Great article, and fine introductory comments.

I'll have a lot more later on, but initial reactions:

IF the "moral equivilancy" of Jihad = Crusades is valid (it is not, but let's pretend); then consider that the Crusades were in response to aggression against Europe and the capture of holy sites in Jerusalem.

When have Christians in the past century pushed against Islamic territory and/or captured holy sites in the Arabian peninsula?

Also, the excesses of the Crusades were denounced by the Papacy.  Until the burning of the Jordanian pilot the excesses of Jihadism had been met with silence from the Imans.

When it comes to the condemnation of ISIS the Iman of the Grand Mosque spoke with greater clarity and moral authority than did the POTUS. 

I need to head out to church.....

Isn't it strange how the great monotheistic religions of the world stemming from the one true god of Abraham became competitive rather than collaborative, combative rather than cooperative, and warring rather than peace seeking?

What happened?

The imperfection of man, despite his creation as a vision of God. Man has chosen to adhere to and abide by selfish interpretations of the divine word. The human bastardization of religious teachings are the cause of more violent deaths at the hands of other humans than any other cause in our history.

Last edited by Rongone (2/08/2015 12:58 pm)

Conspiracy Theory wrote:

All religion is fanatacism.  It's just a question of degree.

Interesting thought...I've often considered indifference and lukewarmness to be the bane of religion; perhaps because the lukewarm, indifferent, and casual observors predominate in many religions (think "cultural Jew" or "Christmas and Easter" Christians) most people who are even slightly more obervant are perceived as being "tanatics".

Is there such a thing as "fanatical lukewarmness"?
 

Goose wrote:

Secondly, the narrative is incomplete to the point of being misleading. The crusades are not the only chapter in the story of Islamo-christian conflict. If the christains were the bad guys in the crusades, and I would agree that they were, one has to know that the Muslims have given as good as they got.

For instance, the Ottomans destroyed the Byzantine empire, destroying 1100 years of Christain culture in Asia Minor.....

In any event, I think it's pointless to selectively present the past searching for the "good guys".

Actually the final fall of Hagia Sophia did not occur until the mid 15th century but I'm not going to quible about a few centuries ;-)

Seriously, the fall of Byzantium is an excellent illustration of the "no good guys" premise as the already weakened empire was dealt a mortal blow by the Western Crusaders. The Ottomans just finished the job...a few centuries later.

Last edited by Goose (2/08/2015 7:26 pm)

Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so, too.  ~Voltaire

Last edited by IntroVertigo (2/19/2015 8:00 am)