Often, when I am discussing the violent teachings of the Islamic faith, someone will counter with “what about the crusades?” I am so tired of this dodge, for many reasons. For one, it is a dodge of the issue, which is that Islam teaches violence against non-Islamic people. Despite the existence of moderate Muslims and the rare violent Christian, my essential argument is that the Koran teaches violence as a means to convert the world, while the Christian scriptures teach service, peace, and preaching to freely convince others.
But my second objection is this – modern revisionists like to portray the crusades as some evil Catholic crazy pogrom against innocent Muslims, but that is far from the case. CT has an excellent article entitled The Real History of the Crusades. Enjoy, and here’s some snippets:
The Crusades are generally portrayed as a series of holy wars against Islam led by power-mad popes and fought by religious fanatics….A breed of proto-imperialists, the Crusaders introduced Western aggression to the peaceful Middle East and then deformed the enlightened Muslim culture, leaving it in ruins.
So what is the truth about the Crusades? …. For starters, the Crusades to the East were in every way defensive wars. They were a direct response to Muslim aggression—an attempt to turn back or defend against Muslim conquests of Christian lands.
With enormous energy, the warriors of Islam struck out against the Christians shortly after Mohammed’s death. They were extremely successful. Palestine, Syria, and Egypt—once the most heavily Christian areas in the world—quickly succumbed. By the eighth century, Muslim armies had conquered all of Christian North Africa and Spain. In the eleventh century, the Seljuk Turks conquered Asia Minor (modern Turkey), which had been Christian since the time of St. Paul. The old Roman Empire, known to modern historians as the Byzantine Empire, was reduced to little more than Greece. In desperation, the emperor in Constantinople sent word to the Christians of western Europe asking them to aid their brothers and sisters in the East.
That is what gave birth to the Crusades. They were not the brainchild of an ambitious pope or rapacious knights but a response to more than four centuries of conquests in which Muslims had already captured two-thirds of the old Christian world. At some point, Christianity as a faith and a culture had to defend itself or be subsumed by Islam. The Crusades were that defense.
Thank God somebody finally stood up to defend the Crusades. For to long, Christians were viewed as the aggressors in that fight, what with the fact that they'd left Europe to launch said Crusades. Now we know that they were actually the victims in the Crusades.
(I think the real point of the Crusades is that they weren't wars launched in the name of land retrieval. They were launched in Christ's name. And whenever people point out the evils of Islam – and there are many – its worth remembering that it isn't the only religion in the world that has relied on violence to spread its message.)
Actually, according to the article, they weren't trying to spread Christianity, but to stop the expansionism of the Islamists, and to free people from Islamic rule, which was, is, and always has been oppressive. You'll note that under Christian rule, people are free to not be Christian, without persecution, by and large (and hold your witch trial and anti-gay legislation examples – you are comparing mountains to molehills).
And as I remarked, Xianity, is never spread by force, at least not as a faith. Now as a culture, I'm sure it was spread that way.
The point of the article, and my points, are:
– xianity's crusades do not bring it near to being as evil and oppressive as islam
– the crusades may have been justified to protect free culture, and the xians took up the task (since the secularists could not?)
– islam was not an innocent victim of the crusades, but the victim of deserved counter aggression. The crusaders had no intention of replacing one oppressive religion with another, but a totalitarian one with a free one. They were not spreading xianity, but taking it as their xian duty as citizens to liberate the world from the threat of islam.
You're kidding me, right? Free society? I mean, Seeker, don't lie.
Please: http://www.bibletopics.com/biblestudy/64.htm
It's not like this information is really tough to discover.
Sam
Perhaps something so easy to find would also be easy to refute ;).
Can I safely assume that, since you neglected to mention the Crusades article, that I have absolved Xians of the Crusades to some extent, and so now you are backpedaling to the Inquisition? ;)
To defend xianity from guilt in the spanish inquisitions, I need to mention that
– it was spearheaded not by the church, but by the religious King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella
– as the hysteria grew, Pope Sixtus IV sent a letter attempting to stop it, but Ferdinand would have none of it
– the torture and jailings of the inquisition, as horrible as they were, were pretty much standard justice in the secular courts of that time
– unfortunately, because of the belief in the divine succession of kings, all heresy was also considered a civic crime, so while the stoopid Dominicans and Franciscans helped in deciding who was a heretic, the civil govt carried out the sentences. So the Catholics were complicit, but not necessarily leading the way
– as a protestant, I don't really consider the Catholic church of that period to be representative of true xianity – it was utterly corrupt. In fact, as the inquisition went on, it eventually went after more than just the Jews that were forced to convert, but muslims and what I would call "true" christians.
– the last of the inquisitions was actually called during the reformation, in an effort to judge the Lutheran and Calvinistic heretics. So the inquisitors of the Catholic church, in my view, did not really represent xianity (though it did to the world, I admit), but persecuted those in opposition to their corrupt and twisted doctrines, which included biblical believers (which were few in the start, but more later as the reformation gained steam)
So, calling up the inquisition only proves that warped religion (as opposed to biblical teaching) kills people. That's not news, nor is that, in my mind, xianity. I'm sure you'll think that convenient on my part. But I continue to argue that, although people have done terrible things in the name of religion, as well as in the name of atheism, it's what the ideologies actually teach that matter.
And I must admit, secularism and humanism haven't done such cruel things, (although atheistic secularism has), but that's because they are err towards the other end – they are so accepting that they allow the decay of society's mores to the point where either totatiltarian or religious rule has to step in to bring order. I know you won't buy that (since i haven't made a good case yet), but it's just a theory I'm working on, so be patient ;)
I'm sure next you'll try to pull out the Salem witch trials on me, and I'll have to try to figure out another reason why these people weren't really xians ;)
To restate my point a third time, more than any other ideology, Xianity leads to both freedom and virtue. True xianity appreciates both the beauty and falleness of man, and so provides for both. Secularism only leans on the inherent goodness of man, which leads to freedom but not virtue. But maybe that's a straw man, so help me out here.
Seeker,
You can't ignore Christian history because you don't like it. This was torture carried out by Christians in the name of Christianity. Whether or not you LIKE THAT FACT doesn't change the fact that it happened.
And no, I haven't given up on the Crusades battle, but you're not interested in it, so why continue?
Well, the point I am making is not that terrible things have not been done in the name of xianity. So while such historical happenings can be trotted out against any ideology, the real questions are, when the ideology is followed faithfully, what is the result?
The probolem with carrying out any ideology is that it involves imperfect (sinful) humans, so even if you have a good ideology, you can still count on it being perverted to bad ends. As one american founder said (my paraphrase), "*no* system of government can govern a people that lack virtue."
The point is, in principle, and in correct practice, I content that xianity is a superior world view in that it leads away from bondage to freedom, and also to virtue. And it's view of mankind jives best with what I observe.
The prosperous free west owes it's prosperity to both the enlightenment and the reformation. Humanism, coupled with healthy xian spirituality leads to the best possible culture for mankind. And events like the Crusades do not, in and of themselves, prove the belief system faulty, since there are other explanations. And those explanations are what I recommended the article for.
Christianity leads SOME from bondage to freedom. Unfortunately, when it leads my country, it doesn't lead me toward anything but a loss of freedom. The freedom to watch what I want on television. The freedom to find certain books at the library. The freedom from religion that I so value.
And finally, Islamic extremists are not the majority of Muslims. I think suggesting otherwise is about as annoying to them as if I suggested that Fred Phelps and you are precisely the same.
Finally, nobody said the Crusades proved Christianity faulty, but when you act like Christianity has never done anything to anybody, people like me are boggled because obviously Christianity, and acts done in the name of Christianity, have hurt a great many people. That doesn't render the religion worthless, but its not worth forgetting either.
Agreed, much harm has been done in the name of Xianity. Sorry to give the impression otherwise.
Also agreed, the majority of Muslims are not extremist. Even today, I was glad to see women protesting in Iran. Good for them.
But I also point out that the Quran, arguably, contains one of the most intolerant and oppressive ideologies on the planet – it is really a religious fascism. Buddhism, Judaism and Christianity are not such. I don't know enough about Hinduism to make a call on that one.
Moderate Muslims, I would argue, are not really following the teachings of Mohammed. However, when Xians follow the teachings of the Jesus and the New Testament, you do not get beheadings and oppression, but love, service, and virtue. And out of virtue, you also get a transformed society, which includes limited but morally just law.
Ummm… I think the majority of Muslims are extemists- the whole "suicide bombing is okay when targeted at civies" thing. They poll and they get a large amount of support for that.
Chrsitaintiy and Judaism are almost as intolerant. I don't think Buddism is.
As for Hinduism… sort of. There is the whole part where you have to insist one which of the three major gods is the most powerful… people have been killed by that.
Moderate believers are not following their religions dictates. When Christians follow it you get… Charlamane's France. When Muslim's follow it you get the caliph. They are both equally sucky.
On a more serious note, following Christianity does not inherently make someone better. Why? Because compassion isn't something taught in a book. No matter how "holy". It takes empathy.
As for the crusades… Muslim expansion ended in 750, after which the caliph splintered. The crusades are 1095. They were because the Sejuk Turks were attacking and the Byzantine empire asked for help… and the pope say an opportunity to have Christians stop killing each other. That was the first three crusades. The next five were "lott, burn, pilage, kill".
When Christians follow it you get… Charlamane's France. When Muslim's follow it you get the caliph.
I don't think you are correct about France. Show how the teachings of xianity lead to such. While it is easy to show how islam leads to such, it is only the bastardization and lack of following NT teachings that leads to atrocities.
On a more serious note, following Christianity does not inherently make someone better. Why? Because compassion isn't something taught in a book. No matter how "holy". It takes empathy.
Then you have failed to grasp xianity – it is not about learning and following the book, but coming into relationship with Christ. That changes people. Just claiming faith or knowledge of any book won't make people compassionate.
In addition, at any given time, there are more immature than mature people of any tradition, so you may have lots of immature xians. But what you need to look at is what is produced long term. If you do that, you may see quite another picture.