• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

The Glory of the Crusades

It says:
Our modern mindset says they were ugly wars of greed and religious intolerance—...In place of these myths he offers men and women of faith and valor who pledged their lives for the honor of Christ’s holy places
Click to expand...
Does the sincerity of the faith of the people on the crusades make the war less ugly?
Or less intolerant?
If the crusades were not religiously intolerant, if they were NOT fought to get the 'holy lands' out of the hands of nonbelievers, then how, exactly, was the honor of Christ's holy places at risk?
 
As Jesus said in Mark 23:20:

"Hey, I'm going to heaven and I'm bringing the souls of all my friends to heaven with me, but please kill a lot of Muslims to keep my birthplace a tourist attraction."
 
I haven't read the book, and likely I won't - unless I find a copy in the library free of charge - but my guess from reading the author's precis, and the sample available online is that his argument boils down to:

If the crusaders were sufficiently pious, then they were right in their religious beliefs.
If the crusaders were right in their religious beliefs, then their ends justified their means.
The crusaders were sufficiently pious.
Therefore their ends justified their means.
Pious crusaders are not unnecessarily cruel.
Therefore any cruelty was necessary.
Therefore any claims of unnecessary cruelty are slander.
Therefore people should stop saying mean things about the crusaders because God.

If that is indeed his core argument, then it is obviously a steaming load of horseshit; but in that it differs little from other religious apologetics.
 
bilby said:
I haven't read the book, and likely I won't - unless I find a copy in the library free of charge - but my guess from reading the author's precis, and the sample available online is that his argument boils down to:

If the crusaders were sufficiently pious, then they were right in their religious beliefs.
If the crusaders were right in their religious beliefs, then their ends justified their means.
The crusaders were sufficiently pious.
Therefore their ends justified their means.
Pious crusaders are not unnecessarily cruel.
Therefore any cruelty was necessary.
Therefore any claims of unnecessary cruelty are slander.
Therefore people should stop saying mean things about the crusaders because God.

If that is indeed his core argument, then it is obviously a steaming load of horseshit; but in that it differs little from other religious apologetics.
Click to expand...
Nice summary. That's exactly what I get from however much I'm willing to read about this claptrap.

If this book goes anywhere but immediate obscurity, it will serve to justify the actions of bigots and zealots in their war against anyone who doesn't believe the correct thoughts. In other words, a new Crusades.

Thomas II said:
BBC "Crusades" by Terry Jones...http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1kntw5_crusades-1-pilgrims-in-arms_shortfilms
Click to expand...
I was about to post this. :D
 
hylidae said:
Nice summary. That's exactly what I get from however much I'm willing to read about this claptrap.

If this book goes anywhere but immediate obscurity, it will serve to justify the actions of bigots and zealots in their war against anyone who doesn't believe the correct thoughts. In other words, a new Crusades.
Click to expand...

There's a "Crusade" or rather a Muslim "Crescentade" already going on, by ISIS, AlQaeda, etc etc. Haven't you noticed?
 
4321lynx said:
hylidae said:
Nice summary. That's exactly what I get from however much I'm willing to read about this claptrap.

If this book goes anywhere but immediate obscurity, it will serve to justify the actions of bigots and zealots in their war against anyone who doesn't believe the correct thoughts. In other words, a new Crusades.
Click to expand...

There's a "Crusade" or rather a Muslim "Crescentade" already going on, by ISIS, AlQaeda, etc etc. Haven't you noticed?
Click to expand...
Hey, Christians don't hold a monopoly on religious nuttery.
 
4321lynx said:
skepticalbip said:
Hey, Christians don't hold a monopoly on religious nuttery.
Click to expand...

Those from Europe were 1000 - 800 yrs ago (Nos 1-4) The later "northern" ones were mainly local landgrabs.

The Crescentade is now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades
Click to expand...

So what?

The thread is about the book highlighted in the OP; The book is about the Christian crusades of 800-1000 years ago. Those crusades were certainly not influenced by what is happening today (unless you think someone has a time machine).

The wrongdoings of Christian crusaders of the 11th - 13th Centuries are not made right by the wrongdoings of Muslims today. Two wrongs do not make a right.

Discussion of the actions of anyone 800+ years after the events the OP is discussing is a derail. If you want to talk about modern day Islam, start a thread for it. This is not the appropriate place for such a discussion.
 
Bullshit.
I was answering hylidae and Skepticalb and don't need permission from anyone to do that. Your remarks, bilby are not only not appropriate but arrogant and their tone is offensive. You are not a Moderator.
 
I thought it was more about giving some of the armed men of that time something to do, other than starting pointless fights over bits of Europe.
 
4321lynx said:
hylidae said:
Nice summary. That's exactly what I get from however much I'm willing to read about this claptrap.

If this book goes anywhere but immediate obscurity, it will serve to justify the actions of bigots and zealots in their war against anyone who doesn't believe the correct thoughts. In other words, a new Crusades.
Click to expand...

There's a "Crusade" or rather a Muslim "Crescentade" already going on, by ISIS, AlQaeda, etc etc. Haven't you noticed?
Click to expand...

Other religions' bad behavior doesn't excuse any religion's bad behavior.
 
Draconis said:
I thought it was more about giving some of the armed men of that time something to do, other than starting pointless fights over bits of Europe.
Click to expand...
Yes, that's how I've been taught too: too many second sons in nobility, not enough land to divide to enable them to each be lord of something -> stop bickering, here is a handy excuse to carve a little land for you in the east.
 
dx713 said:
Draconis said:
I thought it was more about giving some of the armed men of that time something to do, other than starting pointless fights over bits of Europe.
Click to expand...
Yes, that's how I've been taught too: too many second sons in nobility, not enough land to divide to enable them to each be lord of something -> stop bickering, here is a handy excuse to carve a little land for you in the east.
Click to expand...

All true to a certain extent, but the Xians did have some legitimate grievances, such as the attacks on plgrimages by Muslims (mainly Turks, newcomers to the region; the Arab Muslims already in situ were more interested in profiting from the pilgrims than killing and robbing them). And of course, the Byzantines asked for help in recovering lands taken by those same Turks. The situation in Europe, with the idle, yet rapacious "nobility" and the failure of the "Truce of God" to hold them in check much, simply made it easier to muster an army for the undertaking.

The Crusades were a far more nuanced event than they are usually depicted. Having said that, though, the idea that there was some sort of "glory" in them is just as stupid as the idea that the Muslims were entirely innocent and attacked without reason by the "evil" West.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom