The Crusades were great, -- REALLY!

May 2013
19,622
19,604
N Oregon Coast
:rolleyes:

The right-wingnut controversy following Obama’s remarks, however, has laid bare a troubling trend among conservative Christians (and the politicians eager to pander to them): They are now in the business of justifying the Crusades.

You read that right. The point being made is not that Obama is wrong to compare ISIS to the Crusades because the Crusades happened long ago (this was Bobby Jindal’s cute, misleading quip), or because the historical context is different. It’s that Obama is wrong to compare ISIS to the Crusades because the Crusades were actually a good thing.

Perhaps the leading theme in this literature is that “The Crusades—despite their terrible organized cruelties—were a defensive war.” This was thusly emphasized Jonah Goldberg in the National Review. (Goldberg proceeded to quote Bernard Lewis, “the greatest living English-language historian of Islam,” apparently unaware that he is the primary target of Edward Said’s book Orientalism and has been shown, time and again, to have anti-Muslim bias.)​

?The Crusades Were Great, Actually!? - The Daily Beast
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
May 2013
19,622
19,604
N Oregon Coast
Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.

Abraham Lincoln
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person

Babba

Former Staff
Jul 2007
77,310
68,663
So. Md.
I have some friends on FB defending and rationalizing the Crusades and using all the same arguments debunked by historians like the Christians were merely being defensive.

One of the leading debunkers of the biased misuse of history is Professor Matthew Gabriele of Virginia Tech, who has taught and published widely on the Crusades. On his blog, he said simply, “I call bullshit.”

In fact, as Gabriele writes, various Muslim sects had controlled Jerusalem since 732 , yet it took the Christian forces 350 years to “respond.” And only the first of eight crusades was dedicated to retaking Christian shrines; subsequent adventures in Egypt, Tunisia, and modern-day Syria and Turkey were not so motivated.

In any case, is it sensible to take the Church leadership’s rhetoric at face value? Sure, the Crusades may have been justified by religious objectives. But scholars have observed for centuries that they were at least equally motivated by the Church’s centralization of temporal power, the authority of monarchs friendly to the Church, and the accretion of wealth.
The second argument the Christian apologists offer is that the Christians during the Crusades weren't as violent as Muslims are.

Another leading theme is that violence is central to Islam, but peripheral to Christianity. Here’s Meschini again: “Jihad is the sixth pillar of Islam… On the contrary, there is no sacred Christian text that speaks of war in a similar way.” In response, Gabriele cited “the biblical books of Joshua, Judges, Kings, Maccabees” as well as “Augustine, Eusebius, the Pseudo-Methodius, the Tiburtine Sibyl, Adso of Montier-en-Der.”

Oh, and note that there are only five pillars of Islam, none of which is jihad. Meschini just made the “sixth pillar” stuff up.

Similarly, Notre Dame scholar Steve Weidenkopf, in a “a crash course in the Crusades” in the Catholic magazine Crisis, wrote it is a “myth” that Crusaders slaughtered all the inhabitants of Jerusalem, but in the same post, then says that it was “standard practice” to do so and “both Christians and Muslims followed this policy.”

So, they didn’t do it, but if they did, everyone did it anyway. Following the classic “No True Scotsman” fallacy, Weidenkopf then says that the Crusaders who massacred Jews—5,000 in the Rhineland massacres alone—were “brigands” and “cannot accurately be called Crusaders.”

In fact, the Crusaders massacred, massacred, and massacred some more. They massacred Jews in the Rhineland, Albigensian heretics in Spain, Muslims in the Holy Land. Sometimes (as in the Rhineland) the massacres were condemned by religious authorities; other times (as in Spain) it was actively encouraged.
The righties got their talking points quick and spread out with them like the good little foot soldiers they are.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
May 2013
19,622
19,604
N Oregon Coast
I have some friends on FB defending and rationalizing the Crusades and using all the same arguments debunked by historians like the Christians were merely being defensive.

The second argument the Christian apologists offer is that the Christians during the Crusades weren't as violent as Muslims are.

The righties got their talking points quick and spread out with them like the good little foot soldiers they are.
Yep, the reaction to Obama's comments turned into one of their zestier faux outrages to date.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people

Rorschach

Former Staff
Aug 2012
53,875
20,202
america
Everyone should maybe look at the times.

The Crusades were nasty, but...no worse than the Islamic Savages who had spread across much of the Middle East and Asia.

That is how people fought. And, truth be known...both the Muslims and the Christians were JUST AS BRUTAL with their own, as across religous lines. (Seriously...look up some stories about Britain and France. OR, just stick to the British Isles.....)

The Mongols, were only slightly worse than the Islamic Conquerers or, the Christian Crusaders. (NOTE: The Mongols were not motivated by religion....)

The VIKINGS, however...were true barbaric savages of the highest degree. They mutilated, murdered and tortured, simply for the joy of it.

They were also much, much, much better with technology, than many give credit. Their Longboats were a master design, and, once they learned how to work steel...they could forge with the best of what most of Europe had to offer. (Spainiards, and some Arabic craftsman still had some superior techniques, however.)

The fact of the matter, is that the Crusaders were no more or less, viscous than what was typical of the age. That doesn't make it right, of course.

Still. What happened more than 800 years ago neither excuses, nor explains the actions of Islmist Jihadis in the year 2015.

This narrative is simply an attempt to deflect from the failures of our current administration, while, once again, doing all within our power to NOT identify the enemy......
 

Nicnam

Former Staff
Dec 2013
14,990
4,036
-
Still. What happened more than 800 years ago neither excuses, nor explains the actions of Islmist Jihadis in the year 2015.

This narrative is simply an attempt to deflect from the failures of our current administration, while, once again, doing all within our power to NOT identify the enemy......
This