http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/maryann/8052 Many a discussion on Christian history centers around the Crusades, which began in 1095. It has been customary to describe the Crusades as eight in number: the first, 1095-1101; the second, headed by Louis VII, 1145-47; the third, conducted by Philip Augustus and Richard Coeur-de-Lion, 1188-92; the fourth, during which Constantinople was taken, 1204; the fifth, which included the conquest of Damietta, 1217; the sixth, in which Frederick II took part (1228-29); also Thibaud de Champagne and Richard of Cornwall (1239); the seventh, led by St. Louis, 1249-52; the eighth, also under St. Louis, 1270. This division is arbitrary and excludes many important expeditions, among them those of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. In reality the Crusades continued until the end of the seventeenth century, the crusade of Lepanto occurring in 1571, that of Hungary in 1664, and the crusade of the Duke of Burgundy to Candia, in 1669. (New Advent.org [see Crusades]).      Why did the Christian armies feel a need to pack up and fight the Muslims a continent away?  Some would say that it all had to do with the greed of the popes and gaining land for an empire, while others proffer that keeping the Holy Land open for Christian pilgrims and defending the Christian lives in Jerusalem was the original idea. From my point of view, the Crusades started out defensive in nature, but some over time, horrendous deeds were committed along the way. All of this gives a portrayal of the good, the bad, and the ugly of the Crusades. (Information for this blog is taken primarily from Patrick Madrid’s book, Pope Fiction, 1999, from the chapter “The popes and the Crusades.”)   Since the beginning of the 4th century, pilgrims made their way from Europe to the Holy Land.  I think it’s clear that some Christians do feel a need to keep a certain contact with their religious roots and the places where God made Man walked.   All went relatively well between Christians and Moslems until the beginning of the 11th century with the Caliph of Egypt, Al Hakem, who ordered the destruction of the Holy Sepulcher (where Jesus was buried) and the removal of the Christian presence from Jerusalem in 1009 a.d.  (The Crusades  London: Secker & Warburg, 1960  by Regine Pernoud, p. 15 as quoted by Madrid.)    From that point on, persecution of Christians (both residents and pilgrims) was almost constant. In 1071 the Seldjuk Turks overran and captured Jerusalem. (Pernoud, pp. 16-17.)   “After being heroically patient in the face of this Muslim onslaught and hoping for a peaceful solution, Pope Urban II could finally take no more of this unacceptable mistreatment of Christians in Palestine. In 1095 he ordered the first Crusade, for the protection of all Christians in the Holy Land.” p. 192   From all over Europe the armies of Christian crusaders marched upon Jerusalem.  After a number of battles, the Crusaders conquered the Muslim defenders of Jerusalem on July 15, 1099. However, upon entering the city, the Christian invaders killed every inhabitant they could find. This was a horrible atrocity, and is unexcusable. Author Patrick Madrid states of these horrendous acts: “This kind of atrocity, committed by Catholics in the name of Christ and the Catholic Church, is a sin that the Church deeply regrets and apologizes for.  Pope John Paul II has repeatedly asked forgiveness in the name of the Catholic Church for crimes, like this one, committed by Catholics in the name of the Faith.”  p. 192   Although after this Crusade pilgrims were free to travel to Jerusalem and the Christian residents of the area were safe from Islamic oppression.  Sadly, though the Crusades had begun with a noble idea, over time the Crusaders forgot why they had started the mission in the first place. The sack of Constantinople in 1204 by Catholic armies, with the money being split between the armies of the Venetians is another ugly chapter.  Again, the author, Madrid states: “Catholics should never attempt to deny or sweep under the rug the fact that this and similar sins have been committed by Catholics in the name of the Church.  Rather, as a genuine step toward reunion with our Orthodox brethren, we should recognize and grieve with them over these wicked acts, and then seek forgiveness to heal these old wounds in a spirit of fraternal repentance and forgiveness.” p. 193   Patrick Madrid states that a few points about the Crusades need to be made. First, the original intent of the Crusades was the protection of pilgrims and the Christians in the Holy Land.  The Muslims were the initiators of the violence back with the Caliph Al Hakem.  In this way, the Crusades were defensive in nature. Also, one can see that the warfare in the East weakened the Muslim armies significantly, preventing them from an inevitable invasion of the West, that did come at Lepanto, Otranto, and the siege of Vienna. Had these invasions been successful and long-lasting, Western culture would have been exterminated and most of the freedoms we have now we would not know. I as a woman would certainly not enjoy the freedoms I do. I see this as the good.   Yet, there is plenty of the bad and the ugly.  Personal vendettas by the Catholic commanders and individuals were pursued, and greed often held sway.  Also, according to Madrid, the rage and insanity of warfare gave way to some truly grotesque acts of brutality- which are absolutely inexcusable for Christians. History is incredibly important, and we learn lessons from past mistakes or we will repeat those errors.  Many a discussion on Christian history centers around the Crusades, which began in 1095. It has been customary to describe the Crusades as eight in number: the first, 1095-1101; the second, headed by Louis VII, 1145-47; the third, conducted by Philip Augustus and Richard Coeur-de-Lion, 1188-92; the fourth, during which Constantinople was taken, 1204; the fifth, which included the conquest of Damietta, 1217; the sixth, in which Frederick II took part (1228-29); also Thibaud de Champagne and Richard of Cornwall (1239); the seventh, led by St. Louis, 1249-52; the eighth, also under St. Louis, 1270. This division is arbitrary and excludes many important expeditions, among them those of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. In reality the Crusades continued until the end of the seventeenth century, the crusade of Lepanto occurring in 1571, that of Hungary in 1664, and the crusade of the Duke of Burgundy to Candia, in 1669. (New Advent.org [see Crusades]).      Why did the Christian armies feel a need to pack up and fight the Muslims a continent away?  Some would say that it all had to do with the greed of the popes and gaining land for an empire, while others proffer that keeping the Holy Land open for Christian pilgrims and defending the Christian lives in Jerusalem was the original idea. From my point of view, the Crusades started out defensive in nature, but some over time, horrendous deeds were committed along the way. All of this gives a portrayal of the good, the bad, and the ugly of the Crusades. (Information for this blog is taken primarily from Patrick Madrid’s book, Pope Fiction, 1999, from the chapter “The popes and the Crusades.”)   Since the beginning of the 4th century, pilgrims made their way from Europe to the Holy Land.  I think it’s clear that some Christians do feel a need to keep a certain contact with their religious roots and the places where God made Man walked.   All went relatively well between Christians and Moslems until the beginning of the 11th century with the Caliph of Egypt, Al Hakem, who ordered the destruction of the Holy Sepulcher (where Jesus was buried) and the removal of the Christian presence from Jerusalem in 1009 a.d.  (The Crusades  London: Secker & Warburg, 1960  by Regine Pernoud, p. 15 as quoted by Madrid.)    From that point on, persecution of Christians (both residents and pilgrims) was almost constant. In 1071 the Seldjuk Turks overran and captured Jerusalem. (Pernoud, pp. 16-17.)   “After being heroically patient in the face of this Muslim onslaught and hoping for a peaceful solution, Pope Urban II could finally take no more of this unacceptable mistreatment of Christians in Palestine. In 1095 he ordered the first Crusade, for the protection of all Christians in the Holy Land.” p. 192   From all over Europe the armies of Christian crusaders marched upon Jerusalem.  After a number of battles, the Crusaders conquered the Muslim defenders of Jerusalem on July 15, 1099. However, upon entering the city, the Christian invaders killed every inhabitant they could find. This was a horrible atrocity, and is unexcusable. Author Patrick Madrid states of these horrendous acts: “This kind of atrocity, committed by Catholics in the name of Christ and the Catholic Church, is a sin that the Church deeply regrets and apologizes for.  Pope John Paul II has repeatedly asked forgiveness in the name of the Catholic Church for crimes, like this one, committed by Catholics in the name of the Faith.”  p. 192   Although after this Crusade pilgrims were free to travel to Jerusalem and the Christian residents of the area were safe from Islamic oppression.  Sadly, though the Crusades had begun with a noble idea, over time the Crusaders forgot why they had started the mission in the first place. The sack of Constantinople in 1204 by Catholic armies, with the money being split between the armies of the Venetians is another ugly chapter.  Again, the author, Madrid states: “Catholics should never attempt to deny or sweep under the rug the fact that this and similar sins have been committed by Catholics in the name of the Church.  Rather, as a genuine step toward reunion with our Orthodox brethren, we should recognize and grieve with them over these wicked acts, and then seek forgiveness to heal these old wounds in a spirit of fraternal repentance and forgiveness.” p. 193   Patrick Madrid states that a few points about the Crusades need to be made. First, the original intent of the Crusades was the protection of pilgrims and the Christians in the Holy Land.  The Muslims were the initiators of the violence back with the Caliph Al Hakem.  In this way, the Crusades were defensive in nature. Also, one can see that the warfare in the East weakened the Muslim armies significantly, preventing them from an inevitable invasion of the West, that did come at Lepanto, Otranto, and the siege of Vienna. Had these invasions been successful and long-lasting, Western culture would have been exterminated and most of the freedoms we have now we would not know. I as a woman would certainly not enjoy the freedoms I do. I see this as the good.   Yet, there is plenty of the bad and the ugly.  Personal vendettas by the Catholic commanders and individuals were pursued, and greed often held sway.  Also, according to Madrid, the rage and insanity of warfare gave way to some truly grotesque acts of brutality- which are absolutely inexcusable for Christians. History is incredibly important, and we learn lessons from past mistakes or we will repeat those errors.  en-us Hello Pilot, What are you talking about?  Either we're a secular country or we aren't. You say to keep religion and church separate, then you go on to mix it up with talking about a "pope" for president. Unmix your metaphors and try it again.   BTW, how many garrisons of soldiers did the Vatican send?  The Crusades originated with a religious call for men to come to arms. That isn't what has happened with the Iraq War and Afghanistan. Haven't you heard about the myriad Wiccans and athiests in the Armed forces?  Hardly Christians soldiers going to liberate Christians in any way, shape, or form.   http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/maryann/8052/#c_58275 http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/maryann/8052/#c_58275 Hello Pilot, What are you talking about?  Either we're a secular country or we aren't. You say to keep religion and church separate, then you go on to mix it up with talking about a "pope" for president. Unmix your metaphors and try it again.   BTW, how many garrisons of soldiers did the Vatican send?  The Crusades originated with a religious call for men to come to arms. That isn't what has happened with the Iraq War and Afghanistan. Haven't you heard about the myriad Wiccans and athiests in the Armed forces?  Hardly Christians soldiers going to liberate Christians in any way, shape, or form.   Dear Maryann, I do accept the basic premise stated both by you & quotes from Patrick Madrid, within your article about the Crusades. However I do take exception to the idea or implication expressed, either by word or omission, that somehow, because individual Catholics in the Crusading Armies, committed cruelty & atrocities throughout this period, that the Holy Catholic Church herself is somehow only or Solely to blame, or that these acts committed were somehow tacitly given approval by the Vatican or even local Clerics. They were Not. I also object to the seemingly often repeated myth & lie, (either implied or otherwise) that the Muslims themselves, Never committed ANY atrocities & acts of unprovoked Aggression themselves, & that is was only ever the Big, Bad Evil "imperialistic" West that could possibly have done such things, all with the approval of the "corrupt & greedy" Popes who were "egging" them on like some sort of psychotic cheerleaders !  - This is the type of Post-Modernistic / Relativistic, Historical-Revisionist drivel, which is being proselytized by the likes of those Clowns, Dawkins & Hitchens & Co, in their blatantly biased & bigoted tracts of Neo-Atheism, that you see being promoted in the NY Times & Washington Post !  etc... Please Don't Fall for it or swallow It ! The Catholic Church Herself has very little to Say Sorry for, esp in relation to this period of history !   Most of the Blame, if not all, should Fall upon the Generals of the Armies, & the Princes, Kings & Corrupt Aristocracy of Europe ! - who were Nominally "catholic:" at best, or in other words, catholic in name only !   The "greed" of the Crusades was not with the Popes & the Holy Church, but rather with the morally bankrupt & recalcitrant rulers of Europe !   Why is it, that we never Hear from anyone, - ANYONE !  - scream & call for there to be apologies form the Modern-Day Descendants of the Crusading Nations, & their Imperial / Royal Thrones, & now Democratic Republics !!  IF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH CAN SAY SORRY !  - even when it shouldn't have to !!  - WHY CAN'T THE MODERN STATES OF GERMANY, FRANCE, ITALY, ENGLAND...  etc... all SAY SORRY FOR THEIR PARTS IN the Crusades & HISTORY in general !!  When, for instance,  will the English & Dutch Say Sorry to the Irish / Celtic peoples for the Religious & Cultural Genocide, & all other Atrocities committed against them !   or When will the self proclaimed, so-called "enlightened" French Republic, say Sorry, for the Crimes against the Church & the Wholesale Slaughter of Innocent Catholics during the Revolution !!   The List could go on & on,  & even for the nation states in the "christian" East, such as Russia, Serbia & Greece etc... for all of the Atrocities & persecutions committed against innocent Catholics & priests / religious ! I'm sure you get the point !!    Sadly, today, very few people do !!   That's why I’m making my comment now, in order to even up the debate, & correct all of the myths, lies, distortions & bigoted statements made by many on this subject !  Not that I am accusing you of this at all, but I still feel a correction needs to be made ! A very important point needs to be made regarding Islam & the Crusades !... & that is the fact that the "Holy Lands" after about AD70,  with the exception of the Jews & some Arabs, were for the most part Christian !!   That is to say that these people (Semites, & others) where all Converted in their Hearts & Minds (from Paganism or Judaism) to the Catholic Faith with the proclaimed & revealed Truth of God, & also by Reason & argument, but especially by the Holy Witness of Love by the Early Christians after the Death, Resurrection & Ascension of Our Lord Jesus Christ ! They were therefore converted by Love, Truth & Example, & NOT converted by the Sword, unlike how that accursed demon-possessed Psychopath Mohammed & his band of followers converted people to Islam !!  Many Christians were FORCIBLY converted by the sword, & told if they didn't, that they & their families would be annihilated !   Sadly, many died as Martyrs for their new faith but understandably, just as many crumbled to the Pressure & Coercion of Death, & converted to a false Religion, just to stay alive ! I Highly Recommend the following website: http://www.lumenverum.org/apologetics/DefendtheFaith/page.html & for those who aren't able to read it, I make a large quote from it, which is very pertinent to this subject !  : "In the one hundred years between 632 and 732 AD the Middle East, North Africa and Spain, regions that had known Christianity for up to six centuries, were now lost to the followers of the new “prophet.”  At the same time, the Christian Byzantine Empire with its capital of Constantinople (the first city in history founded and dedicated as a Christian city by the Emperor Constantine) was under the constant threat of being overwhelmed.   What had to be the response of Christendom in the face of this grave crisis?   Contrary to the opinions of certain schools of thought, Christianity has never advocated pacifism as an essential part of “Christ’s Gospel of love, peace and forgiveness.” Rather, the Church has always advocated the concept of the “just war.” The conditions for when a just war may be fought are outlined in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:   “The strict conditions for legitimate defence by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:   – the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave and certain; – all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective; – there must be serious prospects of success; – the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated.   The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition. These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the ‘just war’ doctrine.   The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgement of those who have responsibility for the common good.” ¹   1 CCC # 2309.     The first great Christian victories against the tide of Islam were achieved at Constantinople (673-678 and 717-718), Covadonga in Spain (722) and Poitiers in France (732). The Christians fought these battles as defensive battles against an unjust aggressor. They had to fight, for Islam at the time was in no mood for negotiation and if left unopposed, the damage inflicted on the Christian world certainly would have been “lasting, grave and certain.”    Despite suffering military setbacks in the early eighth century, Islam retained its appetite for military conquest. Crete was conquered in 823, Sardinia in 827 and Corsica in 850. Repeated raids were also launched into southern Italy and the Rhone River region of France. After a struggle of 114 years, Sicily finally capitulated to the Moslems in 941. The conquerors now were the Abbasid Dynasty, who displaced the Umayyads in 750. Unlike the Umayyads, the Abbasids were less tolerant of non-Islamic beliefs. Previously, subjugated Christians and Jews were generally left alone to practice their beliefs, subject only to the payment of a special tax. Now, conversion to Islam was more insisted upon and commonplace.                                                  This change was most particularly evident after the defeat of the Byzantines at the battle of Manzikert in 1071. The Byzantine Emperor had raised a well-armed and highly disciplined force of over 60,000 men. Their opponents were over 100,000 Seljuk Turks, descendants of wild Mongolian horsemen from the Russian steppes. These nomads were easy converts to Islam as its looser morality and aggressive spirit coincided with their own. During the battle itself, the Christian army, exhausted by great heat, was outmanoeuvred and overwhelmed by repeated waves of swift horsemen firing showers of arrows. The Turkish warriors then moved in for the kill with their razor sharp curved swords.     The consequences of defeat at Manzikert for Christendom were far-reaching. The heartland of Anatolia, (now Turkey) once the region where St. Paul had planted the first seeds of Christianity, was now in the hands of a more fanatical strain of Islam. Constantinople was once again threatened, while pilgrimages to the Holy Land were now subject to an official policy of harassment.   Word of deaths and oppression would soon be reaching the ears of a concerned Europe. Pope St. Gregory VII first conceived the idea of a crusade to relieve the East in 1073, but he did not live to see it materialize. However, when Byzantine Emperor Alexius I Comnenus sent a plea for assistance to Pope Bl. Urban II in 1095, the West was now ready and willing to respond.   Western Christendom was already very familiar with and experienced in the crusading spirit. The Spanish Reconquista was nearing its four hundredth year and had achieved great successes under King Alfonso II in the ninth century and currently under the legendary Rodrigo del Bivar (El Cid).   However, few could have foreseen the overwhelming response to Pope Bl. Urban II’s speech delivered at the Council of Clermont on November 10, 1095, calling for a large expeditionary force to turn back the Moslem advance and liberate the Holy Land. In his speech the Pope promised a plenary indulgence  ––a full remission of temporal punishment due to sin––  to all those prepared to take up the cross and reclaim the Holy Sepulchre.   Pope Urban then quoted from the Gospel of St. Matthew: “every one who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or lands, for my name’s sake, will receive a hundredfold, and inherit eternal life.”   The crowd of thousands then exclaimed with one voice, “God wills it!”   From that day forward, tens of thousands of commonfolk, soldiers, knights, nobles and even kings took up the standard of crusade. Admittedly, not everyone’s motives were pure. Besides the spiritual values underpinning the crusade, some were lured by the prospect of territorial gain, rich treasure and financial opportunities, others by a simple thirst for adventure.   Nevertheless, in its ideal the crusade was a true expression of faith based on the sacrifice of one’s life for the sake of Christ.   Without a doubt, the Crusades for the Holy Land from the military point of view were ultimately a total failure due in large part to the self-interest, contention, infidelity and avarice that racked and divided the Christian forces. The various massacres after the fall of Jerusalem in 1099 and at Constantinople in 1204 are without excuse and still leave their scars on East-West relations. In addition, the unofficial People’s Crusade of 1096 and the Children’s Crusade were tragic follies that led to the deaths of tens of thousands of enthusiastic but misled individuals.   In his Easter Message of 2000, Pope John Paul II showed that the Church was willing to admit responsibility for “sins committed in the service of truth.”     But those who continually raise these failings in order to denigrate the whole crusading movement and the Church per se overextend themselves.   Excesses occur in any just war – for example, the bombing of Dresden by the Allies in February 1945. Nevertheless, the ideal of the crusade stands unchallenged; that is, wars fought in self-defence to recapture what was lost to an unjust aggressor whose actions over the previous 450 years had showed an intention to devour the whole of Christendom.   Critics of the Crusades are also strangely silent about Islamic militarism and expansion. One never hears outrage over the Moslem conquests of Christian regions and the large-scale kidnappings of Christian children, discriminatory taxation policies and the forced conversions of whole populations to Islam. Apologies are never demanded of the Moslems for invading Western Europe in the eighth century or Eastern Europe in the fifteenth century. This silence also extends to present-day persecutions of Christians in Algeria, Egypt, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and most particularly in the Sudan.   Nor does one hear from the critics anything about the positive aspects of the Crusades. The renewed communication with the East brought about a greater exchange of trade and culture; there was renewed contact with beleaguered Christians such as the Maronites in Lebanon; the West benefited from contact with Moslem mathematicians and philosophers versed in Aristotelian (Greek) thought; the rise and flourishing of the religious military orders of the Knights Hospitallers and the Knights Templars brought about a renewal of lofty ideals and noble fighting spirit; and, most importantly, the Crusades delayed the desired Islamic invasion of Eastern Europe for nearly 200 years.   Despite the defeat of the Crusades, the authentic crusading spirit was to live on for another four centuries. Continued Islamic expansionism necessitated further Christian efforts at self-defence, particularly after the conquest of Constantinople by Mohammed II in 1453.   Other Christian military campaigns possessing the Crusader spirit can also be mentioned, including the war against the Albigensians launched by Pope Innocent III in the thirteenth century and the final stages of the Spanish Reconquista under Queen Isabella in the late fifteenth century. All the above wars and battles were fought in ages when the character of European states were Christian, and so their armies were also. It is not illegitimate for a nation, Christian or otherwise, to possess an army and to employ it in self-defence.    The secularisation of the Western world in the past two centuries has only resulted in more frequent wars and greater atrocities. Modern attacks launched against the Crusades are generally one-sided affairs which fail to take into account the history of Islamic aggression against Christianity, and which are more motivated not out of love of Christ’s message of “peace, love and forgiveness” but by a broader anti-Catholic secularist agenda !    If Christendom existed today and it faced imperilment from an external enemy, the cry of “onward Christian soldiers!” would still be a noble call to answer ! "   Regards,   Celtic Pyr8 http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/maryann/8052/#c_58280 http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/maryann/8052/#c_58280 Dear Maryann, I do accept the basic premise stated both by you & quotes from Patrick Madrid, within your article about the Crusades. However I do take exception to the idea or implication expressed, either by word or omission, that somehow, because individual Catholics in the Crusading Armies, committed cruelty & atrocities throughout this period, that the Holy Catholic Church herself is somehow only or Solely to blame, or that these acts committed were somehow tacitly given approval by the Vatican or even local Clerics. They were Not. I also object to the seemingly often repeated myth & lie, (either implied or otherwise) that the Muslims themselves, Never committed ANY atrocities & acts of unprovoked Aggression themselves, & that is was only ever the Big, Bad Evil "imperialistic" West that could possibly have done such things, all with the approval of the "corrupt & greedy" Popes who were "egging" them on like some sort of psychotic cheerleaders !  - This is the type of Post-Modernistic / Relativistic, Historical-Revisionist drivel, which is being proselytized by the likes of those Clowns, Dawkins & Hitchens & Co, in their blatantly biased & bigoted tracts of Neo-Atheism, that you see being promoted in the NY Times & Washington Post !  etc... Please Don't Fall for it or swallow It ! The Catholic Church Herself has very little to Say Sorry for, esp in relation to this period of history !   Most of the Blame, if not all, should Fall upon the Generals of the Armies, & the Princes, Kings & Corrupt Aristocracy of Europe ! - who were Nominally "catholic:" at best, or in other words, catholic in name only !   The "greed" of the Crusades was not with the Popes & the Holy Church, but rather with the morally bankrupt & recalcitrant rulers of Europe !   Why is it, that we never Hear from anyone, - ANYONE !  - scream & call for there to be apologies form the Modern-Day Descendants of the Crusading Nations, & their Imperial / Royal Thrones, & now Democratic Republics !!  IF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH CAN SAY SORRY !  - even when it shouldn't have to !!  - WHY CAN'T THE MODERN STATES OF GERMANY, FRANCE, ITALY, ENGLAND...  etc... all SAY SORRY FOR THEIR PARTS IN the Crusades & HISTORY in general !!  When, for instance,  will the English & Dutch Say Sorry to the Irish / Celtic peoples for the Religious & Cultural Genocide, & all other Atrocities committed against them !   or When will the self proclaimed, so-called "enlightened" French Republic, say Sorry, for the Crimes against the Church & the Wholesale Slaughter of Innocent Catholics during the Revolution !!   The List could go on & on,  & even for the nation states in the "christian" East, such as Russia, Serbia & Greece etc... for all of the Atrocities & persecutions committed against innocent Catholics & priests / religious ! I'm sure you get the point !!    Sadly, today, very few people do !!   That's why I’m making my comment now, in order to even up the debate, & correct all of the myths, lies, distortions & bigoted statements made by many on this subject !  Not that I am accusing you of this at all, but I still feel a correction needs to be made ! A very important point needs to be made regarding Islam & the Crusades !... & that is the fact that the "Holy Lands" after about AD70,  with the exception of the Jews & some Arabs, were for the most part Christian !!   That is to say that these people (Semites, & others) where all Converted in their Hearts & Minds (from Paganism or Judaism) to the Catholic Faith with the proclaimed & revealed Truth of God, & also by Reason & argument, but especially by the Holy Witness of Love by the Early Christians after the Death, Resurrection & Ascension of Our Lord Jesus Christ ! They were therefore converted by Love, Truth & Example, & NOT converted by the Sword, unlike how that accursed demon-possessed Psychopath Mohammed & his band of followers converted people to Islam !!  Many Christians were FORCIBLY converted by the sword, & told if they didn't, that they & their families would be annihilated !   Sadly, many died as Martyrs for their new faith but understandably, just as many crumbled to the Pressure & Coercion of Death, & converted to a false Religion, just to stay alive ! I Highly Recommend the following website: http://www.lumenverum.org/apologetics/DefendtheFaith/page.html & for those who aren't able to read it, I make a large quote from it, which is very pertinent to this subject !  : "In the one hundred years between 632 and 732 AD the Middle East, North Africa and Spain, regions that had known Christianity for up to six centuries, were now lost to the followers of the new “prophet.”  At the same time, the Christian Byzantine Empire with its capital of Constantinople (the first city in history founded and dedicated as a Christian city by the Emperor Constantine) was under the constant threat of being overwhelmed.   What had to be the response of Christendom in the face of this grave crisis?   Contrary to the opinions of certain schools of thought, Christianity has never advocated pacifism as an essential part of “Christ’s Gospel of love, peace and forgiveness.” Rather, the Church has always advocated the concept of the “just war.” The conditions for when a just war may be fought are outlined in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:   “The strict conditions for legitimate defence by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:   – the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave and certain; – all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective; – there must be serious prospects of success; – the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated.   The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition. These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the ‘just war’ doctrine.   The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgement of those who have responsibility for the common good.” ¹   1 CCC # 2309.     The first great Christian victories against the tide of Islam were achieved at Constantinople (673-678 and 717-718), Covadonga in Spain (722) and Poitiers in France (732). The Christians fought these battles as defensive battles against an unjust aggressor. They had to fight, for Islam at the time was in no mood for negotiation and if left unopposed, the damage inflicted on the Christian world certainly would have been “lasting, grave and certain.”    Despite suffering military setbacks in the early eighth century, Islam retained its appetite for military conquest. Crete was conquered in 823, Sardinia in 827 and Corsica in 850. Repeated raids were also launched into southern Italy and the Rhone River region of France. After a struggle of 114 years, Sicily finally capitulated to the Moslems in 941. The conquerors now were the Abbasid Dynasty, who displaced the Umayyads in 750. Unlike the Umayyads, the Abbasids were less tolerant of non-Islamic beliefs. Previously, subjugated Christians and Jews were generally left alone to practice their beliefs, subject only to the payment of a special tax. Now, conversion to Islam was more insisted upon and commonplace.                                                  This change was most particularly evident after the defeat of the Byzantines at the battle of Manzikert in 1071. The Byzantine Emperor had raised a well-armed and highly disciplined force of over 60,000 men. Their opponents were over 100,000 Seljuk Turks, descendants of wild Mongolian horsemen from the Russian steppes. These nomads were easy converts to Islam as its looser morality and aggressive spirit coincided with their own. During the battle itself, the Christian army, exhausted by great heat, was outmanoeuvred and overwhelmed by repeated waves of swift horsemen firing showers of arrows. The Turkish warriors then moved in for the kill with their razor sharp curved swords.     The consequences of defeat at Manzikert for Christendom were far-reaching. The heartland of Anatolia, (now Turkey) once the region where St. Paul had planted the first seeds of Christianity, was now in the hands of a more fanatical strain of Islam. Constantinople was once again threatened, while pilgrimages to the Holy Land were now subject to an official policy of harassment.   Word of deaths and oppression would soon be reaching the ears of a concerned Europe. Pope St. Gregory VII first conceived the idea of a crusade to relieve the East in 1073, but he did not live to see it materialize. However, when Byzantine Emperor Alexius I Comnenus sent a plea for assistance to Pope Bl. Urban II in 1095, the West was now ready and willing to respond.   Western Christendom was already very familiar with and experienced in the crusading spirit. The Spanish Reconquista was nearing its four hundredth year and had achieved great successes under King Alfonso II in the ninth century and currently under the legendary Rodrigo del Bivar (El Cid).   However, few could have foreseen the overwhelming response to Pope Bl. Urban II’s speech delivered at the Council of Clermont on November 10, 1095, calling for a large expeditionary force to turn back the Moslem advance and liberate the Holy Land. In his speech the Pope promised a plenary indulgence  ––a full remission of temporal punishment due to sin––  to all those prepared to take up the cross and reclaim the Holy Sepulchre.   Pope Urban then quoted from the Gospel of St. Matthew: “every one who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or lands, for my name’s sake, will receive a hundredfold, and inherit eternal life.”   The crowd of thousands then exclaimed with one voice, “God wills it!”   From that day forward, tens of thousands of commonfolk, soldiers, knights, nobles and even kings took up the standard of crusade. Admittedly, not everyone’s motives were pure. Besides the spiritual values underpinning the crusade, some were lured by the prospect of territorial gain, rich treasure and financial opportunities, others by a simple thirst for adventure.   Nevertheless, in its ideal the crusade was a true expression of faith based on the sacrifice of one’s life for the sake of Christ.   Without a doubt, the Crusades for the Holy Land from the military point of view were ultimately a total failure due in large part to the self-interest, contention, infidelity and avarice that racked and divided the Christian forces. The various massacres after the fall of Jerusalem in 1099 and at Constantinople in 1204 are without excuse and still leave their scars on East-West relations. In addition, the unofficial People’s Crusade of 1096 and the Children’s Crusade were tragic follies that led to the deaths of tens of thousands of enthusiastic but misled individuals.   In his Easter Message of 2000, Pope John Paul II showed that the Church was willing to admit responsibility for “sins committed in the service of truth.”     But those who continually raise these failings in order to denigrate the whole crusading movement and the Church per se overextend themselves.   Excesses occur in any just war – for example, the bombing of Dresden by the Allies in February 1945. Nevertheless, the ideal of the crusade stands unchallenged; that is, wars fought in self-defence to recapture what was lost to an unjust aggressor whose actions over the previous 450 years had showed an intention to devour the whole of Christendom.   Critics of the Crusades are also strangely silent about Islamic militarism and expansion. One never hears outrage over the Moslem conquests of Christian regions and the large-scale kidnappings of Christian children, discriminatory taxation policies and the forced conversions of whole populations to Islam. Apologies are never demanded of the Moslems for invading Western Europe in the eighth century or Eastern Europe in the fifteenth century. This silence also extends to present-day persecutions of Christians in Algeria, Egypt, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and most particularly in the Sudan.   Nor does one hear from the critics anything about the positive aspects of the Crusades. The renewed communication with the East brought about a greater exchange of trade and culture; there was renewed contact with beleaguered Christians such as the Maronites in Lebanon; the West benefited from contact with Moslem mathematicians and philosophers versed in Aristotelian (Greek) thought; the rise and flourishing of the religious military orders of the Knights Hospitallers and the Knights Templars brought about a renewal of lofty ideals and noble fighting spirit; and, most importantly, the Crusades delayed the desired Islamic invasion of Eastern Europe for nearly 200 years.   Despite the defeat of the Crusades, the authentic crusading spirit was to live on for another four centuries. Continued Islamic expansionism necessitated further Christian efforts at self-defence, particularly after the conquest of Constantinople by Mohammed II in 1453.   Other Christian military campaigns possessing the Crusader spirit can also be mentioned, including the war against the Albigensians launched by Pope Innocent III in the thirteenth century and the final stages of the Spanish Reconquista under Queen Isabella in the late fifteenth century. All the above wars and battles were fought in ages when the character of European states were Christian, and so their armies were also. It is not illegitimate for a nation, Christian or otherwise, to possess an army and to employ it in self-defence.    The secularisation of the Western world in the past two centuries has only resulted in more frequent wars and greater atrocities. Modern attacks launched against the Crusades are generally one-sided affairs which fail to take into account the history of Islamic aggression against Christianity, and which are more motivated not out of love of Christ’s message of “peace, love and forgiveness” but by a broader anti-Catholic secularist agenda !    If Christendom existed today and it faced imperilment from an external enemy, the cry of “onward Christian soldiers!” would still be a noble call to answer ! "   Regards,   Celtic Pyr8 Hold on there Celtic!  I think you're preaching to the choir. Are you familiar with the wording Pope John Paul used in his apologies and his expressions of regret for these actions? Madrid mirrors this wording, and he would not be unfaithful to what the pope has said. I went back and italicized the specific language pertaining to the apologies for deeds committed by Catholics, or deeds committed in the name of the Catholic Church. No where have I stated or implied that the Catholic Church itself committed these acts. That's nonsensical. John Paul II was attacked repeatedly for not apologizing for what the Catholic Church did. He saw a difference between what individual members did, even when they mistakenly did it in the name of the Church. We know there are both sinners and saints in the Church. Also, if the Catholic Church, in your opinion shouldn't have to apologize for actions committed by its members, why are you expecting European groups to do the same? (I would think that we're held to a higher standard, being God-fearing people who believe in repentence and forgiveness.) Also, in your lumenverum quote, it mentions that one doesn't hear about the positive aspects of the Crusade. Well..... I just brought some to light........ and you obviously view me as a "critic." To me, it takes a very humble and compassionate mother or father (Mother Church or the Holy Father) to admit to and apologize for the sins of the children. From my point of view, this is what has happened. Finally, if you're interested, This Rock magazine, an excellent Catholic apologetics/catechetical/historical source has a article in the July 2008 issue on just this topic of the "positive" aspects of the Crusades. Other issues go even further and document Islamic atrocities going on worldwide today. The current issue  features the 800 martyrs of Otranto killed by the Muslims for refusing to convert to Islam, and even shows their skulls dug up from mass graves. We Catholics and our relics!   http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/maryann/8052/#c_58288 http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/maryann/8052/#c_58288 Hold on there Celtic!  I think you're preaching to the choir. Are you familiar with the wording Pope John Paul used in his apologies and his expressions of regret for these actions? Madrid mirrors this wording, and he would not be unfaithful to what the pope has said. I went back and italicized the specific language pertaining to the apologies for deeds committed by Catholics, or deeds committed in the name of the Catholic Church. No where have I stated or implied that the Catholic Church itself committed these acts. That's nonsensical. John Paul II was attacked repeatedly for not apologizing for what the Catholic Church did. He saw a difference between what individual members did, even when they mistakenly did it in the name of the Church. We know there are both sinners and saints in the Church. Also, if the Catholic Church, in your opinion shouldn't have to apologize for actions committed by its members, why are you expecting European groups to do the same? (I would think that we're held to a higher standard, being God-fearing people who believe in repentence and forgiveness.) Also, in your lumenverum quote, it mentions that one doesn't hear about the positive aspects of the Crusade. Well..... I just brought some to light........ and you obviously view me as a "critic." To me, it takes a very humble and compassionate mother or father (Mother Church or the Holy Father) to admit to and apologize for the sins of the children. From my point of view, this is what has happened. Finally, if you're interested, This Rock magazine, an excellent Catholic apologetics/catechetical/historical source has a article in the July 2008 issue on just this topic of the "positive" aspects of the Crusades. Other issues go even further and document Islamic atrocities going on worldwide today. The current issue  features the 800 martyrs of Otranto killed by the Muslims for refusing to convert to Islam, and even shows their skulls dug up from mass graves. We Catholics and our relics!   I saw fit to withdraw my previous comment. It is obvious I do not belong in this debate over books of fiction, put forth as "history". Religious nuts have been killing one another in the name of their "god" of choice since the beginning of time, and will continue to do so, until the truth is revealed to us all. I give no more validity to that concept than I do the Adam and Eve - apple tale, or the two by two, load up the ark, or the virgin birth or Easter science fiction stories. http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/maryann/8052/#c_58295 http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/maryann/8052/#c_58295 I saw fit to withdraw my previous comment. It is obvious I do not belong in this debate over books of fiction, put forth as "history". Religious nuts have been killing one another in the name of their "god" of choice since the beginning of time, and will continue to do so, until the truth is revealed to us all. I give no more validity to that concept than I do the Adam and Eve - apple tale, or the two by two, load up the ark, or the virgin birth or Easter science fiction stories. Pilot, as you wish. I do believe however, that the Iraqi War or the war in Afghanistan are not  "crusades," as unbelievers, even Muslims, are fighting in the battles on the American side. There is no call to defend Christians or Christianity in particular. As far as defending Western culture, I could see that- but it's not a Christian culture by far. You keep making erroneous assumptions about Christianity, particularly Catholicism. I don't think you're doing it on purpose, but treating all Christians like they're Southern fundamentalists. I don't put forth the Bible as a book of history or science, as it doesn't claim to be either. There are books, especially in the Old Testament which are more historical in nature. I do believe it gives us God's written word on faith and morals. As far as religious "nuts" killing each other, I think the irreligious nuts of the last century- Stalin, Pol Pot, even Castro who's still hanging around are examples of what godless atheism leads to- the greatest loss of respect for human life ever seen by mankind.   http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/maryann/8052/#c_58300 http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/maryann/8052/#c_58300 Pilot, as you wish. I do believe however, that the Iraqi War or the war in Afghanistan are not  "crusades," as unbelievers, even Muslims, are fighting in the battles on the American side. There is no call to defend Christians or Christianity in particular. As far as defending Western culture, I could see that- but it's not a Christian culture by far. You keep making erroneous assumptions about Christianity, particularly Catholicism. I don't think you're doing it on purpose, but treating all Christians like they're Southern fundamentalists. I don't put forth the Bible as a book of history or science, as it doesn't claim to be either. There are books, especially in the Old Testament which are more historical in nature. I do believe it gives us God's written word on faith and morals. As far as religious "nuts" killing each other, I think the irreligious nuts of the last century- Stalin, Pol Pot, even Castro who's still hanging around are examples of what godless atheism leads to- the greatest loss of respect for human life ever seen by mankind.   Didn't George W. say the war in Iraq was a crusade? Hmm, anyway I don't think anything justifies the bloody pillaging brought about by the Catholic church. Did you know that Constantinople,then the nerve center of Orthodox Christianity, was ransacked in 1204.....by Christian crusaders. For three days the latin soildery subjected the greatest city in Europe to an indescribable sack. They murdered,raped,looted and destroyed on a scale which even the ancient Vandals and Goths would have found unbelievable. The only reason people could feel justified in doing something so horrible is that they were brainwashed into believing they were doing it for  a higher good-their God! The same reason that the Muslims were convinced it was ok to do it.  A perfect example of how religion is a tool used by the rich and powerful to control the minds of people. http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/maryann/8052/#c_58359 http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/maryann/8052/#c_58359 Didn't George W. say the war in Iraq was a crusade? Hmm, anyway I don't think anything justifies the bloody pillaging brought about by the Catholic church. Did you know that Constantinople,then the nerve center of Orthodox Christianity, was ransacked in 1204.....by Christian crusaders. For three days the latin soildery subjected the greatest city in Europe to an indescribable sack. They murdered,raped,looted and destroyed on a scale which even the ancient Vandals and Goths would have found unbelievable. The only reason people could feel justified in doing something so horrible is that they were brainwashed into believing they were doing it for  a higher good-their God! The same reason that the Muslims were convinced it was ok to do it.  A perfect example of how religion is a tool used by the rich and powerful to control the minds of people. Hello Freethinker, Interesting comments. As far as George Bush saying it's a crusade, my neighbor says he has a crusade against lazy people collecting welfare, but that doesn't make it a religious call to arms. If you read my post??? I discussed Constantinople, and I also said twice, I believe, that what was done was inexcusable, which would come close to your comments that it's not justified. The Crusades could have been conducted without the killing of innocents and pillaging. True repentance and forgivness bring healing. Christians could still be moaning about the sack of Rome in the 5th century, or the attacks by the Vikings in the 9-11th centuries. Worse, we could still be trying to get revenge for the raping, the murdering, and the theivery. Some cultures out there are still exacting revenge for deed done centuries ago. You state: "The only reason people could feel justified in doing something so horrible is that they were brainwashed into believing they were doing it for  a higher good-their God! " And what God did Stalin or the athiest leaders of today's Communist China believe in to commit the horrendous crimes against humanity?  More than 43,000,000 million dead by Stalin alone doesn't sound like an atheist paradise. Or does it? http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/maryann/8052/#c_58392 http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/maryann/8052/#c_58392 Hello Freethinker, Interesting comments. As far as George Bush saying it's a crusade, my neighbor says he has a crusade against lazy people collecting welfare, but that doesn't make it a religious call to arms. If you read my post??? I discussed Constantinople, and I also said twice, I believe, that what was done was inexcusable, which would come close to your comments that it's not justified. The Crusades could have been conducted without the killing of innocents and pillaging. True repentance and forgivness bring healing. Christians could still be moaning about the sack of Rome in the 5th century, or the attacks by the Vikings in the 9-11th centuries. Worse, we could still be trying to get revenge for the raping, the murdering, and the theivery. Some cultures out there are still exacting revenge for deed done centuries ago. You state: "The only reason people could feel justified in doing something so horrible is that they were brainwashed into believing they were doing it for  a higher good-their God! " And what God did Stalin or the athiest leaders of today's Communist China believe in to commit the horrendous crimes against humanity?  More than 43,000,000 million dead by Stalin alone doesn't sound like an atheist paradise. Or does it?  MaryAnn, Bush said God told him to invade Iraq!!!! And he called it a crusade. I totally realize that everyone fighting in our military are not Christians. And by the way, Atheism is not a political postion like communism. Atheist can be capitalists,libertarians,socialists,communist, Republicans,Democrats,liberals and conservatives. Atheist is not a belief. It is the "lack of belief" in god(s). Lack of faith requires no faith. And Hitler considered himself a "good Catholic". And how many people did he put to death!!! I can't shake my fist towards something that does not exist! http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/maryann/8052/#c_58423 http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/maryann/8052/#c_58423  MaryAnn, Bush said God told him to invade Iraq!!!! And he called it a crusade. I totally realize that everyone fighting in our military are not Christians. And by the way, Atheism is not a political postion like communism. Atheist can be capitalists,libertarians,socialists,communist, Republicans,Democrats,liberals and conservatives. Atheist is not a belief. It is the "lack of belief" in god(s). Lack of faith requires no faith. And Hitler considered himself a "good Catholic". And how many people did he put to death!!! I can't shake my fist towards something that does not exist! Wait a minute.   People keep saying HItler was saying he was a good Catholic.   When Hitler went on his nut job way he DID NOT say he was a Catholic. He did  go to Catholic school but when he grew up he went away from that position and said so in his book. He moved in the way of Darwinism and proved it by wanting the great Aryian breed. Karl Marx calling himself a Capitiaist does not make him a Capitalist.   Hitler WAS always facisnated by the great things of power in the biblical teachings and  tried to pursue them JUST IN CASE but it really is amazing how people say Hitler was a Christian as he did his devil ways. Many people were raised and taught as younger people in the Christian faith but turned away later. It goes without saying that Hitler did turn away from Christian teachings. That makes you NOT A CHRISTIAN.  Saying that Hitler was a Christian is a bad arguement and it really is amazing the type of things people use to go against Christianity to justify their own doings. The Crusades were put under way because of the request from the Christians being set upon by the Muslims and they needed rescuing. No, I am a Baptist, Southern that is. Not the best Christian I will admit, but I can tell the difference between Hitler and Mother Terresa saying they are Christians. Like daddy said, listen to what they say but pay close attention to what they actually do. About like Obama saying he is a Conservative, or even a  Centrist.   http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/maryann/8052/#c_58431 http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/maryann/8052/#c_58431 Wait a minute.   People keep saying HItler was saying he was a good Catholic.   When Hitler went on his nut job way he DID NOT say he was a Catholic. He did  go to Catholic school but when he grew up he went away from that position and said so in his book. He moved in the way of Darwinism and proved it by wanting the great Aryian breed. Karl Marx calling himself a Capitiaist does not make him a Capitalist.   Hitler WAS always facisnated by the great things of power in the biblical teachings and  tried to pursue them JUST IN CASE but it really is amazing how people say Hitler was a Christian as he did his devil ways. Many people were raised and taught as younger people in the Christian faith but turned away later. It goes without saying that Hitler did turn away from Christian teachings. That makes you NOT A CHRISTIAN.  Saying that Hitler was a Christian is a bad arguement and it really is amazing the type of things people use to go against Christianity to justify their own doings. The Crusades were put under way because of the request from the Christians being set upon by the Muslims and they needed rescuing. No, I am a Baptist, Southern that is. Not the best Christian I will admit, but I can tell the difference between Hitler and Mother Terresa saying they are Christians. Like daddy said, listen to what they say but pay close attention to what they actually do. About like Obama saying he is a Conservative, or even a  Centrist.   FT, please demonstrate how George Bush rallied all the Christian leaders to send their young men and women to go and fight in the name of Christianity and defend the Christians in.... Bagdad. Which bishops, cardinals, and dioceses sacrificed to send their youths? Also, explain why so many atheists, agnostics, and Muslims went to fight there IF, as you say, this was a Crusade. Finally, please show where Catholic rule is being established in Bagdad and Afghanitstan- at least with the building of Catholic Churches by what appears to be the American Army, Crusaders that they are. Unless you can do this, it's ludicrous to keep insisting the Iraqi War is a Crusade. I know what an atheist is. Communism is officially atheistic, and under Stalin, anyone entering a Catholic Church was to be sent to a labor camp or shot dead. I have contacts in Vladivostock who say that in the 1930s villagers were shot dead  in their front yards in front of their families for just saying a rosary.  They still remember the last priest they had who was executed by Stalin's men. Now the state has given them back their Church, Most Holy Mother of God Catholic Church in Vladivostock. They have been rebuilding the culture there, after 60 years of godless atheism left a 90% divorce rate and a 75% alcoholism rate. I've heard you're "good" Catholic story of Hitler before.  Sorry, good Catholics don't imprison priests or kill them for teaching Church doctrine, even if it goes against their personal lifestyle and philosophy. Hitler once said, "Providence called me, a Catholic, to have done with Catholicism.  Only a Catholic can destroy Catholicism." Questions and Answers, by Pope Benedict XVI , p. 7. Yea, a 'good' Catholic. http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/maryann/8052/#c_58437 http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/maryann/8052/#c_58437 FT, please demonstrate how George Bush rallied all the Christian leaders to send their young men and women to go and fight in the name of Christianity and defend the Christians in.... Bagdad. Which bishops, cardinals, and dioceses sacrificed to send their youths? Also, explain why so many atheists, agnostics, and Muslims went to fight there IF, as you say, this was a Crusade. Finally, please show where Catholic rule is being established in Bagdad and Afghanitstan- at least with the building of Catholic Churches by what appears to be the American Army, Crusaders that they are. Unless you can do this, it's ludicrous to keep insisting the Iraqi War is a Crusade. I know what an atheist is. Communism is officially atheistic, and under Stalin, anyone entering a Catholic Church was to be sent to a labor camp or shot dead. I have contacts in Vladivostock who say that in the 1930s villagers were shot dead  in their front yards in front of their families for just saying a rosary.  They still remember the last priest they had who was executed by Stalin's men. Now the state has given them back their Church, Most Holy Mother of God Catholic Church in Vladivostock. They have been rebuilding the culture there, after 60 years of godless atheism left a 90% divorce rate and a 75% alcoholism rate. I've heard you're "good" Catholic story of Hitler before.  Sorry, good Catholics don't imprison priests or kill them for teaching Church doctrine, even if it goes against their personal lifestyle and philosophy. Hitler once said, "Providence called me, a Catholic, to have done with Catholicism.  Only a Catholic can destroy Catholicism." Questions and Answers, by Pope Benedict XVI , p. 7. Yea, a 'good' Catholic. Hello Sandwichh, great post full of common sense with history added to fill it out.  And it doesn't hurt that you agree with me!  haha! Finally someone who sees the way I do on this! However, I do enjoy seeing the opposing points of view. Makes me think and exercise the brain a bit.   http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/maryann/8052/#c_58441 http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/maryann/8052/#c_58441 Hello Sandwichh, great post full of common sense with history added to fill it out.  And it doesn't hurt that you agree with me!  haha! Finally someone who sees the way I do on this! However, I do enjoy seeing the opposing points of view. Makes me think and exercise the brain a bit.   Well for one thing saying that it's not a crusade because other people besides christians volunteer to go into the army is not quite true in my opinion. People of different beliefs can join together to fight what they percieve as a greater evil.  Here is an interesting video on the Crusades.   http://youtube.com/watch?=llToMMeOLnc   If that link only takes you to youtube just type in A Clear View of the Crusades. http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/maryann/8052/#c_58555 http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/maryann/8052/#c_58555 Well for one thing saying that it's not a crusade because other people besides christians volunteer to go into the army is not quite true in my opinion. People of different beliefs can join together to fight what they percieve as a greater evil.  Here is an interesting video on the Crusades.   http://youtube.com/watch?=llToMMeOLnc   If that link only takes you to youtube just type in A Clear View of the Crusades. Can you demonstrate where Muslims and athiests have banded together with Christians before to defeat other Muslims to install a Christian presence? Sure people with different beliefs can band together- but it don't make it a CRUSADE.  Maybe some atheists, if they were given a good deal- but Muslims joining Christians to defeat fellow Muslims..... That's a stretch even George Bush couldn't pull off. http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/maryann/8052/#c_58606 http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/maryann/8052/#c_58606 Can you demonstrate where Muslims and athiests have banded together with Christians before to defeat other Muslims to install a Christian presence? Sure people with different beliefs can band together- but it don't make it a CRUSADE.  Maybe some atheists, if they were given a good deal- but Muslims joining Christians to defeat fellow Muslims..... That's a stretch even George Bush couldn't pull off. maryann, are you saying that there are no muslims in the united states military? And really saying it is a crusade means nothing compared to George W. saying God told him to invade Iraq!!! http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/maryann/8052/#c_58709 http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/maryann/8052/#c_58709 maryann, are you saying that there are no muslims in the united states military? And really saying it is a crusade means nothing compared to George W. saying God told him to invade Iraq!!! Hello FT, Actually, I'm saying there ARE Muslims in the U.S. military, and they would be shocked, shocked, I say, to hear you claim that they are going on a Crusade against a Muslim country. Since when do you hang on George Bush's every word? :-} http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/maryann/8052/#c_59010 http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/maryann/8052/#c_59010 Hello FT, Actually, I'm saying there ARE Muslims in the U.S. military, and they would be shocked, shocked, I say, to hear you claim that they are going on a Crusade against a Muslim country. Since when do you hang on George Bush's every word? :-} He said it. I didn't say I agreed with him. And I don't. And he did say God told him to invade Iraq. http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/maryann/8052/#c_59090 http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/maryann/8052/#c_59090 He said it. I didn't say I agreed with him. And I don't. And he did say God told him to invade Iraq. I believe you that he said it was a Crusade, and as far as "God" telling GW to invade Iraq, I'l take your word for it. Still doesn't make it a Crusade.  That doesn't mean that He did tell GW anything about invading.   How can you have a Crusade with a secular armed forces?  http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/maryann/8052/#c_59120 http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/maryann/8052/#c_59120 I believe you that he said it was a Crusade, and as far as "God" telling GW to invade Iraq, I'l take your word for it. Still doesn't make it a Crusade.  That doesn't mean that He did tell GW anything about invading.   How can you have a Crusade with a secular armed forces?  I am sure he didn't tell Bush anything!!!! http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/maryann/8052/#c_59261 http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/maryann/8052/#c_59261 I am sure he didn't tell Bush anything!!!! MARYANN:  As much as we used to lock horns, I really admire the way your post showed both sides of the crusades. There may have been a little GOOD in the crusades and way too much of the BAD & UGLY.  FREETHINKER has a few points I agree with. I just hope he or she finds real peace. I might like to have him/her on my side in a fracas, there doesn't seem to be  any backing down without a fight. http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/maryann/8052/#c_59461 http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/maryann/8052/#c_59461 MARYANN:  As much as we used to lock horns, I really admire the way your post showed both sides of the crusades. There may have been a little GOOD in the crusades and way too much of the BAD & UGLY.  FREETHINKER has a few points I agree with. I just hope he or she finds real peace. I might like to have him/her on my side in a fracas, there doesn't seem to be  any backing down without a fight. Hello Rusty, Yep, there's a lot of bad and ugly, and too little good. But I do believe that you and I could be wearing turbans right now if it weren't for those battles. The Siege of Vienna was one key fight that kept the Muslims from storming the center of Europe. Anyway, have a great weekend. http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/maryann/8052/#c_59484 http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/maryann/8052/#c_59484 Hello Rusty, Yep, there's a lot of bad and ugly, and too little good. But I do believe that you and I could be wearing turbans right now if it weren't for those battles. The Siege of Vienna was one key fight that kept the Muslims from storming the center of Europe. Anyway, have a great weekend. Hello FT, Well we agree on your final point, which makes it even less likely to call the Iraqi War a "Crusade." http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/maryann/8052/#c_59485 http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/maryann/8052/#c_59485 Hello FT, Well we agree on your final point, which makes it even less likely to call the Iraqi War a "Crusade."