact that many religions have religious assignments of duty based on gender has NOTHING to do with that religion’s outlook on the civil rights of women in larger society. You can’t possibly be thick enough to equate that with the allegation (I’m not scholar enough to verify if this is true) that Islam requires secular courts to assign women’s testimony no more than half the value of a man’s. If this is, indeed, an integral part of the Islamic faith and indispensible teaching then it is a sick religion incompatible with American law and values. As I mentioned above, there are other troubling aspects of Islamic teaching that I’d like to see clearly addressed by muslim leaders. It seems quite possible to me that even the leaders who ARE repulsed by the underbelly of Muhammed’s principles are sacred of saying so out loud.
Again, I’m not advocating bigotry. I’m advocating that we apply the same principles we have in the past to religions that fundamentally conflict with our laws and core values. If a mosque’s leaders are willing to publicly repudiate those apalling values then there should be no concerns or roadblocks. If they are committed to reprobate principles then we have a problem. As your post indicates, it’s going to be hard work to get Americans to think through the principles and separate out the false comparisons to genuine conflicts. But it’s worth it in the long run.
Y
YKohen
Guest
Isha, the last of the 5 prayers, can be all night, although it usually isn’t.
*Fajr * is pre-dawn and must be before sunrise. That means that now, around where I live, it starts at around 4:45 am (it gets as early as 3:55 am). It is preceded by the muezzin calling them to prayer, so it does get pretty middle-of-the-nighty.
S
sedonaman
Guest
Someone mentioned that the ones near him started at 3am.
Why not? Islam is constantly compared to Christianity ad nauseum.
H
Hunter24
Guest
Indeed, its great that the past few centuries they have finaly managed to get most of the politics out of it, things allwase get messy when religiouse leaders get mixed up in politics.
O
oldcatholicguy
Guest
A peaceful non-“convert or die” dialogue with Muslims. Same goes for his order for the last 700-800 years.
O
oldcatholicguy
Guest
Please prove that the sole or primary reason for all these actions was their faith. You seem to be making the false assumption common amoung atheists that a war that has religion anywhere in it has to have been caused by that religion and not by the most common cause of war, namely “I have a bigger sword then you and I want your stuff.”
O
oldcatholicguy
Guest
So an idiotic argument serves as justification for your’s?
H
Hunter24
Guest
What i see here are a long list of towns being conquored and maybe about 3 acts of religious persecution. invading a city isnt an act of religious persecution.
- Status