cynatnite (25,110 posts)
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.