The Crusades, Reconsidered

From an excerpt of Jonah Goldberg’s new book, Tyranny of Cliches’:

…Until fairly recently, historically speaking, Muslims used to brag about being the winners of the Crusades, not the victims of it. That is if they talked about them at all. “The Crusades could more accurately be described as a limited, belated and, in the last analysis, ineff ectual re­sponse to the jihad—a failed attempt to recover by a Christian holy war what had been lost to a Muslim holy war,” writes Bernard Lewis, the greatest living historian of Islam in the English language (and perhaps any language).  Historian Thomas Madden puts it more directly, “Now put this down in your notebook, because it will be on the test: The cru­sades were in every way a defensive war. They were the West’s belated response to the Muslim conquest of fully two-thirds of the Christian world.”…

You can, of course, bring up some bad things which happened during the Crusades – most notably the massacre of the both the Muslim and Jewish population of Jerusalem when the Christians took the city in 1099 as well as Richard the Lionheart’s massacre of 2,700 Muslims at Acre during the Third Crusade.  Bad things.  Should not have been done.  No decent person in 2012 would ever contemplate doing any such thing.  But, by the standards of 11th and 12th century warfare, not at all remarkable.  And any Muslim who wants to whine about it is directed to what Muslims did when they took Constantinople in 1453…many centuries later, when we were all supposed to be much more civilized.

So, I leave aside such complaints – war is always nasty and the hard men of the 11th and 12th centuries, on both sides, did many a cruel act.  But the main facts cannot be disputed:  the Crusades were a counter-attack.  The Muslim attack upon Christianity began, entirely unprovoked, in 634 when some rapacious Muslim barbarians from the Arabian peninsula launched what was at first no more than a large scale plunder raid in to Christian Syria.  Quickly noticing how weak the Christian forces were (the Christian government of the area – the Byzantine Empire – was greatly weakened by a recently concluded, 20 year long war with Persia), the Muslims just poured in to a military vacuum.  For centuries thereafter, Muslim armies conquered Christian lands, massacred and enslaved Christians, treated Christians like dirt when they didn’t murder or enslave them and generally acted like pirates.  Europe was weak from the 7th to the 10th century as the new, Christian civilization developed upon the debris of the old Greco-Roman civilization…and that build up was hampered by the “barbarian wars” which absorbed the energy of Europe often over a period of centuries.  Because of this, the Christians could do no more than hold on…once Europe recovered a bit, there was a chance to push back…and it wasn’t just a push in to the middle east (though that was by far the more famous part), but also a push against the Muslims in Spain.

The only thing bad about the Crusades was that they ultimately failed – they did not extirpate the Mohammedan heresy.  And it is high time that people started to learn the truth about the Crusades.

About these ads

44 thoughts on “The Crusades, Reconsidered

  1. bozo

    Can’t reason with any religion – by definition they’re irrational.

    “My superstitious delusional daddy-figure-in-the-sky is tougher than your superstitious delusional daddy-figure-in-the-sky! Nu-uh, your superstitious daddy-figure-in-the-sky is a fake because there’s only one true superstitious delusional daddy-figure-in-the-sky and that’s MY superstitious delusional daddy-figure-in-the-sky, and He has commanded me to kill you and take all your stuff if you don’t accept MY superstitious delusional daddy-figure-in-the-sky as your own superstitious delusional daddy-figure-in-the-sky.”

    Lord help us. They’re beating the drums again.

    1. neocon1

      blowzo

      I look forward to see the look on your face on judgement day.
      but but but you dont exist!!!!!!!!

    2. Mark Edward Noonan Post author

      Bozo,

      One does wonder if you’ve ever read anything remotely theological in your life. Have you at least cracked open “Mere Christianity”?

      1. bozo

        Does the Bible count? I know, let’s have a “Bible-off” competition! That’ll be fun. You quiz me on some obscure passage justifying Christian acceptance of Romney’s Mormonism with all it’s planetary-populating afterlife over Obama’s boring Christianity, and I’ll quiz you on how many times God calls for the death of babies and unborn fetuses in the Good Book.

        You game? Or is Dianetics more your style? Maybe the Torah? Koran? God forbid…

      2. Mark Noonan

        Bozo,

        No, seriously – have you ever read a theological work? I know that you can probably go to an atheist website and collect what you think are 1,000 direct quotes from the Bible indicating that it is absurd…anyone can do that. But have you, yourself, ever actually read a theological work? I’d suggest “Orthodoxy” by G. K. Chesterton but that is probably too big a bite for starters…”Mere Christianity” will do. Give it a try.

      3. bozo

        Yes, seriously. I’m an apostate. I was hard-core “born again,” gave my heart, soul and life to Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior with tears in my eyes. Spent almost two decades of my life in that mental prison, reading the Bible from cover to cover and section to section, Bible class lesson to Bible class lesson, loving the Lord and forsaking the dark. I have some music skills from college and directed the youth choir for years at my church.

        I had a traumatic event push me to take stock in my life, re-evaluate everything to the core, pretend I was God looking down from the outside at myself, and examine the information I was acting upon with passion and conviction for the truth in it, and immediately discarded everything from my life that I was making value judgements and taking action upon that was based on a lie.

        My epiphany was that really good people were making really bad decisions believing they were doing the right thing, but their information they were acting upon was bad. Bad information, IMHO, became the root of all evil. Taking action based on bad information gives us war, prejudice and great motivation for movie villains and preachers.

        That’s why it’s so goofy when Ammo, neo, you et. al. accuse me of hating you. I can’t hate a child for killing a bird after a trusted grown up tells them the bird is poisonous and will kill the child’s mother. It’s not the child’s fault that it took bad action based on bad information. It’s the teller of the lie’s fault. It’s the feeders of cognitive dissonance, not the mind trapped in it.

        I don’t take blogs serious enough to think any good will ever come of anything I write here or anywhere, but when the child is about to stomp the baby bird, I feel compelled to speak up. And I fully appreciate when others speak up just before my own baby bird stomp, as I have acted upon bad information from trusted sources myself. No one is immune to it, but when you discover a trusted source is just making stuff up (like all religion) not only without proof but with indisputable proof that it’s lying, you step away from it for a moment, and immediately the truth sets you free from it’s stranglehold.

        Interestingly (to me, not to Ammo), I also gave up sugar (and fake sugar) for the same reason. It’s a lie we tell our tongues, that the food is ripe and healthy when in fact, it’s crap. I’ve never smoked pot or taken illegal drugs, but I found it an additional reason to continue avoiding them, since they’re also lies people tell themselves.

        There are good, good people suckered by the lies religion (and politicians) tell, who act upon those lies with sometimes disastrous consequences. I’m trying to not be one of them. It’s not easy. For every truth, there are a thousand lies in this world.

      4. Mark Noonan

        Bozo,

        Ok, cool – so, the bottom line is that you’ve never read a theological work; something which would have explained to you what the Bible is actually saying (Bible Study has its uses but it often revolves around someone trying to make a particular point and only concentrating on those parts of the Bible which appear to support said point…a truly theological work takes the Bible as a whole, combines it with the rest of the teaching of Christianity – its not all in the Bible, after all; as the Bible clearly states – and presents it as a complete, universal view). There’s the weakness – and it is what you need to take care of, even if all you ever want to do is have solid arguments against Christians. There is a risk, of course; if you read the better theological works you could be led back to faith – but, if you’ve got a bit of guts that shouldn’t dismay you. “Mere Christianity” would still be your best starting point, but you’ll have to swiftly move on to “Orthodoxy” and “The Everlasting Man” by G. K. Chesterton and then finish it off with “The Great Heresies” by Hilaire Belloc.

    3. Amazona

      Love it when the frantic Left has to resort to the weakest of all straw men, the “daddy-in-the-sky” meme.

      Of course no one believes in an old man, or daddy, who “lives in the sky” but the anti-God people, having nothing else to explain their dedication to randomness and lack of meaning, love to invent this silly character so they can make fun of it and pretend that people of faith believe this way so they can make fun of them, too.

      The thing is, freakzo, you have the freedom to believe in nothing. You get to pretend that there is no greater power than you—and given your self-identity, I can see why you are so miserable and cynical. (If I were to look at something that reflected my opinion of the greatest power in the universe and saw it represented by that grotesquery, I’d be pretty nasty, too.) You can choose to believe in a completely random universe, where nothing is part of any greater plan, and in which nothing has any greater meaning than the pleasures of the moment.

      What I don’t get is why you insist on trying to tear down a different belief system. It’s not as if you have NO belief system. You believe, merely by faith, in the supremacy of collectivist government, yet there is nothing on Earth to support that belief. You believe in a random and meaningless universe, yet there is nothing to confirm that belief. You have exhibited here a litany of things you accept on faith, without the slightest substantiation by fact.

      But you are so threatened by a belief system in which there is a Higher Power, and pattern and meaning, that you spend all this time snarling at it, making fun of it, and inventing bizarre straw men you then claim represent it so you can snarl at and make fun of your own inventions, pretending they are real.

      Get over it. Live in your little bubble of self-importance and randomness, live in a private world which has no greater meaning than whatever scratches your itch of the moment, but you might take a moment to wonder why, if the opposite belief system is false, it obsesses you so.

      Just let it be. At death or soon after, we will all learn who was right, and til then it is all faith. I just find it more noble, shall we say, to have faith in something grand and important, something that gives meaning to life, than in self-centered conviction of being the grandest thing in a random and meaningless universe.

      Even a grand and noble person should be depressed that there is nothing more important in life than he. Someone like the image you choose to tell us who you are ought to be the deepest pits of misery and despair, believing that you are the best there is.

      1. bozo

        You’re just wacky, Ammo. “You believe in a random bla bla bla” just gets tiresome. You don’t know what I believe, personally. But you state it all with the fervor and faith of a true believer in the nonsense you spew. You know I believe something because you read it somewhere on the internet – oh yeah, you WROTE it then read it, so it must be double true.

        Goofy you are. A true believer in fictions and nonsense, because to disbelieve would mean the loss of your eternal soul, or some such blathering circular logic silliness.

        The sad part is that you lose your earthly soul when you bequeath it to “daddy-in-the-sky”-brand moneychangers. I certainly don’t hate you for it, any more than I hate dogs that eat cat poo. It’s just behavior I can’t bring myself to emulate.

        By all means, dine on!

      2. Amazona

        “earthly soul”

        Gotta love those Lefty redefinitions. But look how easy and fun life is if all you have to worry about is some “earthly soul”. It would, of course, relate only to earthly pleasures, devoid of any higher duty or discipline, and of course being so “earthly” and all would simply dissipate upon the death of the “earthly body”, into the void, so there can’t be a downside to any action unless it interferes with “earthly” things. Any and all responsibility, therefore, would be limited to satisfying the needs and desires of the “earthly soul”.

        Cool. No downside to much of anything, is there, if everything is limited to what is “earthly”.

        OF COURSE you can’t bring yourself to emulate people of faith. That would be oh so complicated, involving things like admitting you are not the most important being in the universe, accepting responsibility for your actions, accepting consequences for your actions that go beyond “earthly” consequences, expanding your consciousness to accept that which you cannot touch or see, and in general being quite a different person than the hateful, snotty, self-involved, egoist you now revel in being.

        Fine. You see your position, whatever it may be, as vastly superior to that of people of faith. You make this clear. Which brings me back to the question: If you are truly confident in your own belief system, why are you so intent on tearing down the belief systems of others? Do you need to constantly belittle the beliefs of others to shore up your own?

      3. bozo

        Mmmm. No. Ammo. You seem to have trouble with that word “earthly.” It seems to have triggered a flood of filth repressed deep inside somewhere, like a hypnotist at a county fair counting to three and making you bark like a dog. Just sayin’…

        It’s not me that tears down other’s “belief systems” – a hackneyed phrase of a deceiver and the deceived – it’s the truth that attacks lies. Scissor beats paper, and facts beat fiction, every time.

        When your daughter comes out of the movie theater after seeing unicorns and wants to buy one, some day you’ll have to “tear down” her belief system, too. Oh sure, gently and with love and understanding, but ya gotta do it. She’ll hate you for a while, maybe forever, but you still can’t keep ignoring here “belief system” without then taking responsibility for spreading it.

        I don’t expect you to forgive me any time soon. But someday, the truth will set you free. Or not.

    4. Amazona

      Yes, freakzo, we get it—you are so teeming with hatred and scorn that it surrounds you like a miasma of vitriol.

      I repeat what I said earlier:

      At death or soon after, we will all learn who was right, and til then it is all faith. I just find it more noble, shall we say, to have faith in something grand and important, something that gives meaning to life, than in self-centered conviction of being the grandest thing in a random and meaningless universe.

      Even a grand and noble person should be depressed that there is nothing more important in life than he. Someone like the image you choose to tell us who you are ought to be in the deepest pits of misery and despair, believing that you are the best there is.

      But since you brought up Obama’s “Christian” faith, why don’t YOU give us a rundown of how often the Bible tells black people to seethe with carefully nurtured loathing of white people, as this is the foundation of the church Obama joined and the very reason he joined it.

      1. bozo

        WOW! When you stand before God, according to your own rules, God will hear your claim of Christianity and judge you with the same yardstick as you judge Obama.

        You goin’ ta hades, lil’ girl (don’t worry – I’m just kidding – you’ll be fine).

        BTW, I’m not the best there is. Never even thought that, let alone claim that. But I am all I will ever be and have in this veil of tears, and it’s up to me to decide for me what it means, just like you. I chose to seek truth, which like quantum theory may be changed by the act of observation, so it’s not easy. When I find it, I share, like any good citizen of earth. Some don’t find my truths to be as appetizing as I, but that’s ok, too.

        George Bernard Shaw warned me about telling the truth…

  2. js03

    the muslims follow the example of mohammad…he would send an emmisary into a town…and give them a choice…to submit to islam…either convert to serve as dhimmi…or die…

    the question about what that exactly means is not so hard to figure out…this is what the muslims did to christians for over 400 years…prior to the start of the crusades…millions of christians were enslaved under islam…and millions more had died, long before the first crusade ever happened

      1. Amazona

        Thank you for yet another example of the vast scope of your ignorance, freakzo. As usual, you skim along the surface of every idea, flapping around in the most superficial of all possible understandings, seeking not knowledge but just weapons you can turn to your desperate need to be snottier than anyone else.

        Your link illustrates this very clearly—illustrates your ignorance of Islam, of the basic tenet of Christianity, and of course illustrates your malignancy as you try to make a point but fail, once again.

        From your own link: “Islam rejects the Christian view that Jesus was God incarnate or the son of God, that he was ever crucified or resurrected, or that he ever atoned for the sins of mankind. .”

        From the very link you gave us, you see, is a clear and concise explanation of the fact that while Islam acknowledges the birth and existence of a man named Jesus, and even consider Him a prophet, it denies quite strongly that Jesus was the Son of God, and therefore divine.

        You snotty little non-point was as relevant as claiming that conservative ideology is really Marxism because it acknowledges that a man named Karl Marx existed, and that his writings have created a political system.

      2. Mark Noonan

        Bozo,

        You see, that is just it! If you had read any theological works you’d know that any Christian who has read theological works already knows that Mohammed assigned a high place to Jesus. Indeed, under Muslim eschatology, Jesus will be the judge of the world, not Mohammed. Further, Mohammed also had a high place of honor for Mary – insisting up on belief in the virgin birth of Christ. But what you lack is a key bit of knowledge because you’ve never read a theological work…what Mohammed did was to deny the divinity of Christ. What Mohammed denied was this bit of the Creed:

        We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
        the only Son of God,
        eternally begotten of the Father, God
        from God, Light from Light,
        true God from true God,
        begotten, not made,
        one in Being with the Father.

        Now, it is perfectly ok for anyone to believe anything they wish as long as they are willing to accept the consequences. But you appear to be condemning that which you don’t understand; that which you have never bestirred yourself to learn about. I leave it up to you to decide in the quiet of the night why you haven’t actually asked a Christian what he believes..

      3. Mark Noonan

        JACO,

        It is, though, the hyper-important, theological point – it is, in the end, the ultimate test of a person: do you deny, or affirm, that Jesus is the only begotten Son of God? If you affirm, you’ll have a particular world view; if you don’t, then you’ll have quite a different one. The difference between Christians and everyone else is marked and it all stems from this.

      4. Mark Noonan

        JACO,

        It decides everything – if you believe that God became man in order to save us then you act in a certain manner; you act in entirely different manners if you don’t believe that God became man. I realize, its frightening – everyone wants a God who is just kind of “there” and makes no real demands. But a God who does things and prefers some things to others is scary as all get-out. It is just more so when we consider a God who actually took the step to become one of us and meet us face to face. It is vastly easier – and far more comfortable, in appearance, for a human being to reject the notion and just go on with a “well, as long as I’m a fairly decent person, then all’s well”.

        Remember, even most Christians aren’t getting it even close to right; and most Christians who are at least trying are still getting a lot wrong. Non-Christians just stray even further away. If you ever wonder why the world is the way it is then your answer will always be, “because we don’t do what God clearly told us to do while he lived among us as a man”.

      5. JACO

        Moderator note: We have seen courteous and thoughtful responses here and have decided to be more discerning about leaving posts which are primarily attacks or insults. Some expression of dislike is acceptable but gratuitous insults and attacks will be deleted and it is possible that posters will be deleted automatically if they continue to post in attack and insult modes instead of offering content. Speculation about the identity of moderators is futile. //Moderator

    1. js03

      islam called Jesus “isa”…the muslim “isa” is very differnt than Jesus of the New Testament… the Koran gives a history of his life… the hadith has recollections of mohammads words and deeds…
      first off…mohammad didnt believe that Jesus was crusified…Âl ‘Imran 3:74-77, 113) Although Christians believe ‘Isa died on a cross, and Jews claim they killed him, in reality he was not killed or crucified, and those who said he was crucified lied (An-Nisa’ 4:157). ‘Isa did not die, but ascended to Allah. (An-Nisa’ 4:158) On the day of Resurrection ‘Isa himself will be a witness against Jews and Christians for believing in his death. (An-Nisa’ 4:159)
      isa was the messiah, but he was only a prophet…not the Son of God…and that mohammad was the conforter that Jesus spoke of, of which Christians believe to be the Holy Spirit….islams teachings are that the trinity does not exist…period….
      Islam contradicts its own teachings…when mohammad confirmed that the “book” give to Jesus…the Gospel…was in the hands of the Christians at the time mohammad lived…the same with the “book” the Jews call the Torah…he acknowledged them both as scripture…then went on the claim they were corrupted…yet…they claim the Koran as scripture…yet deny that it could ever be corrupted…on one hand they claim divine protection existed to protect scripture…and then they deny the scripture that introduced mohammad to Christianity

      Truth is the core theme that we need to understand…mohammad was raised in mekkah…by parents who were priests in the kabba…before islam ever existed… and the Christian Gnostics that he was familiar with didn’t teach the biblical accounting of Christianity. Mohammad passed their error into the Koran. This is a great step toward the truth because prophets don’t make errors like that. The only assumption that can be drawn from the facts is that mohammad was no prophet. The Catholic Church concurs with this conclusion. Mohammad was a fraud from the beginning. He was a pedophile, he committed adultery, and the source of his “prophecy” was not God, because God does not contradict himself in scripture, according to Moses (the only man who spoke to God face to face).

  3. Amazona

    Question: What is it about the topic of the Crusades, and the fallacy of Islamic victimhood, that gets freakzo so panicky? Note that none of his posts deal with the topic, but are merely tirades against people of faith and illustrations of his own sense of superiority. Something about the topic of belief in Christianity seems to get his panties in a twist, and bring out the quite substantial vitriol that, more and more, seems to define him.

    I have not read much on the Crusades, but find this thread topic very interesting and will do some research. I did know that they were a response to Islamic attacks on Christians and other infidels, but none of the details, and with the rise of radical Islam in our world today I really should have made the effort to learn more of the history of jihad.

    I guess I have lumped claims of Islamic victimhood, of what Muslims are doing now being justified by what was allegedly done “to” their ancestors many many many generations removed, in with the same whines from militant blacks steeped in victimology—that is, to dismiss it all as mere efforts to excuse pathologies that are based in blind hatred and need for violence.

    It looks like time to learn a little more about the reality of the Crusades, not that it will have any effect on the reality that Islam is still dedicated to killing off or enslaving all who not believe in it. And then, of course, all who do not believe CORRECTLY, as seen by the interfaith savagery of different sects of Islam.

    1. bozo

      So, “militant blacks” are possessed by blind hatred and need for violence? I know you don’t mean it, but it implies that militant whites do not. Why must you inject race into your post, and always imply blacks are violent? You do know who killed thousands of Americans on 9/11, don’t you? That’s right: millionaires. No one discusses that. I wonder why…

      Crusades, historical and modern day ones, are bad. You must agree with that. They’re just bad. No good comes of them. The stories on both sides are fake, but the killing is very real. “God is on our side” is the biggest lie ever told to justify killing and looting (especially when looting taxpayer coffers). Go ahead and conjure up that spell to win a football game, fine, but war? Please.

      Blind irrational hatred accompanying the need for violence drives crusades, and fear and condemnation of God-delusion-driven wars are fully justified, but historically ineffectual at stopping them.

      This original post is an exercise in “victimology” as Ammo puts it, attempting to claim the title of “victim” and hence, justifying “retaliation” as simply justice on some long, distorted time line.

      1. Amazona

        Is freakzo really just saying, through all this verbiage, that the only moral reaction to being attacked is to drop trou, grab ankles, and try to enjoy it?

        He does say “Blind irrational hatred accompanying the need for violence drives crusades” which does seem to be an indictment of the Crusades that are the topic of this thread. So being attacked, raped, butchered and enslaved wrongly engendered the “…blind irrational hatred accompanying the need for violence …” that he seems to claim motivated the response to being attacked, raped, butchered and enslaved?

        Hmmmm. I wonder what he WOULD have found appropriate in the face of having one’s country conquered by a ravaging horde of religious fanatics intent on, yes, raping and butchering and enslaving one’s own people. Apparently the only response he would have found acceptable is the one outlined in paragraph 1 of this post.

        Let’s take this opportunity to point out that thanks to those Crusades, he has the freedom to scorn and ridicule religious faith without being slaughtered as an infidel, he lives in a nation of scientific, industrial and economic progress instead of being buried in 12th Century savagery, and he doesn’t have to always keep in mind which direction to face to face Mecca.

      2. bozo

        Hmm, where to start…

        I think in your first paragraph you’re confusing me with Jesus. S’okay, it happens all the time. I like to think Jesus is flattered by the mistake ;)

        You do know that after the Crusades there was a little thing known as the Inquisition, right? Would they have let me speak truth to this religious irrationality?

        And I am fully aware that the gay boy’s blond lock of hair was attacking, raping and enslaving Mitt Romney’s personal sense of style, so it was merely self-defense that forced Mitt to hack the boy’s hair off. Romney was the true victim here, I know.

        You’re still dodging the color question.

      3. Amazona

        ?????????????

        No, Jesus never said to relax and enjoy being raped, butchered, etc. I think you are confusing Jesus with your own twisted pathology and fantasies.

        Does the fact that a the Inquisition existed change a single thing about the fact that the Crusades were a reaction to the looting, raping, pillaging, butchering and/or enslavement of millions of “infidels”?

        Of course not. So why try to drag it in?

        Because this is what passes for discourse on the far far Left, that’s why. Don’t address an issue, but try to deflect, distract, distort.

        Whether or not there was an Inquisition, whether or not you would have been allowed to spew your mental sewage in a nation influenced by the Inquisition, is totally irrelevant to the thread topic. Check it out. Crusades, check. Defensive wars, check. Inquisition? Nope.

        And the thing about Mitt is so bizarrely out of far left field, it could only have come from someone as irrational as you.

        I was a hippie, and my boyfriend and my friends experienced hostility from people who did not like their long hair. Sexual orientation never came into it.

        As far as I can see, the tiny, overblown (if it existed at all) incident of Mitt Romney cutting the long hair of another student is completely, 100%, unrelated to the new vitriol from the rabidly radical Left, which is that it was really GAY-BASHING.

        So far no one has been willing to be identified while telling the tale, the family of the boy supposedly assaulted says they never heard of it, Romney says he doesn’t remember it—so far it is an unsubstantiated smear, undoubtedly one of many that will be invented and spread around by people like you

        It’s what you do.

        And you had better keep on doing it, because it’s all you’ve got. You sure as hell can’t discuss who would be the better president based on which political system would be the better way to govern the country—that’s a nonstarter for you Lefties.

        You can’t even duck the ideology thing and focus on Barry’s success and skill, because that’s as unsupported by fact as the smears against Romney have been and will be.

        Personality? His cult of personality is soooooo yesterday, as Barry has been shown to be petty, peevish, snotty, and dishonest. I doubt that many will be swooning in the front row this time around. And the Speer-esque styrofoam columns and echoing reverb won’t carry enough emotional weight this time around to overcome his miserable record.

        Yeah, you guys just stick to your “gay boy’s blond lock of hair” theme, and keep pretending that what you have to say is relevant to anything at all, and keep up with the lying and the snarling and the spitting and he shrill attacks based on lies and your frantic need to push this election into the area where you are comfortable, Identity Politics, where your stupid little smears might win a vote or two.

        Hint: The thread post was not about Mitt Romney being a victim, but about the predations of Islam and the need to defend against them. Only someone as nuts as you could even try to spin this into a tirade on the Inquisition and an alleged boyhood prank from 1967.

      4. Amazona

        What “color question”?

        You might at least try to make sense. It wouldn’t dilute the vitriol and insanity that define you, but it might make it a little easier to wade through it.

      5. bozo

        First I recommend you read your own posts. They’re really interesting and useful when discussing your posts at a later time.

        You said “thanks to those Crusades, he has the freedom to scorn and ridicule religious faith without being slaughtered as an infidel,” as if the Crusades eliminated religious persecution from the world, and I owe my freedom from religion to the Christians. A silly idea considering the Inquisition, n’est pas?

        Crazy-on-crazy crusades don’t eliminate crazy. It just makes the victor believe his crazy is better than their crazy, and historically has emboldened crazies to slaughter those who call their crazy crazy.

        But, really. Your posts are great. You should read them.

      6. Mark Edward Noonan Post author

        Bozo,

        You’ve apparently bought the whole nonsense story about the Inquisition, too. I don’t blame you, though: 90% of the people believe a false story about the Inquisition. Mostly what people “know” about it is a combination of anti-Catholic and anti-Spanish war propaganda dressed up as history. It is truly said that the victors get to write the history – and as the Brits beat the Spanish, they wrote the history…of course, it wasn’t helpful to truth that the Spanish wrote in, well, Spanish and thus couldn’t reach an English-speaking audience, nor was the fact that the Catholic Church takes confidentiality seriously a help to the truth getting out – it has only been fairly recently that the archives of the Inquisition have been available for scholarly research…and this research has completely exploded the myths about the Inquisition.

        This is not to say that the Inquisition never did wrong: any organization run by human beings is bound to get it wrong. But the stories of endless torture are simply not true; nor are the stories of piles of corpses. About 700 people were executed by the Spanish Inquisition from 1540 to 1700 or, to put it in perspective – in 160 years the Spanish Inquisition piled up 62% as many corpses as Communism did per day in the 20th century. if you want to factor in population growth, then the Inquisition killed about as many people in 160 years as Communism did in a couple days. Most punishments ordered by the Inquisition were for some sort of penance or pilgrimage.

  4. theshadowiswatching

    Moderator note: We have seen courteous and thoughtful responses here and have decided to be more discerning about leaving posts which are primarily attacks or insults. Some expression of dislike is acceptable but gratuitous insults and attacks will be deleted and it is possible that posters will be deleted automatically if they continue to post in attack and insult modes instead of offering content. Speculation about the identity of moderators is futile. //Moderator

  5. Pingback: ‘God’s War: A New History of the Crusades’ « Patos Papa

Comments are closed.