• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Jihad vs Crusades

They are holy wars, that is what I intended to convey and Jihad is not always armed conflict, unlike crusades.

The thread is about holy wars, Jihad holy wars and Crusade holy wars.
What is wrong about what you said was that "the Crusades" was about destroying Islam.
That's incorrect, it was about several things, recapturing the holy land, recapturing Hispania, destroying Catharism, spreading Christianity in the north and defend the Romans in the east..
 
Last edited:
It would appear, the Italian Jesuits (the late former Jesuit Fr. Malachi Martin might say the whole global Jesuit order) are in agreement with the OP. Well, presuming this CNS News article is fairly depicting the article they are negatively critiquing.

I have not even read even 50% of the CNS article nor the article written by the Jesuits it is challenging. But I read enough of the CNS article to get the point the Jesuits are suggesting conservative American Catholics are just like ISIS. :lol:

To be fair... I would have to read the Jesuit article to see if they are making any fair observations and valid points. It's possible they are. I don't know. I find the depiction of American Catholics on the conservative end as akin to ISIS a little over-the-top though. Unless the point was to speak about wrath in the 7 Deadly Sins and sadist-hubris related to vanity and pride or something. I don't know.




And it seems--as related to the title of this thread too--Pope Francis has made a Vatican, Papal, take over of the Knights of Malta the centuries old crusaders order one known as the Knights Hospitalars. Which may or may not have been the right thing to do.


Full article: Is the American Catholic Right Like ISIS?

Is the American Catholic Right Like ISIS?


John Horvat II
By John Horvat II | July 24, 2017 | 10:40 AM EDT

Does the American religious right hold a theopolitical outlook similar to that of ISIS? That appears to be one of the insinuations of a recent article published by the Italian Jesuit fortnightly publication La Civiltà Cattolica.

The unexpected attack is causing perplexity and concern to many American Catholics who have fought hard in the trenches of the Culture War with other religious allies. They find it hard to understand why they were the target of a broadside when all they did was hold fast to Catholic social teachings.

It is hard not to be offended. The article titled “Evangelical Fundamentalism and Catholic Integralism in the USA: A Surprising Ecumenism” denounces an “ecumenism of hate” between Catholics and evangelicals.


Wait... does this portion of the article imply conservative *American* Catholics had been playing politics with all liberal propositions put forth as "cool"? And conservative American Catholics are shocked like Southern Belles that playing politics did not stop everything. Maybe next time exorcism occur American conservative Catholics should try playing politics with the devil, and conforming to some of his propositions, rather than speaking spiritual truths to the oldest enemy of man. Just off the top of my head.

Questioning the Consensus

However, merely criticizing the old American consensus was not the aim of the two authors. Something is happening in America that upsets them greatly, and this irritation permeates the article’s twisted logic and strong emotional overtones.

The three new developments in America are that (a) many American evangelicals and Catholics are being increasingly “mugged by reality,” aghast at the radicalization of liberals of all stripes, including, sadly, progressives in the Catholic Church; (b) the left’s radicalization is making the American consensus collapse; and (c) this is leading many in the religious right to question this vague consensus itself. These two authors find all this very troubling. It seems they expected the religious right to just go along with all the changes, like the caboose on their train chugging toward a new world (dis)order.

Why are these religious conservatives questioning the consensus? Because they realize

Beyond the Enlightenment

...is a refreshing contrast to the stagnant uncertainties of postmodernity.


There goes that word postmodernism again. And liberals actually thought there would never arise more than a handful of people to question their anti-science, anti-rational views of "make up anything you want,"

The devil promotes confusion and division. Has always been regarded as a sign in Christianity that he is present in x community or people. See any confusion and division in the USA today?






 
Constantinople was the Eastern Catholic capitol (Rome being the Western capitol), they fought to regain it...i dont have a clue on what Russians you are speaking about since Russia wasnt even thought of at the time of the crusades in Jerusalem....please elaborate - And the Heretics in France was the doing of a power crazed asinine Pope close to a 100 years after the Crusades originally began in Jerusalem.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades
The Crusades were a series of religious wars sanctioned by the Latin Church in the medieval period. The most commonly known are the campaigns in the Eastern Mediterranean aimed at recovering the Holy Land from Islamic rule but the term "Crusades" is also applied to other church-sanctioned campaigns.
These were fought for a variety of reasons including suppressing paganism and heresy, the resolution of conflict among rival Roman Catholic groups, or for political and territorial advantage. At the time of the early Crusades the word did not exist, only becoming the leading descriptive term around 1760.

In 1095 Pope Urban II called for the First Crusade in a sermon at the Council of Clermont. He encouraged military support for the Byzantine Empire and its Emperor, Alexios I, who needed reinforcements for his conflict with westward migrating Turks colonising Anatolia. One of Urban's aims was to guarantee pilgrims access to the Eastern Mediterranean holy sites that were under Muslim control

And how exactly does badly weakening the Byzantines by sacking their capital, thus enabling Muslims to take over the Balkans.....defend against Muslims?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Crusades
 
Constantinople was the Eastern Catholic capitol (Rome being the Western capitol), they fought to regain it...
You might want to research a bit more here, if the crusader attack on Byzantium had been about "regaining", how come the crusaders didn't stay after having taken Constantinople? Rather than eventually leaving it (and the Byzantium they'd carved up) once it had been sacked and leaving it considerably weakened at that?
i dont have a clue on what Russians you are speaking about since Russia wasnt even thought of at the time of the crusades in Jerusalem....please elaborate -
You ever hear of Alexander Nevsky? Battle of the Ice?

If you want to claim there were no Russians at that time (the Kievan Rus and their Novgorod republic being what?), you might as well claim that there were actually no Germans prior to 1871.
And the Heretics in France was the doing of a power crazed asinine Pope close to a 100 years after the Crusades originally began in Jerusalem.
Nope, it actually started out with Philip of France having had a bellyful of the state-within-the-state that the Knights Templar had established in the Languedoc. Beginning to dismantle the order as early as 12 years after the last crusade in the "Holy Land"(siege of Acre and its fall to the Mamluks).

In the process conveniently settling his substantial loans from the Templars by annihilating the creditor.

At the time the Pope was taking orders from the French king and not the other way round and it had nothing to do with Clement having initiated the whole affair.

The Albigensian Crusade (against the Cathars) ran practically parallel to these proceedings but lasted longer, with at least 2 Popes I can think of having been in opposition to the Cathars but French royal interests again having been the driving factor in crushing the Cathars.

At the time of the early Crusades the word did not exist, only becoming the leading descriptive term around 1760.
Agreed in that its coinage to what we use in English today was made round about then, crucesignatus however was already a label for "God's warriors" as early as the third crusade and via the later Francophication (croisade) found its way into English.

That all being said (and before getting lost in semantics powered by etymology), they might as well have called all the ventures cake-walks, the general principle their pursuit was sold on was that they were god's will.
In 1095 Pope Urban II called for the First Crusade in a sermon at the Council of Clermont. He encouraged military support for the Byzantine Empire and its Emperor, Alexios I, who needed reinforcements for his conflict with westward migrating Turks colonising Anatolia. One of Urban's aims was to guarantee pilgrims access to the Eastern Mediterranean holy sites that were under Muslim control
Yeah, we're all quite capable of reading wiki.

But some of us are also capable of asking what the hell fighting the (primarily Egyptian) Fatimid dynasty that held Jerusalem had to do with aiding Alexios against the encroaching Turks, when those very Fatimids had just kicked the Turks out of Jerusalem and actually offered to ally themselves with the crusaders against those very Turks.
 
Last edited:
Wrong,there are about twice as many Christians on this planet as there are Muslims.

Learn about it here: List of religious populations - Wikipedia

I suggest that you try learning what you're talking about before you open your mouth.

:lol:

Ive read "polls" where Christians out populate Muslims, where Muslims out populate Christians, Where they are about equal...Im sticking with about equal with Islam being the faster growing religion

I suggest you research things before cherry picking your statistic information to signify your stance.
 
The thread is about holy wars, Jihad holy wars and Crusade holy wars.
What is wrong about what you said was that "the Crusades" was about destroying Islam.
That's incorrect, it was about several things, recapturing the holy land, recapturing Hispania, destroying Catharism, spreading Christianity in the north and defend the Romans in the east..
And Pope Urban promised the knights a get out of hell free card. Their main hobby was fighting and killing each other thus breaking one of the commandments. They jumped at the chance.
 
And how exactly does badly weakening the Byzantines by sacking their capital, thus enabling Muslims to take over the Balkans.....defend against Muslims?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Crusades

I dont understand what your point is...In 1095 Pope Urban II called for the First Crusade in a sermon at the Council of Clermont. He encouraged military support for the Byzantine Empire and its Emperor, Alexios I, who needed reinforcements for his conflict with westward migrating Turks colonising Anatolia. One of Urban's aims was to guarantee pilgrims access to the Eastern Mediterranean holy sites that were under Muslim control...sometimes not all efforts end how they were intended...as is evident throughout all of history. Its commonly called the rule of unintended consequences.
 
My guess is that fewer Muslims worldwide are interested in going on Jihads than some Alt-right Christians in the USA are interested in going on Crusades.

Let's wait and see what happens.

:lol:
I'm sure that arms makers would be happy to see a world wide religious war no matter who wins.

Both are equally as bad, right Trump supporters?
 
I dont understand what your point is...In 1095 Pope Urban II called for the First Crusade in a sermon at the Council of Clermont. He encouraged military support for the Byzantine Empire and its Emperor, Alexios I, who needed reinforcements for his conflict with westward migrating Turks colonising Anatolia. One of Urban's aims was to guarantee pilgrims access to the Eastern Mediterranean holy sites that were under Muslim control...sometimes not all efforts end how they were intended...as is evident throughout all of history. Its commonly called the rule of unintended consequences.

You don't understand the irony in a war that is supposed to defend against Muslims attacking and badly weakening Christians?
 
ive read "polls" where christians out populate muslims, where muslims out populate christians, where they are about equal...im sticking with about equal with islam being the faster growing religion

i suggest you research things before cherry picking your statistic information to signify your stance.


i do and i'm sticking with what i said.

I turn my brain on before i open my mouth.

:lol:
 
Back
Top Bottom