If the CRUSADERS were fighting the INVADING MUSLIMS, why raise "crusades" as a bad event?
357719
yes education is a rare commodity especially in the US where in the final year of high school you guys are at the same level as we are in Australia when we are 15... then you go to junior college to learn what we learn in high school and this is the country that is the superpower of the world???  oh don't worry I'm not shocked I got too much education and life experience... ha ha ha
509993
God raped Mary?\nThat is an interesting way to interpret the historical event.\n\nRape is a serious charge and will fire up Christians everywhere!\n\nI am a Christian and find your statement painful. I never considered that God did anything wrong, but your opinion will make me think.
682234
The "Muslims" you speak of, are a vast MINORITY of their religion.  The fact of the matter is, is that 80% (maybe even more) of Islamic believers are peace loving.  \n\nKeep in mind as well, that Christians have also killed people because 'God told them to'.  Have you ever heard of the Crusades?
597676
Good point. The Crusades took place because the Roman Catholic Church forbid the common man from having the Bible, locked it up behind gates and said, "Thus and thus is what God says." From this we got inquisitions, crusades, indulgences and the like.\n\nWhen the reformation translated the Bible into German and English, the average person could stand up to the evil popery and say "No!" for the Bible says thus and thus. Then the killing and fleecing soon stopped.\n___________________________\n\nMaster of Goats - Not true, so watch who you call dim-wit. Members of a synagogue would take turns reading the Torah. It was also part of the writ of becoming a man at 13 to read and comment on the scriptures.
544599
Very much so : they were to secure the holy land and the route to Jerusalem for Christian pilgrims.          America's modern crusade is rather more to secure Palestine for the Jews.
861832
That is correct.  My grandfather actually fought in the crusades during the middle ages.  He told me all about it before he died in 1996
909533
Christianity has a long history of converting people "by the sword".  Just because they've decided in recent years that talking people to death is a better way to convert them doesn't mean that they don't have a long and violent history.  As for users of this line seeming content with accepting that any and all Muslims are terrorists, it's been my observation that most of the people who use this line are incredibly narrow-minded and blind to anything beyond what they believe, so are you really surprised that they'd rather stereotype all Muslims than hear an honest depiction of another religion?
322596
There were a variety of purposes.  For the people who actually went on them they believed among other things that they would have their souls cleansed and their sins for given (though the loot was a nice bonus).  For the Royalty of Europe it was a chance to curry favor with the Vatican by providing soldiers.  The Vatican had a variety of reasons both political and eccumenical for wanting to secure the Holy Land.  For the younger sons of the Nobility (ones who did not stand to inherit land) it gave them a chnce to make a name and claim land for themselves.
763208
Certainly not, Muslims had been at war with others and conquered lands at certain periods, and there were times when Muslims lived in peace with non Muslims. However, whenever Muslims were ruled by non Muslims they became aggressive. they could not tolerate situations that Muslims are the subjects of non Muslims, since Islam claims it's the dominant faith, and Muslims should be seen as dominant
677475
The Islamic "conquest" of Palestine took place under the early Caliphate at  the battle of Ajnadia in 634.  The first Crusade takes place from 1097-1099 in response to the call of Pope Urban II in 1095 for a Crusade to help the Byzantine Empire against the Turks ( http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/urban2-fulcher.html ) who had, at the battle of Manzikert in 1071, destroyed the Byzantine army. Initially all the Crusaders took an oath of loyalty to the Emperor Alexius Comnenus.  In no sense were the Crusades an attempt to, "stop Islamic invasion,"  there was none.  The Islamic invasion, in the sense of a strategically directed conquest of the world for Islam took place under the early Caliphates (631-750.) It was "stopped" by the battles of Tours in 732 in France ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tours ) and the siege of Constantinople 717-718 ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Arab_siege_of_Constantinople ) From the late 700s on the Islamic world splits up into the eastern (Baghdad) and western (Cordoba) Caliphates, between Sunni and Shia.  By 1000 the Turks had taken over the Baghdad Caliphate, Africa was ruled by the Shia/IsmailI Fatimid Dynasty ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatimid ) and in Spain the "reconquest" had begun.  The Islamic world was divided which is what made the initial success of the Crusades possible.  However, like a more contemporary effort of force in mid-East politics, the Crusaders had no actual plan, the initial idea of the pope of helping "shore up" the Byzantine empire and "reunite' Christendom, turned into a march of conquest and destruction on Jerusalem.  The Crusaders never had enough men to hold the 'holy land," nor any effective plan of governance and control (again like a more modern example, the leaders ended up believing their own propaganda and thought the accomplishment of the "mission" i.e. liberating Jerusalem would be its own solution.)  All the subsequent responses from the establishment of a Kingdom of Jerusalem in 1100 ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kings_of_Jerusalem ) to the establishment of the Templars ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knights_Templar ) were "stop-gap" measures in response to a shortage of manpower and need to stop "local insurrections." When you consider that by the time of Saladin's reconquest of Jerusalem in 1187 and the subsequent failure of the Third Crusade under Richard the Lion-heart ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Crusade ) that the "united" Crusaders were unable and unwilling to restore the Kingdom of Jerusalem, you can get a sense of just how "unconcerned" Europe was over an "Islamic" invasion in the 11th or 12th centuries.  When in 1208 Innocent III declares the next crusade, not against any Islamic power, but against the rival Cathar church in southern France ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albigensian_Crusade ) then you get a picture of what all of the Crusades from the First to the Eighth were about, the attempt of the Roman papacy to unite the Christian world and assert it's primacy over that world. ( http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04543c.htm )  Any idea of "stopping" a non-existent Islamic "invasion" (especially when in 1258 the Mongols sack Baghdad, destroy the eastern Islamic world and end the Caliphate,) was strictly secondary and for propaganda use.\nNow if wanted to talk about a revived Islamic "invasion" of Europe under the Ottoman empire: i.e. the conquest of Constantinople 1453, the first 1529 and second 1683 sieges of Vienna, the battle of Lepanto 1571 and the response of early modern states in Europe, and especially the Hapsburg monarchies of Spain and Austria , as an attempt to stop a conquest, you might have a historical basis, but the crusades were an exercise in propaganda and politics not an attempt to stave of imminent conquest.
9740
Originally, they were Roman Catholic endeavors to recapture the Holy Land from the Muslims, but some were directed against other Europeans, such as the Fourth Crusade against Constantinople, the Albigensian Crusade against the Cathars of southern France and the Northern Crusades.
1126826
I don't think you are a middle eastern or a muslim when I read your questions.  The first thought that came into my mind was a very heavy-handed and one-sided bias.  I am glad that you are doing the necessary research to justify and re-affirm your convictions, but I somehow get the feeling that you are specifically researching to judge and condemn.  Don't get me wrong, I get what you are trying to do, I just can't seem to shake the impression of rabid.\n\nI am anti-war too, and I grew up amongst muslims; some have been my best friends and some my worst religious and cultural enemies, but I still seek out, talk to, and most importantly, listen to both sides of the conflict.\n\nAcknowledging the bad is good, but acknowledging the good is also crucial, although the most important is learning from your mistakes and rectifying it (and trying not to crow in the process).\n\nThat was a general statement, it was not directed at you specifically, if you are so inclined to take offense.\n\nMay God and His Word dictate your actions.
375868
Because humans are stupid, ignorant beings that will use any excuse to kill each other. It's been going on since the crusades.
867801
While you make a good point about the Muslim leaders not denouncing the beheadings and terrorist attacks, the events that took place at Abu-Grab were an absoulte disgrace and are inexcusable. Defending the people who took place in those incidents is also inexcusible. I do argee with you though that the Muslim leaders are cowards for not standing up to the barbarians in their religion.
878414
When people of any faith do things to provoke, bad things happen.  The Imams were removed for making suspicious remarks and behaving in a manner that provoked concern.  The greater good was more important.  They were removed.
477140
Honestly, it's just another excuse for violence and mayhem that can be blamed on something other than them.   If you call them a name, they will feel obligated to retailiate with war.   \n\nIt is comical how various religions have to be tolerant to ridicule and others do not.   Could you imagine Christians going to war every time some said, "God dang it."   Or every time someone depicts Jesus in a bad way....kind of like that short-lived sitcom that portrayed Jesus as a pot-smoking hippie.    How about the Buddists?   In the 80's having a little fat Buddha looking idol was common with old ladies in bingo halls for luck.   \n\nIt's all about "Sticks and stones...."   The whacko muslims just can't find enough reasons to lock and load and go kill unarmed civilians.   They don't have the balls to take the fight to the soldiers and really stand up and die for Allah.
587856
The real Islamic religion doesn't preach what the terrorists believe.  It's twisted like so many religions are to suit the views of the fundamentalists.  I would imagine that some Islamic peoples are angry and scared about how their religion has been twisted.  I would be.  I'm Christian and I can't stand the thought of what the Crusades did.  Barbaric.  People of all cultures need to realize that not all Islams think like the zealots.  They are living, breathing, caring people and should be supported as such.