Crusader. Hmm&wondering how to take that&

[Typhoon]

Lately, the term Crusader seems to be pejorative, at least in the Muslim world.  Is that the new slur?  Should I be offended?  We need to have a manual for these things&  

Not only am I a professed Christian, I attended Okinawa Christian School for eight years.  Crusaders was the nickname of our High School sports teams.  Even worse (or better...), we painted the following slogan on one of the school walls:  Home of the Crusaders.  Visible to all (and I have a photo)!  Crusaders Fight!  

If I remember correctly, I have a patch with the school logo&I think I am going to have to dig that out&

Crusaders Fight!

[RevDisk]

Typhoon, the Crusaders also slaughtered Jews, pagans and other branches of Christianity.  Specifically, the Orthodox churches.   When they weren't slaughtering infidels (including other Christians, mind you), they were raping, looting and pillaging.

To whether or not it's a slur, that's up to you.  


Crusaders did fight.  And they lost.   Can't say I'm sorry about it either.


Edit :  Gotta love wiki.  Educate yourself and decide for yourself.   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades

[Typhoon]

I am quite familiar with the history of the Crusades, and my information comes from many sources (the least of which is Wikipedia).  

My question was meant more to be sardonic, as in, hmm&Should I be offended by a term referring to activities done centuries ago?  Is this the latest slur?  

You know what?  Never mind.  Forget I brought it up&.

[Standing Wolf]

Should I be offended by a term referring to activities done centuries ago?

No, but today's Islamic terrorist savages are still fighting those battles from millennia ago. If they weren't so dangerous, they'd be ludicrous.

[Bemidjiblade]

Saying that "Crusaders" slaughtered and murdered and did horrible things is sort of like saying that "Americans murdered and raped children." becuase of local news.

Not every participant in a Crusade was guilty of the excesses that made the Templars infamous.  Smearing an entire segment of medieval population as monsters because they did not subscribe to as-yet-uninvented definitions of just war theory is the pinnacle of intellectual sloth.  The Germanic invasions left entire regions of Europe deserted, but we don't calling someone a "Goth" isn't anywhere near the slur that "Crusader" is.

If you want to call the Peasants' Crusade a horrible and grievous occurance, so be it.  But the motion itself was, like many other movements in history, a mixed blessing of positive and negative.  It's just easier to refrain from sorting out the one from the other and throw out the baby with the bath-water.

If the Crusades were so patently, obviously, irredeemably corrupt and evil, why is it that less than half a century ago calling someone a Crusader for human rights, or social justice, or any other sort of cause was one of the highest compliments you could give.

No thanks.  No revisionist history for me, please.  Horrible things were done in the Crusades, but not any better or worse than the actions of any other military and political movement of the time.  And that, responsibly, is all they can be held accountable for.

[grampster]

Bemidji,
+1

[duck hunt]

I was just about to post a point for RevDisk.  Are they tied?

[Preacherman]

"Crusader" has become a multi-purpose term today, with connotations far beyond its original meaning - heck, the US Navy used it to name a fighter, and I don't think that plane was intended solely for anti-Muslim use!

[Bemidjiblade]

"Gotta love wiki"

Do I really?  *barf*

This is the balanced and informed encyclopedia that describes creationism as "the attempt to pass myth off as science."

*shakes head*

We can agree or disagree on that topic, but the last person with a doctorate in biology that I debated said I'd given him a lot to think about, so...  Ok.

But it does show exactly how balanced Wikipedia can be.  Which is to say, about as balanced as CNN on election night.

[Bemidjiblade]

Crusaders did fight.  And they lost.   Can't say I'm sorry about it either.

Which Crusaders?  The Crusaders of the Reconquista who retook the majority of Spain from the Muslims?  The Crusaders of Henry II of England who "spread" catholicism to Ireland?  The Crusaders who retook Sicily?  The Crusaders who founded and held the Kingdom of Jerusalem for 2 generations?  The Crusaders who retained control of portions of the middle east for 5 centuries?  The Crusaders who sacked Constantinople and went home rich, corrupt, and happy?  The children of the Children's Crusade who were sold into slavery?  The Crusaders of the Hospitaler order who founded what we know as western banking?  The Crusaders of the Templars who, though feared and hated, were among the most influential political bodies in the mediterannean for over a century?  The Crusaders who halted Islamic invasions of the West by fighting it in the east?  My Jr. level college final paper was on the thesis that the First Crusade was justified and successful, so, I'm getting pretty curious here.

Which crusaders are you talking about?
What is your definition of losing?

Though, honestly, given the source that's being quoted around here is the wikipedia, I'm not expecting much scholarship in the reply.

I'd submit that the Crusades greatly reduced internicene warfare in Europe, halted or greatly slowed Muslim expansion, which was the single greatest military threat of the age, brought new levels of learning and information to Europe and thereby laid the foundations of the Rennaisance.  (I have to laugh at the thought that it was the blood and effort of the politically incorrect Christian warriors that gave the Rennaisance philosophers the time, information, prosperity, and safety they needed to become good athiests, socialists, and intermittent wackos such as Occham.)

Did they lose?  Simple answer?  Are you currently speaking Arabic?  No?
Then in large part, the Crusaders won.

[grampster]

Bemidji,

+2

[Perd Hapley]

the pinnacle of intellectual sloth

Ouch!

My preacher, who's father founded a denomination called the Crusaders Churches of America, tells me that "crusader" means "one who carries the cross."  That is, the cross that Jesus commanded his followers to bear, symbolizing that a Christian commits his life to the faith and is willing to suffer and die if necessary.  Of course, Jesus wasn't talking about a military campaign.

It is interesting that the Crusaders are so roundly denounced today, while no one seems to care that Mohammed and his followers conquered "Christian" territory, such as North Africa and Constantinople.  But then, there is nothing really news-worthy about Muslims conquering with the sword.  We expect better from those who claim to be Christians.  This is because Christ was morally perfect and an example of love and forgiveness.  While the Koran is profuse with praise for Allah's mercy, the Prophet both dictated and participated in religious war, if I understand correctly.

[Typhoon]

My admittedly sarcastic question was, more than anything, a visceral response to the horrors of the day.  I did not intend to provoke a debate regarding the historical merits and/or ills of the Crusades.  Whats done is done and centuries have passed.  So be it.

Once my head was back on straight, I remembered something the Dalai Lama once said.

It was in January of 2001, and he was attending a Hindu pilgrimage in Allahabad, India.  It was the Dalai Lamas contention that the best way to understand anothers religion was to study and participate, as best as one could.

During one of the unavoidable press conferences, he was asked if he thought Muslims were violent.  The Dalai Lama smiled.  We are all violent as religions.  Even the Buddhists.  We must stop looking at the past, and look at the present and the future.  

Good advice, indeed&

[Preacherman]

"crusader" means "one who carries the cross."

Er, no, that would be "croissant" - the French named a food for it!

[RevDisk]

I am quite familiar with the history of the Crusades, and my information comes from many sources (the least of which is Wikipedia).  

My question was meant more to be sardonic, as in, hmm&Should I be offended by a term referring to activities done centuries ago?  Is this the latest slur?  

You know what?  Never mind.  Forget I brought it up&.

You asked, I answered.   To me, I enjoy reading about history.  I not only read about the Crusades, I visited Crusader outposts as well as Turkish border posts.

Some photos of one of the Crusade era castles I visited.   This site has not been professionally restored or even really touched.  It was amazing how much of the structure was still standing after hundreds of years.

http://www.revdisk.net/photos/SCastleRuins.jpg

http://www.revdisk.net/photos/SCastleCross.jpg

http://www.revdisk.net/photos/SCastleLowerWall.jpg

http://www.revdisk.net/photos/SCastleView2.jpg

http://www.revdisk.net/photos/SCastleWall.jpg


As for whether or not to be offended, that is your choice.  No one can force you to be offended.  You make that decision up for yourself.  Same thing if you think it's a slur or not.  

No, but today's Islamic terrorist savages are still fighting those battles from millennia ago. If they weren't so dangerous, they'd be ludicrous.

Er, far less than a millenna ago.  If one was talking about the Crusades in general, the Northern Crusades lasted until the 16th Century.   There are many national and ethnic grudges that do go back hundreds of years, not just Islam's dislike of the Crusaders.  

Heck, I met some British soldiers that wear specialized headgear.  They have a white feather in their beret, half white and half red.  Apparently, hundreds of years ago, the Brits slaughtered a bunch of French.   To show their contempt, they dipped the tip of a white feather in French blood and took to wearing it to taunt the French.  Uh, cute and amusing, but one would think petty slaughter would be overlooked after a few hundred years?

Ludicrous, perhaps.  But go down to Texas and tell the folks around the Alamo that the battle happened a really long time ago, and it's fairly ludicrous to still be bringing it up.   I'd wear a vest with plates if you chose to do so.

Saying that "Crusaders" slaughtered and murdered and did horrible things is sort of like saying that "Americans murdered and raped children." becuase of local news.

Very interesting choice of words, Bemidjiblade.   If I remember correctly, you published material here that tried to apologize for child molesters and rapists.  

http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/viewtopic.php?id=564

Sorry if I don't find those words too comforting from a freak apologist like you.   Oh yea.  That organization you are associated with?  It's currently associated with "people" fighting stat rape law, and attempting to drastically lower the age of consent.  

That's right, I'm still watching that quasi-legitimate front for the freak movement you associated yourself with.

[El Tejon]

If there's a New Crusade, may it be a crusade to reclaim the Constitution of the United States!

[Bemidjiblade]

Revdisk,

That's certainly taking the high road.

The only organizations I associate with are Exodus International, NARTH, and Male Survivor.  And I'm hardly a member of these organizations, simple reading what they have out there.

Given the vitriolic nature of your attack, I'm not sure that it's worth responding to.  I've come to expect a lot better from members of this forum.

[Bemidjiblade]

Ok.  I took a break.  I drove around town.  I listened to the radio.  And I'm still furious.  So, everyone else, please forgive me.  It certainly wasn't my intention to bring this back up.

Revdisk,
The only possible thing that I can think you're referring to is that one of my dozens of quotes on that thread came from a whacko group that I disagree with.  He did, however, happen to be making a point that I considered valid.
It's not unusual.  I've spent years using Occham's Razor, even though Occham himself was a certifiable loonie and a cult leader, and other than that single principle, I'm pretty sure that I don't agree with a single thing he thinks or says.
I'm very fond of Niezhe's saying, "Once the reality of absolutes is denied, right and wrong become an exercise in force."  I believe that's an excellent point.  It's also about the only excellent point that nut job ever came up with.

Let me be real clear and use small words this time:
1]  No one should ever be abused.
2]  Sex w/ minors is not OK.
3]  The age of consent should be 18 if you ask me.  (Oh wait, you didn't bother)
4]  My faith and my life has taught me that no one is so bad off that they cannot repent.
5]  My God tells me to love my enemies even if I think their crimes are gross.
6]  I have to judge based on the facts I can find whether or not you don't like it.
7]  Don't ride my butt because I don't hate who you hate.
8]  I want to learn how to prevent and stop abuse more than rage against those who have already screwed up.
9]  I'm want to learn how to cure our diseases more than kill the sick.
10]  I believe in the death penalty.
11]  I do not believe in lynch mob mentality.
12]  I chose to be honest about my beliefs on that topic rather than shut up and be popular.  I call that courage.  You call me a freak.

That's all I can manage with little words.

This final point I can't make with small words so I'm sorry.

13]  Vitriolic ad hominoms using straw man arguments (such as inferring that I advocate the lowering of consent laws, something that would have horrific social ramifications and victimize thousands of innocent adolescents) not only appear completely uncompelling, they seem to symptomize a complete lack of integral support in the opposing position which might be used instead of attacking the advocate of the initial stance.  Such plebian and reactionary theatrics induce nausea in the discerning.

Shame on you.

Now can we get back on topic or would you like to continue to wade in logical missteps?

[jefnvk]

Why would you take crusader to be an insult, when they take being a Jihadist (I dunno if that is the proper term, but I like making up words) as being a good thing?

[Typhoon]

I hardly take it as an insult.  I was just curious if the "Jihadists" intended it as one.

Sorry that my question provoked some hard feelings.  

El T - I like your idea of the new Crusade...

edited to add the last two lines...

[Guest]

It's easy to look back at history and criticize, wouldn't it be better to try to learn?

Yes the Crusades, showed some pretty horrific sides of human nature, but then again the time is rife with them. I don't think the church was a good influence at that point, but the actual crusaders were just people trying to do what they thought was best. Wether you agree with their methods, or idealogies these were just people putting their lives in mortal danger for something they felt strongely about.  I would use Crusader as a high praise indeed!

[Bemidjiblade]

+1 Ego
(Not sure that I agree bout the church, but that's not yoru point!  And you made it well.)

[Perd Hapley]

Me too, Ego and B-blade.

[Gewehr98]

I am now totally convinced that when somebody utters a given word, at least a portion of the population in earshot is going to be offended.

I used to watch this little guy:



The cartoon's name?

Crusader Rabbit.  The tiger's name was Rags.

So now the jihadists would have us call him Infidel Rabbit? Yeah, ok, sure.