PDA

View Full Version : DU history experts discuss whether or not the Crusades were religiously motivated



Hubie
06-07-2012, 08:55 PM
And by "discuss" I mean "conclude that they were in order to condemn Christianity today."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002782180


cynatnite (25,110 posts)

View profile

Marine Corps Lawyers Claim Crusades Weren’t a Religious War

Last edited Thu Jun 7, 2012, 04:01 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1)
This all started when a fighter squadron wanted to change it's name from "Werewolves" to "Crusaders". They even painted a big crusader shield and cross on their planes.

****

When msnbc.com reported on this story last week, they mentioned the phone call between MRFF’s counsel and the Marine Corps counsel, but this part of the story is so insane that it deserves more attention. Seriously, you ain’t gonna believe the points that General Counsel of the Commandant of the Marine Corps made in his attempt to defend the use of the Crusader name and cross.

The most incomprehensibly unbelievable point advanced by these legal geniuses was that the Crusades were not religious. They were just military in nature, and therefore the term Crusades evokes “military” history, not “religion.” I kid you not. The General Counsel of the Commandant of the Marine Corps DOESN’T THINK THE CRUSADES WERE RELIGIOUS!

These Marine Corps lawyers then asked Ms. Mitchell if a cross always has a religious connotation, and they were ready with an example of one that doesn’t – the X on the Confederate flag! That’s right. Their great example of the secular use of a cross is a symbol that evokes something much better – the Dukes of Hazzard (oh yeah, and racism and slavery, too).

But wait, there’s more! They also asked Ms. Mitchell if the use of the Crusaders name and imagery would be permissible in a theater where the people are “illiterate,” apparently assuming that everyone in the Middle East is illiterate, and that the image of a shield with a cross on it wouldn’t be clear to anyone, whether they could read or not.

They next asked if the usage of this name and imagery would be acceptable in Africa, apparently unaware that there are significant Muslim populations in Africa as well as the Middle East.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/rodda/2012/05/29/marine-corps-lawyers-claim-crusades-werent-a-religious-war/

Of course, they know the Crusades were religiously motivated because an atheist website says so.

Just a few replies, but only one person dares to speak the truth:


Mairead (9,478 posts)
11. They weren't. They had religious wrappings, but they weren't religiously motivated

View profile
because, with vanishingly few exceptions, members of the ruling classes only feign being religious. For them, religion is a tool to control the peasants.

I suspect he will soon be crucified (pun very much intended).

Odysseus
06-07-2012, 10:08 PM
Well, in all fairness, they were religiously motivated, but they were also a reaction to the jihad, which was also religiously motivated. The Islamic conquest of the Christian kingdoms of the Levant (Syria, Lebanon, Israel) resulted in the slaughter and subjugation of the non-Muslim inhabitants, not to mention the conquest of North Africa. People forget that Alexandria was a center of Christian theology, as was Damascus. Jerusalem was sacred to Christianity and Judaism long before Mohammed began his conquests, and he never set foot in Jerusalem, unless you buy the story of his donkey making the trip from Mecca in one night. The destruction of non-Muslim cultures was a hallmark of Islamic conquest, and it was the pillage, slaughter, rape and desecrations indulged in by the Muslim conquerors that resulted in the Crusades.

DumbAss Tanker
06-07-2012, 11:01 PM
You can argue that it was to protect people of your own culture from a foreign invader, or that it was to restore Christian shrines and Holy sites to Christendom, but granting for the sake of argument that original call was religiously motivated, after that reality intrudes and it bogs down in as big a pile of bullshit what-ifs as an argument about whether the Northern soldiers went to Civil War to free the slaves, quell the insurrection, defend the Constitution, or any of half a dozen other oft-tread reasons. Different groups and people went for different reasons.

Regardless of that, though, institutions and organizations can transcend their original purpose, and become a thing apart from it, and that is the case with the image of a crusading knight or man-at-arms in our culture. The mountain men went into the wild to make their living, we remember and admire them for their independence. The Roman legionary served fascism and oppressed alien cultures, we remember them as a model of discipline and duty. There are countless other examples of such mutated meanings in history.

Gina
06-08-2012, 09:51 AM
The General Counsel of the Commandant of the Marine Corps DOESN’T THINK THE CRUSADES WERE RELIGIOUS!

Many on DU don't think the War on Terror (oops can I call it that?) is in response to muslim jihadists.


These Marine Corps lawyers then asked Ms. Mitchell if a cross always has a religious connotation, and they were ready with an example of one that doesn’t – the X on the Confederate flag! That’s right. Their great example of the secular use of a cross is a symbol that evokes something much better – the Dukes of Hazzard (oh yeah, and racism and slavery, too).
Perception is important. The X and P arose as the uppercase forms of the Greek letters χ and ρ used in ancient abbreviations for Χριστος (Greek for "Christ") I'm sure the DUmmie thinks Ms Mitchell actually thought the X was a cross(?). I don't know the history of the Confederate flag but I'm sure one of our fellow posters can clear that up.

DUmmies are so DUmb.

Hubie
06-08-2012, 11:00 AM
From what I learned from expert secular sources, the Crusades were by and large about wealth and power.

TVDOC
06-08-2012, 12:23 PM
From what I learned from expert secular sources, the Crusades were by and large about wealth and power.

To an extent, however not so much wealth as they were vastly expensive expeditions......both Ody and DAT offered excellent explanations to which I would add that there was a large political element to the Crusades......specifically various European royal families embarking on these efforts to curry favor with various Popes specifically, and the Roman Church in general.

During this period the Vatican possessed vast and far-reaching political power over the masses, and could make or break a monarchy.......sponsoring or participating in a Crusade was an excellent means to keep the Church off of your back, if you were a head of state.

doc

Odysseus
06-08-2012, 12:39 PM
From what I learned from expert secular sources, the Crusades were by and large about wealth and power.

So was the jihad that provoked them. Mohammed promised his followers loot and slaves, either in this life or the next. The jihad was as much about looting and enslaving the infidels as it was about spreading Islam.

noonwitch
06-08-2012, 01:08 PM
Prior to the Reformation, all political events were religious events, although the reverse was not necessarily so. Even after the Reformation-the Spanish Armada's attempt to invade Elizabeth I's England had religious and political motives. Phillip wanted to return England to Catholicism, although he set up a fellow Catholic (poor stupid Mary Stuart) to die, so that he'd have an excuse to invade England.


But the Crusades were before the Reformation, and the Catholic Church held almost absolute power over the monarchies of Europe.

Elspeth
06-08-2012, 05:13 PM
Well, in all fairness, they were religiously motivated, but they were also a reaction to the jihad, which was also religiously motivated. The Islamic conquest of the Christian kingdoms of the Levant (Syria, Lebanon, Israel) resulted in the slaughter and subjugation of the non-Muslim inhabitants, not to mention the conquest of North Africa. People forget that Alexandria was a center of Christian theology, as was Damascus. Jerusalem was sacred to Christianity and Judaism long before Mohammed began his conquests, and he never set foot in Jerusalem, unless you buy the story of his donkey making the trip from Mecca in one night. The destruction of non-Muslim cultures was a hallmark of Islamic conquest, and it was the pillage, slaughter, rape and desecrations indulged in by the Muslim conquerors that resulted in the Crusades.

Ody, I don't know much about the Crusades politically. What is a good online source for their origins? Also, could you elaborate a little on the jihad?

NJCardFan
06-08-2012, 11:39 PM
All of this is well and good but here's something you're all leaving out in the discussion. THE CRUSADES ENDED OVER 700 YEARS AGO. However, Islamic jihad is alive and well.