Culpability of religion!

[BlairH]

To what extent do you think religion should "accept" responsibility for evil acts comitted in the name of that religion?

Do you think that responsibility should rest squarely on the shoulders of the individuals that comitted said acts? Or do you think the apportionment of blame should perhaps be a bit wider?

Personally, I'm of the view that religion (and faith) does not have a legal -or indeed- a moral personality. Religion can't vote, it can't sue, it can't bear witness to something, it can't go to jail.

In addition, if we look at many of the acts comitted "in the name of" religion, we can see that the individuals carrying out said acts tend to ignore even the basic tenants of their religion. For example: There is no moral justification outlined in the Koran for the actions of Mohammed Atta & Co. There is no mandate given to Osama Bin Laden or Al Zarkawi for prosecuting their Jihad against the West. There is no precident set in the Bible that claims that the "Ayrian race" is superior -thereby excusing the actions of Adolf-.

No. The blame should be laid at the feet of those responsible for the atrocities. Not the faith that they allegedly follow.

Rant over.

[Grazzt]

I think religion should be culpable for evil acts it endorses, ie. the Crusades.

[BlairH]

I think religion should be culpable for evil acts it endorses, ie. the Crusades.

But shouldn't that be the Pope, the people who ordered the actions, etc? Ie: The individuals responsible as opposed to the religion and the faith itself.

evil acts it endorses

I personally am of the view that religion can not endorse actions per se. Unless Matthew Mark Luke or John ordered the crusades then I'm going to accquit religion.

[Gaz]

But shouldn't that be the Pope, the people who ordered the actions, etc? Ie: The individuals responsible as opposed to the religion and the faith itself.



I personally am of the view that religion can not endorse actions per se. Unless Matthew Mark Luke or John ordered the crusades then I'm going to accquit religion.
Hmm, can the religious institution be held responisble, though?
(The faith itself is almost never looked at as the problem, those preaching and controlling it are.)

[BlairH]

Hmm, can the religious institution be held responisble, though?

Even at that, it's the people that are the problem, not the religion.

[StoneGold]

It depends what you are talking about here. Religion, as a concept, can't be blamed for anything. Because it's a concept. It's no more inherintly evil, or responsible for evil, than any other concept, be it communism, capitalism, or Dadaism. It's man's interpretations of those concepts that fuck things up.


However, when you get a bunch of men together in an organization interpreting those concepts in a way that tends to fuck over their fellow man? They can be held responsible. So religion, no. Churches (and that's used in the most non-denominational, generic sense possible), oh yeah.

[warspite1805]

How the Hell can the Crusaqdes be consodered evil, it was no motre evil than the decision by the British and French Governments making a stand against Nazism. If you want to complain abbout the Crusades bitch about how incomputably they were carried out.

[BlairH]

How the Hell can the Crusaqdes be consodered evil, it was no motre evil than the decision by the British and French Governments making a stand against Nazism. If you want to complain abbout the Crusades bitch about how incomputably they were carried out.
Exactly. A very strong case could be made that the crusades were a just/defensive war.

[Grazzt]

How the Hell can the Crusaqdes be consodered evil, it was no motre evil than the decision by the British and French Governments making a stand against Nazism. If you want to complain abbout the Crusades bitch about how incomputably they were carried out.

Because they slaughtered people for no other reason then because they weren't Christian.

And I really don't think you should compare the Muslims in the Holy Land to Nazis.

[StoneGold]

Exactly. A very strong case could be made that the crusades were a just/defensive war.
How is it defensive when they had to travel to get to where the fighting was? If you have to go somewhere to fight, it would seem that you have just taken the offensive.

[howyadoin]

How the Hell can the Crusaqdes be consodered evil?If you have to ask, clearly you'd never understand the answer.

[BlairH]

How is it defensive when they had to travel to get to where the fighting was? If you have to go somewhere to fight, it would seem that you have just taken the offensive.

American troops travelled to France to liberate the people and defend France's right to exist as an independant, non-Nazi state.

[Gaz]

Even at that, it's the people that are the problem, not the religion.
You do realise that the people ARE the religion, right? The faith is something independent.

[howyadoin]

American troops travelled to France to liberate the people and defend France's right to exist as an independant, non-Nazi state.But the Crusaders didn't exactly defend people's rights to be non-Christian.

[StoneGold]

American troops travelled to France to liberate the people and defend France's right to exist as an independant, non-Nazi state.
And for France, it was a defensive action. For the Americans, it was an offensive. The very fact that they held an invasion of Normandy should tell you something. There aren't many defensive invasions. Not unless you're getting into Orwellian doublespeak.

[Paul McEnery]

To what extent do you think religion should "accept" responsibility for evil acts comitted in the name of that religion?

Do you think that responsibility should rest squarely on the shoulders of the individuals that comitted said acts? Or do you think the apportionment of blame should perhaps be a bit wider?

Personally, I'm of the view that religion (and faith) does not have a legal -or indeed- a moral personality. Religion can't vote, it can't sue, it can't bear witness to something, it can't go to jail.

In addition, if we look at many of the acts comitted "in the name of" religion, we can see that the individuals carrying out said acts tend to ignore even the basic tenants of their religion. For example: There is no moral justification outlined in the Koran for the actions of Mohammed Atta & Co. There is no mandate given to Osama Bin Laden or Al Zarkawi for prosecuting their Jihad against the West. There is no precident set in the Bible that claims that the "Ayrian race" is superior -thereby excusing the actions of Adolf-.

No. The blame should be laid at the feet of those responsible for the atrocities. Not the faith that they allegedly follow.

Rant over.
God help us, you're becoming more British by the day. No guns, and now tolerance. Eek! :D

Of course, you're following an evangelical tack, where the key thing in a religion is the sacred text. There are other ways to look at it (especially since, just like with any other machine, scarcely anyone RTFMs, and those who do only read the bit they need, and that without understanding the context).

There are always several branches to a religion, and one of them (call it Orthodoxy) stresses obedience to authority as manifested in behaviour (i.e. morals). That's all the way from not worshipping graven idols to not eating fish on Friday -- most orthodoxy, from my POV, is about telling you what not to do (so as to purify your soul) a helluva lot more than it is about telling you what you might do (that might make the world a better place).

Think about Straight Edge as if it were a religion (which I think it is). It's built upon a rejection of capitalism, a self-purification through not doing drugs, and the ritual of the moshpit. You talk to straight edge punks (are there any new ones? all the ones I know are in their late 30s) and you find that their ideas have been codified on very rigid structures of exclusion that might as well have come from Leviticus.

No World Music! Must wear black! Sneer at hippies! Obey the tenets of the tribe!

And so on. I mean, I could pick on dogmatic lefties, Cosmo girls, Marvel zombies, office politics, or any number of other things. You're more likely to spot "PC" orthodoxy, but you'll find it everywhere.

So I think orthodox religion is the same as any other form of conservative (i.e. rule-enforcing) social group. Those rules themselves can just drain the life out of individual adherents -- hence the number of us who flee the church -- but they can also impel intolerance, up to and including genocide.

Which of course sounds like I think all conservatism tends to genocide. :evilsmile But what I mean is unthinking obedience and group loyalty tend to genocide.

The other question is: what leads to unthinking obedience and group loyalty?

[BlairH]

You do realise that the people ARE the religion, right? The faith is something independent.

No. The religion is the tenets and doctrine. The faith is the belief. The people just man the institutions.

[Grazzt]

Exactly. A very strong case could be made that the crusades were a just/defensive war.

Okay, then where is the proof that the Muslims in the Holy Land were trying to invade Europe? And why were Jews slaughtered as the Crusades went by?

[Gaz]

American troops travelled to France to liberate the people and defend France's right to exist as an independant, non-Nazi state.
No, they went because they were wetting themselves at the idea of Hitler winning and going over to them. (Which he wasn't interested in anyway)

[Paul McEnery]

It depends what you are talking about here. Religion, as a concept, can't be blamed for anything. Because it's a concept. It's no more inherintly evil, or responsible for evil, than any other concept, be it communism, capitalism, or Dadaism. It's man's interpretations of those concepts that fuck things up.


However, when you get a bunch of men together in an organization interpreting those concepts in a way that tends to fuck over their fellow man? They can be held responsible. So religion, no. Churches (and that's used in the most non-denominational, generic sense possible), oh yeah.
Technically, Dada isn't a concept.

Dada is a flaming wimple pausing to take a fart.

[StoneGold]

No. The religion is the tenets and doctrine. The faith is the belief. The people just man the institutions.
But without faith, religion is just mythology.

[StoneGold]

Technically, Dada isn't a concept.

Dada is a flaming wimple pausing to take a fart.
So sue me, it was the first stupid -ism I could think of. I don't think it changes the point though.

Hell, if anything, I'd say it magnifies it.

[BlairH]

But the Crusaders didn't exactly defend people's rights to be non-Christian.

Bingo! It was the Crusaders themselves NOT Christianity!

[Paul McEnery]

So sue me, it was the first stupid -ism I could think of. I don't think it changes the point though.

Hell, if anything, I'd say it magnifies it.

So what it takes to magnify your point is a flaming wimple pausing to take a fart?

Kinky. :D

[StoneGold]

Bingo! It was the Crusaders themselves NOT Christianity!
But could you blame the Christian Church at the time, which fully sanctioned the acts of the Crusaders? And don't cop out by just saying "it was people in the church who sanctioned them", because the problem there is, it's the people in the church who were also creating the concepts.

[StoneGold]

So what it takes to magnify your point is a flaming wimple pausing to take a fart?

Kinky. :D
If you think that's kinky, I pity you.

[BlairH]

Okay, then where is the proof that the Muslims in the Holy Land were trying to invade Europe?
Didn't say anything about Europe.
How many times has Jerusalem switched hands over the years? PEOPLE have been killing over it for centuries.

One has to remember that Jerusalem WAS in the Christian Byzantine/Eastern Roman Empire (who undoubtably took it from the Ptolmaeics).

[howyadoin]

Bingo! It was the Crusaders themselves NOT Christianity!Either way, saying the Crusades were "just" is bullshit, as is comparing them to WW2.

Which was my point.

[BlairH]

it's the people in the church who were also creating the concepts.
But those concepts were political NOT religious concepts.

[StoneGold]

But those concepts were political NOT religious concepts.
Back then, they're the exact same thing.

[howyadoin]

But those concepts were political NOT religious concepts.Yeah, and religious groups are famous for keeping their nose out of politics.

[Paul McEnery]

No. The religion is the tenets and doctrine. The faith is the belief. The people just man the institutions.
Technically, no.

Religion is simply a code of practices that bind a people together. The beliefs are a metaphor for the code of practices (and, I suppose, the social organization).

It is invariably the case that any tribal group, with its own religious identification, will regard neighbouring tribes as subhuman, and worthy of conquest and enslavement. Speaking at a certain level of development, of course.

The great advance of Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, and Hinduism is that they reach a level of universality, recognizing all tribes as human and worthy of respect.

However, that ain't the way the smart monkeys operate. We fall back into small groups and start hating each other all over again. We all love football, but Celtic hates the Rangers. We all love radical socialism, but the Socialist Workers hate Militant. We all love comic book magic, but Alan Moore hates Grant Morrison.

So it goes.

[BlairH]

Either way, saying the Crusades were "just" is bullshit, as is comparing them to WW2.

Which was my point.

I said a case could be made that it was a defensive war, and yes, this is true. There aren't any comparisons to WWII other than the "travelling" thing that was brought up a while ago (a bit of a silly thing to bring up considering that moving troops is a given in both defensive and offensive war).

[warspite1805]

Because they slaughtered people for no other reason then because they weren't Christian.

And I really don't think you should compare the Muslims in the Holy Land to Nazis.
They can easily be compared as the Christians is Europe saw them as a hostile aggressive power and was only meant as a very superficial comparison. You can compare the communists to Nazis during the cold war. In reality the thing that separtes the Nazis from the barbaric acts of the Middle Ages and before hand (Germanic invasion of England, Christoians invading the Holy lands, Muslim conquests of the Holylands, Romes War with Carthage, Attilla the Hunn, ect, ect) is that the Germans were an industrialised and so called modern civilisation, which used its industry in a way that had not been done before.
People has been slaughtering people enmasse through out human civilisation no civilisation, ideology, religion holds a monopoly on it. :(

[Paul McEnery]

Bingo! It was the Crusaders themselves NOT Christianity!
Hmm.

There's no question that Catholicism (which was the only Christianity in town for a long time, and because of the Crusades) was formed by the Crusades. The cult of Mary came out of those times as the faithful flinched from the ultramasculine doctrine of the time (which developed into the Inquisition).

There are many other doctrines (and plain superstition) which still inform people's minds today that come direct from those times (not least the way the Pope says all other religions are inferior, including all other Chrisitianitys).

[Noah Johnson]

So, basically, this is another exercise in flatly denying the concept of collective responsibility, as another step towards total abdication of moral responsibility to one's fellow man.

In other words, same old routine.

[warspite1805]

But the Crusaders didn't exactly defend people's rights to be non-Christian.
However the intent was not evil the Christians and the Islamics thought that they were doing people a favour by "encouraging" people to convert so that their souls could be saved.

[StoneGold]

They can easily be compared as the Christians is Europe saw them as a hostile aggressive power and was only meant as a very superficial comparison. You can compare the communists to Nazis during the cold war. In reality the thing that separtes the Nazis from the barbaric acts of the Middle Ages and before hand (Germanic invasion of England, Christoians invading the Holy lands, Muslim conquests of the Holylands, Romes War with Carthage, Attilla the Hunn, ect, ect) is that the Germans were an industrialised and so called modern civilisation, which used its industry in a way that had not been done before.
People has been slaughtering people enmasse through out human civilisation no civilisation, ideology, religion holds a monopoly on it. :(
While the end of your statement is true, the problem is, the Muslims were already there. Unlike Germany, who conquered Poland, invaded France, Russia, etc. There's a lack of a "they started it!" smoking gun. You're better off comparing it to, oh, let's say Cold War-era communism. Because let's face it, if there wasn't a nuclear bomb, there probably would have been something analogous to the Crusades.

[BlairH]

So, basically, this is another exercise in flatly denying the concept of collective responsibility

"collective responsibility" is something I fear...Why should innocents be penalised for the actions of others?

[Noah Johnson]

However the intent was not evil the Christians and the Islamics thought that they were doing people a favour by "encouraging" people to convert so that their souls could be saved.
So you're saying the responsibility is not with the individuals, but with their religious doctrine.

Get him, Blair! Shoot him!

[StoneGold]

However the intent was not evil the Christians and the Islamics thought that they were doing people a favour by "encouraging" people to convert so that their souls could be saved.
If by encouraging, you mean torturing and killing them.



But with love, afterall.

[StoneGold]

"collective responsibility" is something I fear...Why should innocents be penalised for the actions of others?
But if people are just people, why should they take any blame for the failure of the doctrine they happen to follow? They're people, not religion.

[Paul McEnery]

They can easily be compared as the Christians is Europe saw them as a hostile aggressive power and was only meant as a very superficial comparison. You can compare the communists to Nazis during the cold war. In reality the thing that separtes the Nazis from the barbaric acts of the Middle Ages and before hand (Germanic invasion of England, Christoians invading the Holy lands, Muslim conquests of the Holylands, Romes War with Carthage, Attilla the Hunn, ect, ect) is that the Germans were an industrialised and so called modern civilisation, which used its industry in a way that had not been done before.
People has been slaughtering people enmasse through out human civilisation no civilisation, ideology, religion holds a monopoly on it. :(
A better example would be the Soviets.

It was just for Stalin to defend the USSR against Nazi Germany. But then he decided he'd go for the big land grab while he was there.

Equally, we could say the same thing about the USA (who, after all, funded the rise of the Nazis as a hedge against the Soviets).

Playing Crusade analogy doesn't quite work, but let's think of the Nazis as the Seljuk Turks (god, my spelling brain isn't happening today; is that right?), and the USA as rump Islam promoting tolerance and the melting pot, and the Soviets as Christian Europe, implementing a strict ideology over all states.

So the Nazi muslims (the Turks -- hey, history repeats itself!) invade Poland (er, attack Byzantium); the Soviet Christians take it on the chin for a bit, then invade the Turkish territory (up to the Berlin Wall), and then decide to see what else they can have. And then the regular American muslims decide to fight over the territory, and claim Jerusalem for their own (hey, history repeats itself!). And with every new fight, tolerance goes more out of the window, and the fights get nastier and nastier.

In real history, this all came to an end when the Mongul hordes came over from East, giving everyone a common enemy.

Hey, history repeats itself!

[Paul McEnery]

So, basically, this is another exercise in flatly denying the concept of collective responsibility, as another step towards total abdication of moral responsibility to one's fellow man.

In other words, same old routine.
C'mon, Noah. Be fair.

This is "not scapegoating the entire group for the actions of some of its members" -- and I'm cool with that.

[StoneGold]

A better example would be the Soviets.


Dude, I so beat you to the punch on that one!

[BlairH]

But if people are just people, why should they take any blame for the failure of the doctrine they happen to follow? They're people, not religion.

As far as I am aware, the Crusades were not caused by a failure of basic Christian doctrine. At worst, it was the people who failed (arguably)

[Paul McEnery]

Dude, I so beat you to the punch on that one!
Oh yeah? OH YEAH?!?

Come over here and say that, you, you, er, you Bendis fan!

[Paul McEnery]

As far as I am aware, the Crusades were not caused by a failure of basic Christian doctrine. At worst, it was the people who failed (arguably)
Prod!

I'm going to remind you of this the next time you endorse the Religious Right. :D

[StoneGold]

As far as I am aware, the Crusades were not caused by a failure of basic Christian doctrine. At worst, it was the people who failed (arguably)
Again, you can take that train of thought, and it's fine, there's nothing really wrong with that. But realize, the same thing applies to concepts such as communism. It's not the concepts, it's the people.

[StoneGold]

Oh yeah? OH YEAH?!?

Come over here and say that, you, you, er, you Bendis fan!
No, if I was a Bendis fan, I would have interrupted you in the middle of that post.

[Gaz]

Again, you can take that train of thought, and it's fine, there's nothing really wrong with that. But realize, the same thing applies to concepts such as communism. It's not the concepts, it's the people.
I've made this argument, no belief system is evil by itself.
(Now, "doctrine" is usually pretty bad, because it's telling you what to do)

[howyadoin]

I said a case could be made that it was a defensive war, and yes, this is true.You also said it was "just". Care to explain that?

[BlairH]

I've made this argument, no belief system is evil by itself.

(Now, "doctrine" is usually pretty bad, because it's telling you what to do)
Now THAT'S contradiction! :D

[BlairH]

You also said it was "just". Care to explain that?

I wasn't around back then. I don't know if it was just or not. Many historians, greater men than I, have debated this topic ad nauseum, some claiming that it could have been seen as "just".

[Paul McEnery]

Now THAT'S contradiction! :D
There you go again, confusing belief systems with doctrine.

Fair enough, they interrelate, but it's possible to have a non-doctrinal belief system, and I should know.

[howyadoin]

However the intent was not evil the Christians and the Islamics thought that they were doing people a favour by "encouraging" people to convert so that their souls could be saved.The end doesn't justify the means. Plenty of people have done heinous, evil things with good intentions, and that doesn't remotely excuse them for their crimes.

That's "how the hell the Crusades can be considered evil." Which part didn't you understand?

[Gaz]

Now THAT'S contradiction! :D
No, it isn't. You believe in a God, I don't. I don't think you're bad for believing that. Now if the Church said "all Christians must spit on gays" and you did it, I'd judge both you and that doctrine as bad.
(Now being pro-personal liberty AND pro-religious doctrine, that's a bit weird, dontcha think?)

[Paul McEnery]

I wasn't around back then. I don't know if it was just or not. Many historians, greater men than I, have debated this topic ad nauseum, some claiming that it could have been seen as "just".
Defence against the Turks was just (well, just about).

The problem was, creating a fighting force to get them there involved turning a whole bunch of people into raving xenophobes.

Rather like the current war.

[warspite1805]

Okay, then where is the proof that the Muslims in the Holy Land were trying to invade Europe? And why were Jews slaughtered as the Crusades went by?
You do realise that Spain (part of Europe in case you do not own an atlas) in the year 711 was invaded by Islamics and the Europeans were hardly the most enlightened of people at the time. Additionally Constantonople was regulary calling for aid.

As to Jews being slaughtered that ewas largely down to incompetence during the Crusades as that is what happens when you send a large ill diciplined poorly educated army in the the unknown. Made worse as the Crusades were preached about in a medievil contect where the people that was trubng to be enlisted was told that they were obligated to liberated Christ's lands in the same way they would be obligated to to try and liberate their lord or kinggs lands if he was desposed and driven out in the name of honour \vengeance. So it was only a matter of tikme that some bright sopark would opoint out that the Jews killed Christ, which was at least as bad as the Islamics taking his land. As stated early the Crusades were very incompetently run, the Vatican was not concerned out the Jews and fdid not desire them or Christians in the Middle East to be slaughtered.

[howyadoin]

I wasn't around back then. I don't know if it was just or not.Then why did you try to justify it?

[BlairH]

Rather like the current war.
That's a very cynical view of the armed forces :(

[warspite1805]

If by encouraging, you mean torturing and killing them.



But with love, afterall.
Exactly :D

[BlairH]

Then why did you try to justify it?
I was backing up Warspite's view that we can't really say that it's EVIL! :evilsmile There are historical, social and political arguments that say it was just. I don't particularly subscribe to either argument with regards to whether or not the crusades were just, as it's not my area of expertiese (If it didn't happen at the height of the Roman Empire, it didn't happen says I :) )

[Paul McEnery]

You do realise that Spain (part of Europe in case you do not own an atlas) in the year 711 was invaded by Islamics and the Europeans were hardly the most enlightened of people at the time. Additionally Constantonople was regulary calling for aid.

As to Jews being slaughtered that ewas largely down to incompetence during the Crusades as that is what happens when you send a large ill diciplined poorly educated army in the the unknown. Made worse as the Crusades were preached about in a medievil contect where the people that was trubng to be enlisted was told that they were obligated to liberated Christ's lands in the same way they would be obligated to to try and liberate their lord or kinggs lands if he was desposed and driven out in the name of honour \vengeance. So it was only a matter of tikme that some bright sopark would opoint out that the Jews killed Christ, which was at least as bad as the Islamics taking his land. As stated early the Crusades were very incompetently run, the Vatican was not concerned out the Jews and fdid not desire them or Christians in the Middle East to be slaughtered.

True, an Islamic Empire was established in Spain. However, it was quite a nice empire, had the best living standards in the World at the time, and was the most tolerant society.

It was also nothing to do with the Turks, not that the Europeans were that picky in figuring that out.

However, the stuff about the Jews, you're completely wrong about. The Jews were tolerated in Europe before the Crusades (even as Christ-killers, the term was already out there, as official Catholic doctrine). However, the xenophobia spawned by the Crusades rebounded upon the Jews in Europe, and everything since then up to and including the Holocaust is a direct result, particularly after the creation of the Inquisition.

I mean, the Inquisition massacred Christians for not being Catholic enough. They really didn't like Jews. And the Inquisition was the Crusades -- same people, same campaign, just turned inwards to Europe (after ass-kickings in Araby, natch).

It's like some guy who loses a bar fight, then comes home and beats up his wife and kids.

[Paul McEnery]

That's a very cynical view of the armed forces :(
Nope, a realistic view of how the administration and its mouthpieces in the media have whipped up anti-Muslim frenzy, including equating Bin Laden and Hussein.

It's to England's credit that it's been very different over there.

[howyadoin]

I was backing up Warspite's view that we can't really say that it's EVIL!And I was saying it's bullshit.
There are historical, social and political arguments that say it was just.Let's hear one of them.

[warspite1805]

True, an Islamic Empire was established in Spain. However, it was quite a nice empire, had the best living standards in the World at the time, and was the most tolerant society.

It was also nothing to do with the Turks, not that the Europeans were that picky in figuring that out.

However, the stuff about the Jews, you're completely wrong about. The Jews were tolerated in Europe before the Crusades (even as Christ-killers, the term was already out there, as official Catholic doctrine). However, the xenophobia spawned by the Crusades rebounded upon the Jews in Europe, and everything since then up to and including the Holocaust is a direct result, particularly after the creation of the Inquisition.

I mean, the Inquisition massacred Christians for not being Catholic enough. They really didn't like Jews. And the Inquisition was the Crusades -- same people, same campaign, just turned inwards to Europe (after ass-kickings in Araby, natch).

It's like some guy who loses a bar fight, then comes home and beats up his wife and kids.
A lot of the preacghing for the crusades caused the Xenophobia to the Jews were as a result of the recruitment drives for the crusades as many of the preachers trying to mobilise armies for it was trying to get everythoing in terms that the yocals would understand and sadly all the recruitment for the crusades were not state sanctioned.

[warspite1805]

Nope, a realistic view of how the administration and its mouthpieces in the media have whipped up anti-Muslim frenzy, including equating Bin Laden and Hussein.

It's to England's credit that it's been very different over there.

I think you havre officiallyy become American Paul for equating England with the whoile of the UK. :p

[BlairH]

Let's hear one of them.

Well, as I was saying, I'm not terribly well versed in the crusades, but it's my understanding that "the West" viewed "Islamic expansionism" as a threat. This combined with Jerusalem regularly falling to pieces and Constantinople's fall from grace ensured that "The West" felt that fighting back might be the best option. Again, I must stress I'm simplifying things, as I'm not exactly big on my Medevial history.

There's also the Ottomans. But that's a whole 'nother story.

[howyadoin]

Well, as I was saying, I'm not terribly well versed in the crusades, but it's my understanding that "the West" viewed "Islamic expansionism" as a threat. This combined with Jerusalem regularly falling to pieces and Constantinople's fall from grace ensured that "The West" felt that fighting back might be the best option.That's not justice. It's political opportunism.

[BlairH]

That's not justice. It's political opportunism.

Hm? Back then -in the days before reliable, instant communication- it could be seen as "survival"

[howyadoin]

Hm? Back then -in the days before reliable, instant communication- it could be seen as "survival"Was it a race of people whose survival was at stake? Or was it a bunch of bureaucrats trying to preserve their own positions of power, by force?

[warspite1805]

Don't recall Blair mentioning justice, he stated Just which I assume ids a refference to the Just War Theory




Principles of the Just War
A just war can only be waged as a last resort. All non-violent options must be exhausted before the use of force can be justified.
A war is just only if it is waged by a legitimate authority. Even just causes cannot be served by actions taken by individuals or groups who do not constitute an authority sanctioned by whatever the society and outsiders to the society deem legitimate.
A just war can only be fought to redress a wrong suffered. For example, self-defense against an armed attack is always considered to be a just cause (although the justice of the cause is not sufficient--see point #4). Further, a just war can only be fought with "right" intentions: the only permissible objective of a just war is to redress the injury.
A war can only be just if it is fought with a reasonable chance of success. Deaths and injury incurred in a hopeless cause are not morally justifiable.
The ultimate goal of a just war is to re-establish peace. More specifically, the peace established after the war must be preferable to the peace that would have prevailed if the war had not been fought.
The violence used in the war must be proportional to the injury suffered. States are prohibited from using force not necessary to attain the limited objective of addressing the injury suffered.
The weapons used in war must discriminate between combatants and non-combatants. Civilians are never permissible targets of war, and every effort must be taken to avoid killing civilians. The deaths of civilians are justified only if they are unavoidable victims of a deliberate attack on a military target.

[howyadoin]

Don't recall Blair mentioning justice, he stated Just which I assume ids a refference to the Just War TheoryYou seriously can't see a relationship between the words "just" and "justice"?

Principles of the Just War
A just war can only be waged as a last resort. All non-violent options must be exhausted before the use of force can be justified.
A war is just only if it is waged by a legitimate authority. Even just causes cannot be served by actions taken by individuals or groups who do not constitute an authority sanctioned by whatever the society and outsiders to the society deem legitimate.
A just war can only be fought to redress a wrong suffered. For example, self-defense against an armed attack is always considered to be a just cause (although the justice of the cause is not sufficient--see point #4). Further, a just war can only be fought with "right" intentions: the only permissible objective of a just war is to redress the injury.
A war can only be just if it is fought with a reasonable chance of success. Deaths and injury incurred in a hopeless cause are not morally justifiable.
The ultimate goal of a just war is to re-establish peace. More specifically, the peace established after the war must be preferable to the peace that would have prevailed if the war had not been fought.
The violence used in the war must be proportional to the injury suffered. States are prohibited from using force not necessary to attain the limited objective of addressing the injury suffered.
The weapons used in war must discriminate between combatants and non-combatants. Civilians are never permissible targets of war, and every effort must be taken to avoid killing civilians. The deaths of civilians are justified only if they are unavoidable victims of a deliberate attack on a military target.I'd say that last one alone proves the Crusades weren't "just". And anybody who believes they were about reestablishing peace is naive at best.

[Rabid Trekkie]

Let's hear one of them.

Well the first one was started because Muslims were invading the Byzantine Empire. It started off with a fair justification but quickly turned into something that is pretty much indefensible.

As far as culpability goes, I usually just stick to blaming the individual or small groups (Islamic terrorists, KKK, etc) to blaming the leadership. Very rarely do I blame the text the religion is based on, I think the only exception I have to that is Sciencetology.

[Gaz]

Well the first one was started because Muslims were invading the Byzantine Empire. It started off with a fair justification but quickly turned into something that is pretty much indefensible.

As far as culpability goes, I usually just stick to blaming the individual or small groups (Islamic terrorists, KKK, etc) to blaming the leadership. Very rarely do I blame the text the religion is based on, I think the only exception I have to that is Sciencetology.
Well, that's because we know who wrote it, and that Hubbard was a nutjob! :D

[warspite1805]

You seriously can't see a relationship between the words "just" and "justice"?

I'd say that last one alone proves the Crusades weren't "just". And anybody who believes they were about reestablishing peace is naive at best.

But it is not the Justice War Theory but the Just War Theory, thought most people had heard of it as it is pretty famous.

As stated previously by myself the biggest problems I have with the Crusades was the level of imcompetence of the leadership and the plebs involved, there are few campaigns of that size so poorly run (well maybe Darius III was more incompetent in the use of his forces)

[howyadoin]

Very rarely do I blame the text the religion is based on, I think the only exception I have to that is Scientology.No argument here on that topic.

[howyadoin]

But it is not the Justice War Theory but the Just War Theory, thought most people had heard of it as it is pretty famous.Okay, I officially have no idea what you're saying.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Okay, I officially have no idea what you're saying.

That's okay. Neither does he.

[BlairH]

Okay, I officially have no idea what you're saying.
The idea of "Just War" emerged from the Catholic church in a time where relying on the pacifist nature of Christianity wasn't entirely sound.

[BlairH]

That's okay. Neither does he.
I suspect he does. I was going to mention the idea of "Just war" in my original post.

[howyadoin]

The idea of "Just War" emerged from the Catholic church in a time where relying on the pacifist nature of Christianity wasn't entirely sound.I got that much. He listed the criteria in his previous post.

The Crusades don't match the criteria, though.

[warspite1805]

What is so complicated about it there is a Theory called the Just War Theory thought up by a bloke called Saint Augustine and there is no theory I am aware of called the Justice Theory.
Jeffrey what exaxctly do I have no idea I am saying or are you just going to insult me?

[BlairH]

there is no theory I am aware of called the Justice Theory.

Didn't you hear? The crusades were orchestrated by the JLA!

[Dreadstar]

Dada is a flaming wimple pausing to take a fart.

It was the "pause" that always got me. I mean, isn't the premeditation in conflict with the principle?

[howyadoin]

What is so complicated about it there is a Theory called the Just War Theory thought up by a bloke called Saint Augustine and there is no theory I am aware of called the Justice Theory. I don't really know how to answer this without sounding insulting, but the words "just" and "justice" are related.

Maybe this'll help: "just" is defined as "acting or being in conformity with what is morally upright or good." Can you not see how that concept is related to "justice"? I mean, Jesus, the words are even spelled similarly.


Anyhow, how 'bout we put the semantics aside and you tell us how, according to the criteria you listed, the Crusades were just?

[K'Nort]

What is so complicated about it there is a Theory called the Just War Theory thought up by a bloke called Saint Augustine and there is no theory I am aware of called the Justice Theory.
Jeffrey what exaxctly do I have no idea I am saying or are you just going to insult me?

You are being a bit incoherent. Punctuation would help. Otherwise, you're wasting your time typing because your posts will be too much effort to bother to read.


Getting back on topic, I tend to support individual responsibility far beyond the point where most people do. But there are certainly times that organized religon and particular churches share responsibility. At any level at which a denomination or congregation/cult is directing the actions of its followers, there is shared responsibility. When inappropriate things are being done in the name of a faith and the official leadership of that faith does not publically condemn those actions and those perpetrators, there is shared responsibility.

On the other hand, sharing responsibility doesn't usually mean paying out damages.

[BlairH]

I don't really know how to answer this without sounding insulting, but the words "just" and "justice" are related.
That doesn't mean that they are the same thing. Vigilante is related to the word vigilance. So what?

[warspite1805]

I don't really know how to answer this without sounding insulting, but the words "just" and "justice" are related.

Maybe this'll help: "just" is defined as "acting or being in conformity with what is morally upright or good." Can you not see how that concept is related to "justice"? I mean, Jesus, the words are even spelled similarly.


Anyhow, how 'bout we put the semantics aside and you tell us how, according to the criteria you listed, the Crusades were just?

I can see how you can come to that conclusion, I am just feeling a bit more irritiable than ussual. As I have a stinking cold that seems to have migrated to my eyes leaving me in poor mood.
Shall we agree to drop the just\justice war theory beforee this stagnates to a rather dull flame war.

[howyadoin]

That doesn't mean that they are the same thing. Vigilante is related to the word vigilance. So what?Wow, nice pretzel logic.

If you meant "just" in the sense of the Catholic Church's bullshit self-justifying criteria, you could've saved everyone some time and aggravation by saying so in the first place.

But I'll ask again, since you and warspite are trying so hard to avoid answering, and since you deliberately ignored that part of my post: how, according to those criteria, do the Crusades qualify as "just"?

[howyadoin]

Shall we agree to drop the just\justice war theory beforee this stagnates to a rather dull flame war.Fine. But you still haven't explained how the Crusades were "just", or morally defensible, or anything else.

[BlairH]

But I'll ask again, since you and warspite are trying so hard to avoid answering, and since you deliberately ignored that part of my post: how, according to those criteria, do the Crusades qualify as "just"?
The Islamic armies were heading for Constantinople (they invaded the Eastern Roman Empire), and Constantinople was like "Oh shite! We need help!"

Sometimes it is just to actually support your ally.

[howyadoin]

The Islamic armies were heading for Constantinople (they invaded the Eastern Roman Empire), and Constantinople was like "Oh shite! We need help!"

Sometimes it is just to actually support your ally.Were all non-violent options exhausted before force was used?

Was the church a legitimate authority?

Was the violence used in the war proportional to the injury suffered? Particularly the violence against innocents and the violence used primarily to maintain the church's power base?

Were the civilians who died the unavoidable victims of a deliberate attack on a military target?

[warspite1805]

Just Cause: Force may be used only to correct a grave, public evil, i.e., aggression, self defense, massive violation of the basic rights of whole populations; To the christians in the West it appeared to them that there was no stopping the Islamiics and that they were justifed in retaking the Holy Lands. In their eyes it was readdressing a grave wrong (taking back the Holy Lands) and an act of self defence, ie offense can be the best form defence.
Legitimate Authority: Only duly constituted public authorities may use deadly force or wage war; Had papal blessing so that counts.
Off course Thomas Aquinas was one of the first to pen the Just war Theory and was not born until sometime after the First Crusade.
Probability of Success: Without Hindsite this would not have been easy to know for Urban II
Right Intention: Force may be used only in a truly just cause and solely for that purpose; Correcting a suffered wrong is considered a right intention, while material gain is not. - Liberating Jerusalum will count.
Proportionality: The overall destruction expected from the use of force must be outweighed by the good to be achieved. - From there eyes making the Holylands Christian would have counted.
One thingf we should try to do when looking at historical figures and events is not judge them with the moral values of today but try and look at them in the contect of their pereiod.

[Noah Johnson]

There's also the important issue of "Which crusade?"

I mean, they were all motivated by the same brand of crazy, but their practices and results were rather varied. I mean, you can claim that the Crusades were about defending Constantinople, but the Fourth Crusade sacked Constantinople themselves, as a result of extremely poor planning. Oh, and how was this poor planning justified? "God will provide for his holy warriors." Then, when that failed to happen, the looting and the craziness always started.

One might almost think religion bore some responsibility for these atrocious plans.

[warspite1805]

From the 6th Crusade onwards they tended not to be set in motion from the Vatican.

[Noah Johnson]

In their eyes it was readdressing a grave wrong (taking back the Holy Lands) and an act of self defence, ie offense can be the best form defence.
First, are you aware of how insane that sounds? You're taking a doctrine that draws a strict moral line between offense and defense, and using it to argue that offense is the same as defense. That's utterly ridiculous.

Second, you are, in fact, arguing that religion was used to justify a fundamentally unjust war into a just one. Are you aware that that's the position you're taking?

[OzBat!]

I fergit... was the battle of Tours, France in response to Crusades, or before them?

[warspite1805]

Wow, nice pretzel logic.

If you meant "just" in the sense of the Catholic Church's bullshit self-justifying criteria, you could've saved everyone some time and aggravation by saying so in the first place.

But I'll ask again, since you and warspite are trying so hard to avoid answering, and since you deliberately ignored that part of my post: how, according to those criteria, do the Crusades qualify as "just"?

I did not aim to avoid explaining if the Crusades fitted the Just War Criteria or not as the First Crusade was carried out before Saint Augustine was even born. On top of that you could probably make a case either way for an MA History disertation which I do not really have the time to attempt to do tonight.

Personally I of thre opinion that the first couple of Crusades were more political than anything else as the Vatican was keen to get rid of a large warrior class that was tormenting the peasantry. It could not ban wars or just turn a blind eye to the slaughter in Europe so they took the practical rather than the moral solution. Which was the formation of the Just War Doctrine and exporting the probalem to the Middle East ie The Crusades.

[warspite1805]

I fergit... was the battle of Tours, France in response to Crusades, or before them?
Before
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Battle of Tours (often called the Battle of Poitiers, but not to be confused with the Battle of Poitiers, 1356) was fought on October 25, 732 (October 10, old-style calendar) between forces under the Frankish leader Charles Martel and an Islamic army led by Emir Abd er Rahman. During the battle, the Franks defeated the Islamic army and Emir Abd er Rahman was killed. This battle stopped the northward advance of Islam from the Iberian peninsula, and is considered by most historians to be of macrohistorical importance, in that it may have halted the invasion of Europe by Muslims, and preserved Christianity as the controlling faith, during a period in which Islam was overrunning the remains of the old Roman and Persian Empires.

[Calybos]

Most of the Catholic Church's actions over its entire existence could be fairly labeled as political, in the sense that they were intended to secure and retain worldly power. The Crusades were no different; faith was a tool used to motivate the masses (and their rulers) to strenghten the hold of the Church on secular power, such as money and land.

In that sense, "religion" may have had very little to do with it--if you define religion as spiritual and moral teachings. But the Church itself? All about the benjamins.

[BlairH]

Wow, nice pretzel logic.

Mock the much maligned snacks all you want! They're tasty and can almost kill heads of state!

[Noah Johnson]

Mock the much maligned snacks all you want! They're tasty and can almost kill heads of state!
Well, sure, when they're backed up by a fifth of Maker's Mark. That's like saying Spider-Man could beat Captain Marvel if he gets to bring Galactus with him.

[Gaz]

Well, sure, when they're backed up by a fifth of Maker's Mark. That's like saying Spider-Man could beat Captain Marvel if he gets to bring Galactus with him.
That'd be funny, actually, kinda like my idea of Sentry knocking down the door of the Skrull palace from Runaways.

*Sentry smashes door*
Spider-Man: UPS!

[Rabid Trekkie]

Were all non-violent options exhausted before force was used?

Was the church a legitimate authority?

Was the violence used in the war proportional to the injury suffered? Particularly the violence against innocents and the violence used primarily to maintain the church's power base?

Were the civilians who died the unavoidable victims of a deliberate attack on a military target?

1. From my general understanding there wasn't a non-violent option. Muslims saw Constantinople as an easy target and went for it. The only reasoning involved was in the battle strategy. The West responded in kind.

2. While my gut reaction is no (protestant and proud of it!), the correct answer for the time period is yeah. The Catholic Church was pretty much the final law of the land, that's why Henry the 8th had to start the Anglican church so he could get a divorce.

3 and 4. Here's where we get into the territory where it is no longer defensible. If the Crusaders would have just driven the Muslims back it would have been fine, instead they decided not to just drive them back but to cut a path all the way to Jerusalem. And of course on the way they did the whole rape, pillage, and plunder to the point even Vikings would have thought it was going overboard.

[Samurai]

Those wussy Vikings... ;)

[howyadoin]

3 and 4. Here's where we get into the territory where it is no longer defensible. If the Crusaders would have just driven the Muslims back it would have been fine, instead they decided not to just drive them back but to cut a path all the way to Jerusalem. And of course on the way they did the whole rape, pillage, and plunder to the point even Vikings would have thought it was going overboard.Thanks. I was wondering if people were just gonna pretend I didn't ask those questions.

[OzBat!]

I'm pretending you're wearing a wussy viking helmet right now to cover over your hideous mohawk.

[Royal]

Yo. I really dig Jesus, but I fucking hate his fans.




Especially those assholes in Rome.

[acagle7]

I am going with the first choice.

[Paul McEnery]

A lot of the preacghing for the crusades caused the Xenophobia to the Jews were as a result of the recruitment drives for the crusades as many of the preachers trying to mobilise armies for it was trying to get everythoing in terms that the yocals would understand and sadly all the recruitment for the crusades were not state sanctioned.
Er... (goddammit, learn to touchtype, wouldya?)

I think you're saying that it was okay to encourage xenophobia because it was necessary at the time, and anyway, noboby was encouraging xenophobia, and besides, the woman is dead by now.

And I'm saying: even you don't believe this.

[Paul McEnery]

The idea of "Just War" emerged from the Catholic church in a time where relying on the pacifist nature of Christianity wasn't entirely sound.
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!

Er, no.

The idea of the just war emerged as the Catholic Church needed an excuse to be a bunch of militarist bastards.

Nothing new there.

[Sam]

As to the general question -- I think that it is entirely possible for a religion itself to be culpable for certain atrocities committed in its name. The key question is whether the behavior in question is tied into certain essential aspects of the religion's basic ideals.

Take India. There is a long tradition of fairly horrible treatment of the Untouchable caste. I'd say it's fair to lay that at the feet of Hinduism. When one of the fundamental precepts of your religion is a caste system in which some people are just out and out better than others, yeah, it's that religion's fault when the bottom castes are oppressed.

At the same time, the Western Abrahamic faiths have a definite tendency toward intolerance of anyone who isn't part of the club. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all carry a fundamental doctrine of exclusivity -- we're right, everyone else is wrong, and if you're not with us then God will kick your ass. So when people act on those values, yeah, I'd say at least some of the culpability goes to the religion.

[warspite1805]

Er... (goddammit, learn to touchtype, wouldya?)

I think you're saying that it was okay to encourage xenophobia because it was necessary at the time, and anyway, noboby was encouraging xenophobia, and besides, the woman is dead by now.

And I'm saying: even you don't believe this.
I was feeling like shit warmed up last night, so my typing was even worse than normal (I do realise that you are not pointing out my typing errors to be spiteful or anything, plus my spelling sucks at the best of time :o ).

I did not mean to imply that the xenophobia against the Jewish people were intentional or that it was right, I should have typed on reflection.
"A lot of the preaching during recruitment drives for the crusades was unfortunatley the cause to a lot of the Xenophobia to the Jews that occured. Sadly many of the preachers trying to mobilise armies for it was trying to get everything in terms that the yocals would understand and sadly all the recruitment for the crusades were not state sanctioned and I doubt much consideration to the Jews was given much thought either way. Sadly tolerance in Europe those days was not one of its virtues."
The three largest driving forces in the crusades in my opinion was intolerance (of all that is not Catholic), fear (of the marauding warbands in Europe and of the perceived threat of Islam) and the Papacy's thirst for greater power. Then you have added to the mix a vast amount of general incompetence at all levels (recruitment, dicipline, logistics, long term strategy and execution) is it any surprise that they turned into such a horriffic farce.

Plus if you look at the ethnic groups that took part in the crusades the butchery should have no major shock after all only a few hundred years these are the same groups of people that raped and pillaged their way through the Western Roman Empire, just look at the ethnic cleasing that the Germanics (Saxons, Angles, Jutes, ect) did in England, any trace of the people before they settled there were whiped out. I have probably said this before but the people who organised did not really think it through or was well out of their league, Julius Caesar or Alexander the Great they were clearly not.