Just saw Kingdom of Heaven, got me thinking about Christians vs. Muslims

[footballhenry]

I just saw the movie last night, and I have been thinking quite at length about the Crusades as compared to our current struggle. Now I don't know a whole lot about the Crusades, the way I understand it is that Christians went on a 'crusade' through the middle east, europe,etc. to convery muslims to christianity, killing thousands/millions in the process. Now from what I have read, the muslims were not just innocents, they also slaughtered thousands. It really gets me thinking about the travesties of religion. I do believe that religion is a force for good in this world, but sometimes evil men abuse that institution. Saying that it is God's will to murder those that do not believe just seems irrational and insane to me. There was a line in the movie where a Christian says "Killing the infidels is our path to heaven." Now I don't know how valid a statement that is in historical context but is today's extreme muslims (extreme cuz there not all like Osama) merely reflecting the Christians from far back in the past?? I don't know, very interesting though...

[bleedbng86]

wow, now you have me thinking too.... good post...

btw, how was the movie?

[Prosperity]

I have learned a few things about religion and religious people since I have become an atheist.

1. Every Religion is probably wrong and therefore I would never tell an individual to have one.

2. Religion is not neccessarily a bad thing for the world, it can help control ignorant masses from doing something even worse than they would otherwise do.

I have concluded to believe #2 only recently. A large portion of people have the need to be devoted to something. Religion will allow people to devote themselves to something higher. When some people don't have religion to base their life on they will instead have loyalty to their race, or country, or language group or something just as stupid. Religion will allow a large number of people to be devoted to something non existant so it will be harder than usual to get them riled up compared to say something like fascism. Sometimes we are lucky enough to have religions scare people into becoming moral when they otherwise won't be. The fear of hell can be a surprisingly powerful thing to people that believe in it. Furthermore, religion can give some people a brace if they can't bare the idea that there isn't anything more than life.

In those instances religion can help the overall condition of the world, but unfortunately many more times religion is misused, one of the best example being the Crusades/Jihads of the old world and the fundementalist religious people of today.

[jpillian]

Better question, footballhenry -- how was the movie?

[chomerics]

Interesting observation about the crusades, but most modern schools barely touch on the subject of the persecution of muslims during this time period. I think it is a very real history, and one in which the RCC was using their dogma to commit genocide in the name of god. One of the most abhorent quotes ever to come out of the presidents mouth was when he aompared the war againt terrorists to the holy crusades. It was so wrong on so many different levels, and it made me utterly sick to my stomach.

This is not ignoring the muslim movement, nor taking light at how their religion has been used for perverse means as well, you only need look at the Taliban and Bin Laden for the same to be true for their side. It is but another example of how religion has been used by political powers to brainwash a civilization into thinking thier dogma is right, and killing infadels, or zionists is correct under their version of religion. This is one of the reasons I am an athesist.

[Ghost of]

Originally posted by chomerics

Interesting observation about the crusades, but most modern schools barely touch on the subject of the persecution of muslims during this time period. I think it is a very real history, and one in which the RCC was using their dogma to commit genocide in the name of god. One of the most abhorent quotes ever to come out of the presidents mouth was when he aompared the war againt terrorists to the holy crusades. It was so wrong on so many different levels, and it made me utterly sick to my stomach.

Firstly, there was no comparsion to the Crusades, Chom. You must have missed that dictionary entry where crusade means more than just the historical events. I guess Batman sickens you, being the Caped Crusader and all. WW II was called the Great Crusade, if I'm not mistaken as well. Let's all blow our brains out in disgust because we decide the meaning of a word in contradiction of its actual contextual meaning!

Most schools barely touch on the subject of dhimmitude and the annihilation of Christianity in the Middle East or Islamic conquest, other than to soft-pedal the barbarity of the culture from which it sprang. Hell, even the Time Frame books I have from Time Life refer to the sense of ethnocentrism/racism at the heart of Arab culture, even before the advent of Islam (I think it's why we see that non-Arab Muslim cultures are typically a bit more to our liking so long as they have not been seeded with salafism) This is expressed in anti-black passages as well, and confirmed by the treatment of blacks of all kinds since the inception of the religion(Sudan being a modern example)

Much evil was done during the Crusades, but it would behoove us to learn the ACTUAL history(please don't look at a PC movie as complete fact)

The Crusades were launched to free the Holy Land and what had been Christian land from "Saracen" hands. Despite the attempt by anti-Christian scholars to portray medieval Islam as some sort of Golden Age empire of tolerance, the facts are very different. The Crusades were a REACTION to centuries of Islamic expansion.

I love how the only bad guy in these histories is the Christian, when it was Christian DEFENSE of Europe (for religious and cultural reasosn) that preserved the soil from which all the ideas that you hold dear sprang.

Have you not heard of the Battle of Poitiers(also called Battle of Tours?) Lepanto? Vienna? The fall of Constantinople? El Cid? Who do you think those people were fighting? That was DEFENSE, not attack. It took centuries for the Spanish to eject the Moors. How did the Moors end up there, I wonder? Invitation? Was El Cid genocidal?

Another thing is that we must take into account the fact that not all sources we ASSUME to be biased towards a participant are, in fact, biased towards that participant/group. For instance, there are different accounts of some New World events that are generally believed to have been exaggerated or fictionalized for the author's own purpose(on all sides.) Obviously, this happens with history, but I'm also referring to accounts of the Crusades.

Chom, I understand your feelings towards religion, but you're pointing the finger in the wrong direction and accusing the RCC of an attempt at genocide, when that WAS NOT THE PURPOSE at all. Whether we think the attempt futile or stupid or wasteful, these were attempts to free what had been the center of Christian Civilization(Constantinople, the middle east, etc.)

That isn't to say there is a "good guy" in such things. These were dark times for all of humanity. One can only point to noble individuals as exemplars for all of us, while the imperfect many labor with the burdens of their sin and their times to mold what they hope is a better future.

[Metalhead]

Great post Ghost. Yeah people forget how far the muslim religion reached...Morocco, Libya, Spain, throughout the Mediterranean. But that's religion, get more converts, "if you're not on my side, you're in my way".

[Ghost of]

Originally posted by footballhenry

I just saw the movie last night, and I have been thinking quite at length about the Crusades as compared to our current struggle. Now I don't know a whole lot about the Crusades, the way I understand it is that Christians went on a 'crusade' through the middle east, europe,etc. to convery muslims to christianity, killing thousands/millions in the process. Now from what I have read, the muslims were not just innocents, they also slaughtered thousands. It really gets me thinking about the travesties of religion. I do believe that religion is a force for good in this world, but sometimes evil men abuse that institution. Saying that it is God's will to murder those that do not believe just seems irrational and insane to me. There was a line in the movie where a Christian says "Killing the infidels is our path to heaven." Now I don't know how valid a statement that is in historical context but is today's extreme muslims (extreme cuz there not all like Osama) merely reflecting the Christians from far back in the past?? I don't know, very interesting though...

The problem with historic fiction is that many people will take film versions of fiction and think it true. This is why the film is getting heavy criticism from CREDIBLE and RESPECTED scholars. It's not the portrayal of evil on both sides that is issue, but the fast and loose with the facts attitude.

And I don't mean this as an insult, but you evince very little understanding of the Crusades or that time in history, from a larger perspective. My post addresses most of that.

As for your takes on religion and it's abiity to be used for evil---I'd say ANY ideology(theological or no) can be or IS evil.

I wonder why people like Chom(and I'm agnostic but I recognize that all rigid dogma or ideology can lead to evil acts) only look at religion, when there were worldwide eschatological religions of Nazism and Communism(even more popular) that annihilated tens of millions. The death toll from secular territorial/ethnic/resource/prestige/ideological wars is FAR greater than those of religion.

I just passed by a rally last Sunday, where the flags of the old Soviet Union and the UN were being flown. Large flags, too, not some nutter on the side. Now, this IS Seattle, but I look at those kooks the same way I'd look at the "End is Nigh" sandwich board sidewalk preacher. They are both religious and fanatical in mindset. Secular socialism/communism/fascism is no less faith-based(in the end) than Christianity.

And there are no Aquinases or Pope Urbans to point to as great men in those 'religions.'

[kameuh]

Good post Ghost. I'd also like to mention the Crusades consisted of 3 fronts. The east, in an attempt to recapture Jerusalem, the west in an effort to thwart the muslim advance into Spain, and the North, against pagan worshipers.

The first crusade was a success, and Jerusalem was recaptured. The Christians managed to hold it for 88 years before Saladin expelled them.

Spain (the muslim held portion was called Andalucia) continued to fight Muslims sporatically, untill finally finishing the Reconquista in 1492.

As for holy war, the muslim concept of Jihad was born out of the crusades. Both sides commited atrocities, and for the majority of the Crusades, petty bickering caused christian army after army to disentegrate and be destroyed.

The Crusades A Short History by Jonathan Smith is recommended for anyone that wants a basic understanding of the Crusades.

[Ghost of]

Originally posted by kameuh

Good post Ghost. I'd also like to mention the Crusades consisted of 3 fronts. The east, in an attempt to recapture Jerusalem, the west in an effort to thwart the muslim advance into Spain, and the North, against pagan worshipers.

The first crusade was a success, and Jerusalem was recaptured. The Christians managed to hold it for 88 years before Saladin expelled them.

Spain (the muslim held portion was called Andalucia) continued to fight Muslims sporatically, untill finally finishing the Reconquista in 1492.

As for holy war, the muslim concept of Jihad was born out of the crusades. Both sides commited atrocities, and for the majority of the Crusades, petty bickering caused christian army after army to disentegrate and be destroyed.

The Crusades A Short History by Jonathan Smith is recommended for anyone that wants a basic understanding of the Crusades.

Kam, wait, did you mean that the Crusade concept was born from jihad?

because Jihad is used in the Koran and Hadith and expressed in conquest throughout early Muslim history prior to the Crusades.

or do you mean the concept of the "house of War" and the "House of Peace" and that all previously Muslim lands must be returned to Islamic control?

[TD_washingtonredskins]

There is some good convo in this thread. I feel as though I'm learning a lot of new information...not surprising considering my prior knowledge of the Crusades comes from high school history classes and "Robin Hood, Prince of Thieves" with Kevin Costner.

BTW, happy birthday kameuh.

[kameuh]

The concept of Jihad became prominant, as a weapon of propaganda. Nur ad-Din, a muslim warlord, put the concept to the forefront. His reasons were to reconquer the coastlands of modern day isreal and to unite the muslim world in response to the Crusades. Jihad already existed, yes, but hadn't quite matured. The writings and teachings of Nur ad-Din led to a rise in islamic fundamentalism. Sorry for my earlier attempt. I guess a more modern expression of Jihad was born out of the crusades, would have been a better statement

[Hooper]

So was the movie any good or what?

[Ghost of]

Thanks for clarifying, kameuh.

happy b-day from me to you also. For some reason the cake did't show up before next to your name.

[kameuh]

Thanks TD and Ghost for the BD wishes Not sure if the movie is any good or not, but going to watch it tonight and will post in here, based not on history, but on if it was a good flick. Gotta kill time until the 19th, for some birth of Vader action.

[BayouBrave86]

I saw the movie yesterday. Better than Troy and not as good as Gladiator is a way I can shortly put it. Still a little uneasy about having Orlando Bloom being the bravest knight in the campaign, but oh well he didn't do a job that was laughable. A few of his speeches were a bit corny but that is the only gripe I have with the movie. Other than that the movie was pretty good. Excellent fighting scenes, good use of dialogue, apart from the corny speeches from Orlando, great scenery, really good acting especially from the guy who played Saladin. Oh, actually another gripe I have with the movie is that they made the Knights templar look like minions of Satan, which I had a problem with. They were still badass though haha and you love to hate their leader. I'd give it a 7 outta 10.

[Ghost of]

There is a laughable and completely fictional Brotherhood of Muslims, Jews and Christians which is supposed to act as the o

opposing force against the Templar.

The reason the Knights Templar had to be made to look as evil as possible was to make sure that Christians were not perceived in too positive a light in a movie about the Crusades.

It was the Knights templar who would be accused of heresy and whose order would be ruined due to the jealousy of secular rulers.

It's ironic that the movie portrays what was probably the more civilized element of the Crusaders as evil.

[chomerics]

Originally posted by Ghost of Nibbs McPimpin

Much evil was done during the Crusades, but it would behoove us to learn the ACTUAL history(please don't look at a PC movie as complete fact)

The Crusades were launched to free the Holy Land and what had been Christian land from "Saracen" hands. Despite the attempt by anti-Christian scholars to portray medieval Islam as some sort of Golden Age empire of tolerance, the facts are very different. The Crusades were a REACTION to centuries of Islamic expansion.

I love how the only bad guy in these histories is the Christian, when it was Christian DEFENSE of Europe (for religious and cultural reasosn) that preserved the soil from which all the ideas that you hold dear sprang.

Have you not heard of the Battle of Poitiers(also called Battle of Tours?) Lepanto? Vienna? The fall of Constantinople? El Cid? Who do you think those people were fighting? That was DEFENSE, not attack. It took centuries for the Spanish to eject the Moors. How did the Moors end up there, I wonder? Invitation? Was El Cid genocidal?

Another thing is that we must take into account the fact that not all sources we ASSUME to be biased towards a participant are, in fact, biased towards that participant/group. For instance, there are different accounts of some New World events that are generally believed to have been exaggerated or fictionalized for the author's own purpose(on all sides.) Obviously, this happens with history, but I'm also referring to accounts of the Crusades.

Chom, I understand your feelings towards religion, but you're pointing the finger in the wrong direction and accusing the RCC of an attempt at genocide, when that WAS NOT THE PURPOSE at all. Whether we think the attempt futile or stupid or wasteful, these were attempts to free what had been the center of Christian Civilization(Constantinople, the middle east, etc.)

That isn't to say there is a "good guy" in such things. These were dark times for all of humanity. One can only point to noble individuals as exemplars for all of us, while the imperfect many labor with the burdens of their sin and their times to mold what they hope is a better future.

Ghost, sometimes I think you disagree witn me simply to argue. You come out and say that I am wrong, then use half of your post to support my POV. Read my last paragraph, and I mentioned that Muslims were not the golden child either, and there is just as radical branch of Muslim theology as there is in Christian dogma.

My point was that the "Holy" crusades were glossed over in every world history class I ever took. It was an act of genocide committed on Muslims, whether it was meant as defense of Constantinople or not. The Muslims were not a religion above reproach either, as it went both ways, I was simply stating that the brutality and genocide committed by the RCC was completely ignored in my teachings of history. It was not until after I graduated and started reading different accounts and viewpoints of world history that I came to understand the other side of this dark time in history.

[chomerics]

Originally posted by Ghost of Nibbs McPimpin

I wonder why people like Chom(and I'm agnostic but I recognize that all rigid dogma or ideology can lead to evil acts) only look at religion, when there were worldwide eschatological religions of Nazism and Communism(even more popular) that annihilated tens of millions. The death toll from secular territorial/ethnic/resource/prestige/ideological wars is FAR greater than those of religion.

Ghost, I don't "ONLY" look toward religion as evil, and completely ignore other segments which were just as evil. The one reason I focus more on religion is because it is still around. If there were Nazis everywhere, I would be proclaiming the brutality and hatred of the Nazi party is a travesty to humanity, but since the Nazi movement is all but dead, there is no reason to go there. The same for communism, and the evils of dictators.

Religion is the topic de-jur simply because it comes up so much in the threads. I hold no more comtempt against the RCC then the Nazis, I think they are equally as bad

While I do think religion has done a lot for the world, charity being a great deed to society they fail in other areas. The amount of death, tragedy, destruction, supression and blatent anti-catholic behavior they've committed over the past 1700 years makes them a bad guy in my book.

[Mr. S]

Though I dont see any side as being 'good' during the Crusades, I will admit that all we were taught about the Crusades in high school was "Christians were called to fight, they did", and did not portray muslims that well.

The battles to defend agains the muslims are one thing though, they happened, and were necessary to happen from a European perspective. However, the Crusades happened much later, and I am not fully sure of the state of Jerusalem before the first crusade, so I cannot comment on whether it was justified or not.

For a movie, I thought it was awesome. I just saw it. I nomally hate Orlando Bloom, but I thought he did a really good job in this one, did not act as much of a weakling as he normally would I felt. My one gripe though is I wonder if Saladin had all those siege towers and trebuchets, they were not the easiest of things to come by.

The only thing I did find odd was the portrayal of the Templars. They portrayed the other Christians as wanting to fight, but being influenced by the Templars. I knew they ended due to their own greed/corruption, but never realized how significant their power became as rulers and kings.

[BayouBrave86]

Sure there was dissention among the Crusaders as it was the downfall of the following crusades, but I highly doubt the Knights Templar were as evil as they were portrayed to be.

[Guest Gichin13]

Originally posted by Ghost of Nibbs McPimpin

Have you not heard of the Battle of Poitiers(also called Battle of Tours?) Lepanto? Vienna? The fall of Constantinople? El Cid? Who do you think those people were fighting? That was DEFENSE, not attack. It took centuries for the Spanish to eject the Moors. How did the Moors end up there, I wonder? Invitation? Was El Cid genocidal?

Whenever I think of that period of history, I get stuck with a picture of Dennis Hopper in a trailer giving a ration to Christopher Walken in True Romance ...

"You know, I am kind of a student of history ... the Moors conquered Sicily."

[SnyderShrugged]

Originally posted by Gichin13

Whenever I think of that period of history, I get stuck with a picture of Dennis Hopper in a trailer giving a ration to Christopher Walken in True Romance ...

"You know, I am kind of a student of history ... the Moors conquered Sicily."

One of the best scenes I have ever seen.

[TheDoyler23]

The movie seems to have everything.

Standard summer movie epic-ness.

Violence for the guys.

A woman-like lead actor for the ladies. (Orlando Bloom is a man, right?)

Religious undertones for the Biblically inclined.

[ntotoro]

Originally posted by Gichin13

Whenever I think of that period of history, I get stuck with a picture of Dennis Hopper in a trailer giving a ration to Christopher Walken in True Romance ...

"You know, I am kind of a student of history ... the Moors conquered Sicily."

Couple things that scene fails to mention, though...

1) Everyone had their turn in Sicily. Jews, Arabs, Normans, etcetera.

2) The Moors (Muslims) weren't necessarily black. The Carthaginians weren't black in the sense that we view Caucasian versus Negroid DNA. Matter of fact, Caucasian Sicilians have no Negroid DNA at all. I'll see if I can find the link, but it's bookmarked at work. There was a study done to see just how factual that old wive's tale was. There were even cases of fish-belly white Irishmen and Scotts had more Negroid DNA than swarthy, olive-complected Sicilians...

Nick