Posted on 04/29/2005 1:00:01 PM PDT by missyme
Which is why some people take issue with the values represented in art.
Since this thread has been primarily about the Crusades and the moral issues therein with regards to various faiths what I said was not the 'playing of a card' but a related addition to an ongoing discussion.
The way to respond is to create your own Art. Why be surprised that somebody else's reflects their values? It's always been that way. And Postmodernism has produced terrific American work (Pynchon, Delillo...Tarantino)
"a lot of things happened back then that Christians today would think barbaric..."Good point,and let's not forget that a lot of the Middle East(imho)is still in that barbaric state.
"a lot of things happened back then that Christians today would think barbaric..."Good point,and let's not forget that a lot of the Middle East(imho)is still(culturaly)in that barbaric state thanks to Islam.
Well, it appears to have been scanned in ("ivho"... for "who"). No mention of the actual author. (Are we to assume the poster wrote this? Not likely considering diction and style).
The Muslims are offended because Bush used the word Crusade? Funny I hear the word Jihad coming out of Muslim countries almost daily.
Thankyou for the clarrification.
It was sourced later in this thread.
I love Ermey!!
Thank You!
"Muslims are offended because Bush used the word Crusade?"Maybe this whole thing in the ME is(in a way)a continuation of the Crusades.Jihad is directed against the West,and as far as i'm concerned that includes Christianity and Judaism."The more things change,the more they remain the same"I can't recall who wrote that,but i think it's appropriate.
I've never seen a newspaper article do it justice.
I wasn't thinking of just Western Europe.
A schism developed a few years before the first crusade: the church was divided between West and East, between Rome and Constantinople.
However I can't find where I read about Rome's desire to control the Holy Land to demonstrate that Rome's was the true religion, as being a cause of the Crusade.
Perhaps I was wrong, or perhaps I got the cause of the Crusades mixed up with some other conflict.
I don't think rapaciousness had as much to do with being Christian as it had with being Norman and landless.
You may have been right, I just had never really come across that as a motivation.
Of course they have.
a certain Volkmar, of whose origins we know nothing
Indeed. Volkmar was neither authorized nor sent by the Christian community and represented Christianity in no way. Volkmar represented Volkmar.
Ignoring the special orders of the emperor Henry, [Emich] persuaded his followers to begin their Crusade on 3 May with an attack on the Jewish community at Spier
Again, Emich was not authorized by the Church. The emperor, who represented Christians as a political community, had forbidden his crimes - and Emich disobeyed.
the [local] bishop intervened and opened his palace to jewish refugees. But Emich and the angry crowds with him forced the gates and broke into the sanctuary. There, despite the bishop's protests, they slaughtered all his guests, to the number of about 500
In other words, the official representative of the Christian community did his utmost to defend the Jews from these barbarians.
Basically you are trying to pin these atrocities on "Christianity" when they were perpetrated by people who rejected the commands of the prince to whom, as Christians, they owed their obedience and who rejected the teaching of their bishop who was the local leader of the Christian Church.
Blaming this tuff on Christianity is like blaming the OKC bombing on America.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.