Little Mosque On The Prairie

[freako104]

You actually believe that? From the time of Mohammad, Muslims have been spreading Islam by the sword since the seventh century. The Crusades was a response to their tyranny.

Actually Muhammed believed in peace. Same as Jesus. Some spread it by the sword. Also historically the Crusuades was not about Islam spreading but Christians wanted the Holy Land, and it also had to do with political agendas.

There are many Christians like Fred Phelps too. The Pope cannot comment on them all individually. However, if Phelps was Catholic, he would already have been dealt with a long time ago.

You're right he can't comment on all of them. But he could distance himself from such ideas by saying we want nothing to do with those who are extremist Christans. I have yet to hear Christians speak against the Christian Identity, Army of God, Eric Roudolph or Fred Phelps. This does not mean any agree with their actions or ideas, Muslims should be held to the same accord

 

[Gotholic]

ANd cvhristians have spread christianity by the sword. Damn, you're really gullible to this "my religion never did any wrong" stuff. Themuslims were responding to christian tyranny and vice verca.

Neither side was "defending" so much as attacking and slaughtering.

There was no Chrisitan tyranny before the Crusades. The Muslims spread their faith by the sword unprovoked. There is even a list of Muslims invasions and conquests that ultimately led to the Crusades. You can even find that list of Islamic conquests at your favorite source to use, Wikipedia. As you can see, they were rapidly conquering everything.

How about the Albigensian Crusade to eliminate the heretical Cathars of southern France? That defensive too?

It was defensive too.

Among other things, the Cathars believed that all matter was evil, suicide was commendable. marriage intercourse was evil, abandonment of the wife by the husband was good and visa versa, concubinage was preferable to marriage, and they were against having children.

The Cathars were social anarchists. Despite not repopulating, the Cathars grew by gaining many new recruits. They were growing big in southern France. The chaos they would bring to society was too great to ignore. Not only the Church, but civil authorities saw the problems with the Cathars.

The Catholic Church tried by peaceful means to solve this dire situation. The Church commissioned Dominicans and Franciscans to preach against them. Pope Innocent III sent a personal friend, Peter Costineau, to organize the preaching. The Cathars murdered him.

Then came the Albigensian Crusade, which was the first Crusade to defend Christianity (not to mention, civilization) from within.

That's pretty funny take on it

The Cathars proclaimed there existed within mankind a spark of divine light. This light, or spirit, had fallen into captivity within a realm of corruption — identified with the material world. This was a distinct feature of classical Gnosticism, of Manichaeism and of the theology of the Bogomils. This concept of the human condition within Catharism was most probably due to direct and indirect historical influences from these older (and sometimes also violently suppressed) Gnostic movements. According to the Cathars, the world had been created by a lesser deity, much like the figure known in classical Gnostic myth as the Demiurge. This creative force was not the "True God", though he made pretense of being the "one and only God". The Cathars identified this lesser deity, the Demiurge, with Satan. (Most forms of classical Gnosticism had not made this explicit link between the Demiurge and Satan). Essentially, the Cathars believed that the God worshipped by Roman Catholics was an imposter, and his church was a corrupt abomination infused by the failings of the material realm. Spirit — the vital essence of humanity — was thus trapped in a flawed physical realm created by a usurper and ruled by his corrupt minions.

An individual entered into the community of Perfecti through a ritual known as the consolamentum, a rite that was both sacramental and sacerdotal in nature: sacramental in that it granted redemption and liberation from this world; sacerdotal in that those who had received this rite functioned in some ways as the Cathar clergy - though the idea of priesthood was explicitly rejected. The consolamentum was both the baptism of the Holy Spirit, baptismal regeneration, absolution, and ordination all in one. Upon reception of the consolamentum, the new Perfectus surrendered his or her worldly goods to the community, vested himself in a simple black robe with cord belt, and undertook a life dedicated to following the example of Christ and His Apostles — an often peripatetic life of purity, prayer, preaching and charitable work. Above all, the Perfecti were dedicated to helping others find the road that led from a dark land ruled by a dark lord, to the realm of light that they believed to be humankind's first source and ultimate end.

While the Perfecti lived ascetic lives of simplicity, frugality and purity, Cathar credentes (believers) were not expected to adopt the same stringent lifestyle. They were however expected to refrain from eating meat and dairy products, from killing and from swearing oaths. Catharism was above all a popular religion and the numbers of those who considered themselves "believers" in the late twelfth century included a sizable portion of the population of Languedoc, counting among them many noble families and courts. These individuals often married, ate meat, and led relatively normal lives within medieval society — in contrast to the Perfecti, whom they honored as their exemplars. Though unable to embrace immediately a life of complete purity, the credentes looked toward an eventual time when this would be their calling and path.

The slaying of life was abhorrent to the Cathars, just as was the senseless copulation that produced enslavement in matter. Consequently, abstention from all animal food except fish was enjoined of the Perfecti. (The Perfecti apparently avoided eating anything considered to be a by-product of sexual reproduction, including cheese, eggs, milk and butter.) War and capital punishment were also absolutely condemned, an abnormality in the medieval age.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catharism

The "threat" was that they believed differently.

When he came to power in 1198, Pope Innocent III was determined to suppress the Cathars. At first he tried peaceful conversion; however priests sent in to convert the Cathars met with little success. The Cathars were protected by local nobles, and also by bishops who resented papal authority. In 1204 the Pope suspended the authority of the bishops in the south of France, appointing papal legates. In 1206 the Pope sought support for action from the nobles of Languedoc. Noblemen who protected the Cathars were excommunicated. Over many decades sieges and battles broke out between those protecting the Cathars and those seeking to overcome them; this series of military campaigns is known as the Albigensian Crusade and ended in pro-Cathar surrender when the French King intervened in 1229.

After the surrender the Medieval Inquisition was given almost unlimited power to suppress the Cathar heretics. Cathars were forced to recant or else they were sent to the galleys, slaughtered or burned.


Defensive?

spike, you conveniently left out a part in Wikipedia that confirms what I said, that the Albigensians were a threat to society. Here it is:

From the theological underpinnings of the Cathar faith there came practical injunctions that were potentially destabilizing to the order of medieval society. For instance, Cathars rejected the giving of oaths as wrongful; an oath served to place one under the domination of this world. To reject oaths in this manner was seen as dangerous in a society where illiteracy was wide-spread and almost all business transactions and pledges of allegiance were based on the giving of oaths.

Sexual intercourse and reproduction propagated the slavery of spirit to flesh, and sexual abstinence was considered desirable even in matrimony. Informal relationships (what might be termed concubinage) may have been considered preferable to the social contract of marriage among Cathar credentes. Perfecti were expected to observe complete celibacy. Separation from a wife or husband might be necessary for those who would become Perfecti.

Source

Now, a further explanation as to the defense of the Albigensian Crusade:

Do you dare defend the cruelty of Pope Innocent III (1198-1216), in ordering the crusade against the Albigenses, and in mercilessly demanding that they be put to death?

Yes we do defend his policy, for the laws he enacted were not at all excessive compared with the strict Roman law, or even with the practice then in vogue in France and Germany (Vacandard, The Inquisition, 46). Havet writes: "We must in justice say of Innocent III that, if he did bitterly prosecute heretics, and everywhere put them under the ban, he never demanded the infliction of the death penalty" {VHeresie et le Bras Seculier, 165). Luchaire also shows that the laws and letters of Innocent III speak of banishment and confiscation of the property of the Albigenses, but they never once mention the death penalty {La Croisade des Albigeois, 57).

The Albigenses of Southern France in the thirteenth century were a disturbing element in the Christian commonwealth, like the Russian Bolshevists of to-day, who endeavor to stir up trouble everywhere for legitimate governments. They were an anti-Christian and an anti-social body, which denied marriage, questioned the lawfulness of oaths, refused feudal service on the plea that all war was unlawful, and rejected every teaching of the universal Church in the name of a pagan, Manichean dualism (Vacandard, The Inquisition, ch. v.). Their chief defender was Raymond VI, Count of Toulouse (1194-1222), who had for years oppressed the Church in his domains, expelling bishops from their sees, despoiling the monasteries, and devastating the country with his mercenaries.

This anti-Christian heresy had been growing stronger and stronger for well nigh one hundred years, despite the condemnation of the Councils of Arras, Charreux, Vienne, Reims and the Third Lateran, and the condemnation of Popes Eugenius III (1145-1153) and Alexander III (1159-1181). The preaching of many a Papal legate—Cardinal Alberic, St. Bernard, the Bishop of Osma, and St. Dominic—had proved of no avail. The murder of Innocent's legate, Peter of Castelnau, brought matters to a crisis in 1208. The Pope, seeing that peaceful methods had failed, called upon the King of France, the suzerain of Toulouse, to use force, and the crusade began under the leadership of Simon de Montfort.

After three years of continual fighting, the religious crusade degenerated into a war conquest. But although de Montfort won a decisive victory at Muret over Pedro of Aragon and Count Raymond, he fell in battle soon afterwards, and the fruits of his conquest were gathered in by the King of France.

No Catholic defends the injustice of some of the inquisitors or the cruelties of the soldiers of de Montfort, but Frenchmen rightly see in this religious war the definite establishing of the French monarchy (Boutaric, St. Louis et Alphonse de Poitiers, 15), and even rationalists like Sabatier consider the triumph of the Papacy "a triumph of good sense and reason" (Sabatier, Vie de St. Frangois, 40). Dr. Mann, in his Lives of the Popes, says: "It is assuredly a pity that the salvation of Christendom should have cost so much blood. But many more lives have often been sacrificed for ends much less valuable than those for which Innocent invoked the swords of the Christians of the North. Innocent was striving to maintain the principles upon which rested not merely the human society of the day in which he lived himself, but the principles upon which rest all healthy society till the end of the world. . . . The action of Innocent in the matter of the Albigenses was approved by perhaps the greatest international assembly that Europe has ever seen—the Lateran Council of 1215. No voice was raised against the action of Innocent in his own age" (xii., p. 260).

BIBLIOGRAPHY: Douais, Les Albigeois: Leurs Origines; Guiraud, Questions d'Histoire, 3-149; Hefele, Histoire des Conciles, v., 1260-1313, 1329, 1333; Innocent III, Epistoloe P. L., 214-217; Schmidt, Histoire des Cathares; Tocco, I'Eresia net Medio Evo.

Source

Anyways, after the Albigensian Crusade, there still remained some Cathars, and so the Inquisition was set up to find them. The Inquisition reaffirmed that the Cathars threatened the fabric of society, as explained here:

Another fascinating book about medieval heretics, specifically the Albigensians of the isolated village Montaillou, is Le Roy Ladurie, Montaillou: The Promised Land of Error. Utilizing the inquisitorial records from Jacque Fournier, Bishop of Pamiers (1318 – 1325), and later pope. The Pamier archive comprised evidence from 578 interrogations. Ladurie examines the beliefs and techniques of the Albigensians of one region and how they threatened the local social fabric. Ladurie includes a detailed index to the families of Montaillou and their often bizarre interconnections. This book was a best seller in France when originally published. Once translated into English in 1978 it has never gone out of print. When you realize that the most pernicious heretic involved in Montaillou, Pierre Clergue, was also the village priest you know why the inquisition was necessary. Ladurie is no defender of the inquisition, but a faithful Christian can read the book and see how dangerous and warped the heretics were.

For an almost complete record of a particular inquisitorial trial of an Albigensian heretic (translated into English) see Patrick Geary, Readings in Medieval History. Reading no. 35, pages 500 – 519. The trial record is drawn from the trial register of the Bishop of Pamiers (just like the sources about Montaillou above). The trial is particularly interesting because the defendant, Beatrice, was member of the lower nobility, and the mistress of the Catholic priest (Pierre Clergue) who was in fact one of the local leaders of the Albigensian heretics! And people wonder why there was an inquisition?

Source

Actually Muhammed believed in peace. Same as Jesus. Some spread it by the sword. Also historically the Crusuades was not about Islam spreading but Christians wanted the Holy Land, and it also had to do with political agendas.

Mohammad believed in peace? Perhaps, just for the Muslims. He did many nasty things which are collected below:

Prophet of Terror and the Religion of Peace--Part I
Prophet of Terror and the Religion of Peace--Part II
Prophet of Terror and the Religion of Peace--Part III
Prophet of Terror and the Religion of Peace--Part IV

As for the Crusades, as I said, it was in response to Muslim aggression. Jerusalem was taken from the Christian Byzantines in A.D. 638. The Christians did want it back, but that does not mean that it was the sole cause of the Crusades. The Muslims were conquering everything in sight and had to be dealt with.

Different versions of the speech Pope Urban II gave, which started the Crusades, have survived. Though we do not have his exact words, the general outlines of his speech are clear. You can read his speech here:

The Version of Fulcher of Chartres
The Version of Robert the Monk

You're right he can't comment on all of them. But he could distance himself from such ideas by saying we want nothing to do with those who are extremist Christans. I have yet to hear Christians speak against the Christian Identity, Army of God, Eric Roudolph or Fred Phelps. This does not mean any agree with their actions or ideas, Muslims should be held to the same accord

But the Pope has nothing to do with those kinds of misguided people. They utterly go against the faith of the Catholic Church. The pope does not and should not reaffirm the Catholic faith every time when a person or groups of people go against the Church. If they were Catholic then they would be heretics, and dealt with accordingly, but they are not. The pope should not have to dignify their warped views of Christianity with a response.

 

[spike]

There was no Chrisitan tyranny before the Crusades. The Muslims spread their faith by the sword unprovoked. There is even a list of Muslims invasions and conquests that ultimately led to the Crusades. You can even find that list of Islamic conquests at your favorite source to use, Wikipedia. As you can see they were rapidly conquering everything.

Unprovoked, really? You just want to ignore the whole Roman Empire expansion I guess.

spike, you conveniently left out a part in Wikipedia that confirms what I said, that the Albigensians were a threat to society. Here it is:

They didn't like oaths and believed in abstinence which to you justifies a crusade and slaughter. Nice.

Now, a further explanation as to the defense of the Albigensian Crusade:


They were an anti-Christian and an anti-social body, which denied marriage, questioned the lawfulness of oaths, refused feudal service on the plea that all war was unlawful, and rejected every teaching of the universal Church in the name of a pagan,

Source

So again, they didn't like oaths, didn't like war, and believed differently. It's kind of disgusting to consider that reason to kill them.

Nice source by the way.

Anyways, after the Albigensian Crusade, there still remained some Cathars, and so the Inquisition was set up to find them. The Inquisition reaffirmed that the Cathars threatened the fabric of society, as explained here:


Source

Ah, they thought differently. So catholics slaughtered and burned them. Surely seems like the catholics were the warped ones and the threat to society. Slaughtering and burning people because of their difference in belief. How do you get off defending this violence?

Another nice biased source by the way.

Mohammad believed in peace? Perhaps, just for the Muslims. He did many nasty things which are collected below:

I don't suppose you can find this info from a source that's not rabidly anti-muslim?

As for the Crusades, as I said, it was in response to Muslim aggression. Jerusalem was taken from the Christian Byzantines in A.D. 638. The Christians did want it back, but that does not mean that it was the sole cause of the Crusades. The Muslims were conquering everything in sight and had to be dealt with.

You simplify to justify.

The Crusades were, in part, an outlet for an intense religious piety which rose up in the late 11th century among the lay public. A crusader would, after pronouncing a solemn vow, receive a cross from the hands of the pope or his legates, and was thenceforth considered a "soldier of the Church".

This was partly because of the Investiture Controversy, which had started around 1075 and was still on-going during the First Crusade. As both sides of the Investiture Controversy tried to marshal public opinion in their favor, people became personally engaged in a dramatic religious controversy. The result was an awakening of intense Christian piety and public interest in religious affairs.

This was further strengthened by religious propaganda, advocating Just War in order to retake the Holy Land—which included Jerusalem (where the death, resurrection and ascension into heaven of Jesus took place according to Christian theology) and Antioch (the first Christian city)—from the Muslims. Further, the remission of sin was a driving factor. This provided any god-fearing men, who had committed sin, as an irresistible way out of eternal damnation in hell.

On a popular level, the first crusades unleashed a wave of impassioned, personally felt pious Christian fury that was expressed in the massacres of Jews that accompanied the movement of the Crusader mobs through Europe, as well as the violent treatment of "schismatic" Orthodox Christians of the east. The violence against the Orthodox Christians culminated in the sack of Constantinople in 1204, in which most of the crusading armies took part. During many of the attacks on Jews, local Bishops and Christians made attempts to protect Jews from the mobs that were passing through. Jews were often offered sanctuary in churches and other Christian buildings, but the mobs broke in and killed them anyway.

But the Pope has nothing to do with those kinds of misguided people. They utterly go against the faith of the Catholic Church. The pope does not and should not reaffirm the Catholic faith every time when a person or groups of people go against the Church. If they were Catholic then they would be heretics, and dealt with accordingly, but they are not. The pope should not have to dignify their warped views of Christianity with a response.

Hey, you're right. Good point. Just as the vast majority of muslims have nothing to do with the misguided terrorists. Muslim leaders should not have to dignify their warped views of the muslim religion with a response either. They do speak out against them though while pope does not speak out against the christian extremists. Not that he should have to.

 

[Gotholic]

Unprovoked, really? You just want to ignore the whole Roman Empire expansion I guess.

The Roman Empire expansion was not due to spread Christianity, unlike the Muslim expansion to spread Islam. Show me where the Roman Empire attacked Muslims first.

They didn't like oaths and believed in abstinence which to you justifies a crusade and slaughter. Nice.

So again, they didn't like oaths, didn't like war, and believed differently. It's kind of disgusting to consider that reason to kill them.

Nice source by the way.

Ah, they thought differently. So catholics slaughtered and burned them. Surely seems like the catholics were the warped ones and the threat to society. Slaughtering and burning people because of their difference in belief. How do you get off defending this violence?

Another nice biased source by the way.

If you think Wikipedia is free from bias then you are sadly mistaken. Why you keep using it is beyond me. I used a Catholic source, which provided the bibliography to their information, so they were not just saying their opinion. The next Catholic source was used to reference an academic book that proves that the Cathars were a threat to society.

You obviously have no idea the value of marriage, family, children, and oaths were back then. They were more valuable than they are today. For a vast group of people not believing in them, even in the name of their religion, was detrimental to society of the time.

Mohammad believed in peace? Perhaps, just for the Muslims. He did many nasty things which are collected below:

Prophet of Terror and the Religion of Peace--Part I
Prophet of Terror and the Religion of Peace--Part II
Prophet of Terror and the Religion of Peace--Part III
Prophet of Terror and the Religion of Peace--Part IV

I don't suppose you can find this info from a source that's not rabidly anti-muslim?

If you find doubt to what the person presents then just google the red underlined subjects, like I did to verify. But, could it be that you only will accept the most trust worthy source, Wikipedia?

As for the Crusades, as I said, it was in response to Muslim aggression. Jerusalem was taken from the Christian Byzantines in A.D. 638. The Christians did want it back, but that does not mean that it was the sole cause of the Crusades. The Muslims were conquering everything in sight and had to be dealt with.

You simplify to justify.

The Crusades were, in part, an outlet for an intense religious piety which rose up in the late 11th century among the lay public. A crusader would, after pronouncing a solemn vow, receive a cross from the hands of the pope or his legates, and was thenceforth considered a "soldier of the Church".

This was partly because of the Investiture Controversy, which had started around 1075 and was still on-going during the First Crusade. As both sides of the Investiture Controversy tried to marshal public opinion in their favor, people became personally engaged in a dramatic religious controversy. The result was an awakening of intense Christian piety and public interest in religious affairs.

This was further strengthened by religious propaganda, advocating Just War in order to retake the Holy Land—which included Jerusalem (where the death, resurrection and ascension into heaven of Jesus took place according to Christian theology) and Antioch (the first Christian city)—from the Muslims. Further, the remission of sin was a driving factor. This provided any god-fearing men, who had committed sin, as an irresistible way out of eternal damnation in hell.

On a popular level, the first crusades unleashed a wave of impassioned, personally felt pious Christian fury that was expressed in the massacres of Jews that accompanied the movement of the Crusader mobs through Europe, as well as the violent treatment of "schismatic" Orthodox Christians of the east. The violence against the Orthodox Christians culminated in the sack of Constantinople in 1204, in which most of the crusading armies took part. During many of the attacks on Jews, local Bishops and Christians made attempts to protect Jews from the mobs that were passing through. Jews were often offered sanctuary in churches and other Christian buildings, but the mobs broke in and killed them anyway.

Again, you use Wikipedia. If I wanted to, I could I could edit that to say that the Crusades were caused by the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Hey, you're right. Good point. Just as the vast majority of muslims have nothing to do with the misguided terrorists. Muslim leaders should not have to dignify their warped views of the muslim religion with a response either. They do speak out against them though while pope does not speak out against the christian extremists. Not that he should have to.

I never said the Muslim leaders were not speaking out against terrorists. But there is a difference for the pope not speaking out against a non-Catholic than a Muslim leader not speaking out against someone in their own fold.

 

[spike]

The Roman Empire expansion was not due to spread Christianity, unlike the Muslim expansion to spread Islam. Show me where the Roman Empire attacked Muslims first.

Both were to spread their empire.

If you think Wikipedia is free from bias then you are sadly mistaken. Why you keep using it is beyond me. I used a Catholic source, which provided the bibliography to their information, so they were not just saying their opinion. The next Catholic source was used to reference an academic book that proves that the Cathars were a threat to society.

You're catholic sources, unlike Wikipedia, are biased towards catholism and useless. You have no reason to complain about sources when yours are obviously extremely biased.

You obviously have no idea the value of marriage, family, children, and oaths were back then. They were more valuable than they are today. For a vast group of people not believing in them, even in the name of their religion, was detrimental to society of the time.

You obviously have no idea that is wrong to hunt down, slaughter, and burn people just because they have different beliefs than you. Killing people different from you is behavior dangerous to society. The catholics were far more warped.

If you find doubt to what the person presents then just google the red underlined subjects, like I did to verify. But, could it be that you only will accept the most trust worthy source, Wikipedia?

Far and away better source than the ones you're using.

Historical persecution by christians.

Again, you use Wikipedia. If I wanted to, I could I could edit that to say that the Crusades were caused by the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Google to verify. Then go ahead and edit that Crusades page with the Flying spaghetti monster info. I want to check it out.

I never said the Muslim leaders were not speaking out against terrorists. But there is a difference for the pope not speaking out against a non-Catholic than a Muslim leader not speaking out against someone in their own fold.

So there's no different muslim denominations?

 

[freako104]

There was no Chrisitan tyranny before the Crusades. The Muslims spread their faith by the sword unprovoked. There is even a list of Muslims invasions and conquests that ultimately led to the Crusades. You can even find that list of Islamic conquests at your favorite source to use, Wikipedia. As you can see, they were rapidly conquering everything.



spike, you conveniently left out a part in Wikipedia that confirms what I said, that the Albigensians were a threat to society. Here it is:



Source

Now, a further explanation as to the defense of the Albigensian Crusade:



Source

Anyways, after the Albigensian Crusade, there still remained some Cathars, and so the Inquisition was set up to find them. The Inquisition reaffirmed that the Cathars threatened the fabric of society, as explained here:



Source



Mohammad believed in peace? Perhaps, just for the Muslims. He did many nasty things which are collected below:

Prophet of Terror and the Religion of Peace--Part I
Prophet of Terror and the Religion of Peace--Part II
Prophet of Terror and the Religion of Peace--Part III
Prophet of Terror and the Religion of Peace--Part IV

As for the Crusades, as I said, it was in response to Muslim aggression. Jerusalem was taken from the Christian Byzantines in A.D. 638. The Christians did want it back, but that does not mean that it was the sole cause of the Crusades. The Muslims were conquering everything in sight and had to be dealt with.

Different versions of the speech Pope Urban II gave, which started the Crusades, have survived. Though we do not have his exact words, the general outlines of his speech are clear. You can read his speech here:

The Version of Fulcher of Chartres
The Version of Robert the Monk



But the Pope has nothing to do with those kinds of misguided people. They utterly go against the faith of the Catholic Church. The pope does not and should not reaffirm the Catholic faith every time when a person or groups of people go against the Church. If they were Catholic then they would be heretics, and dealt with accordingly, but they are not. The pope should not have to dignify their warped views of Christianity with a response.

Nope he believed in peace for everyone. Using anti Muslim sites would give a bullshit definition of him. Try using unbiased historical sites. He himself was against the use of violence except in self defense.


Then by your standard, the extremists go against the Islamic faith. No true Muslim should have to dignify what Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbullah or others say. You seem to distance yourself from them,but then lump all Muslims together. Strange how the ones that do nothing are lumped together, and when confronted they can speak up but are ignored. You did not try to distance yourself from the Catholic extremists of that time or current time until now. And the Pope called for the Crusuades. Not Islam. It was not for Islamic aggression. Islam was not doing anything around the world at the time. Kings were looking to expand empires and religious people wanted the Holy Land by any means necessary

 

[Gotholic]

The Roman Empire expansion was not due to spread Christianity, unlike the Muslim expansion to spread Islam. Show me where the Roman Empire attacked Muslims first.

Both were to spread their empire.

I thought so. You cannot find proof that Muslims attacked non-Muslims first.

You're catholic sources, unlike Wikipedia, are biased towards catholism and useless. You have no reason to complain about sources when yours are obviously extremely biased.

Wikipedia is biased through those who put in and modify the entries. But since anyone can modify anything in Wikipedia, it cannot be trusted.

Everyone has a bias. That does not always mean dishonesty. The Catholic Church did not wage a Crusade against all heretics - that is something to keep in mind. The Cathars were more than heretics as I have already explained.

You cannot find any source that says the Crusaded were wrong that is not biased. In order to get the full picture you must understand the Catholic point of view. And you can only get a good Catholic point of view through a Catholic source.

You obviously have no idea that is wrong to hunt down, slaughter, and burn people just because they have different beliefs than you. Killing people different from you is behavior dangerous to society. The catholics were far more warped.

It was all circumstantial. In those times it was deemed needed. And the civil authorities agreed.

Google to verify. Then go ahead and edit that Crusades page with the Flying spaghetti monster info. I want to check it out.

No, I told you to google it to verify it if you doubt it. I already did before I posted it. Besides, even Wikipedia coincides pretty much with what the person posted about Mohammad. You can check them out in the following links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_persecution_by_Muslims
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_as_a_general

Check it out! The Crusades were caused by the Flying Spaghetti Monster too! I'm not leaving it there though, so once you acknowledge I did it I will remove it.

So there's no different muslim denominations?

I said, "in their fold".

Nope he believed in peace for everyone. Using anti Muslim sites would give a bullshit definition of him. Try using unbiased historical sites. He himself was against the use of violence except in self defense.

Take a look at the Wikipedia (if you deem it worthy) links I posted for spike to look at in this post.

Then by your standard, the extremists go against the Islamic faith. No true Muslim should have to dignify what Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbullah or others say. You seem to distance yourself from them,but then lump all Muslims together. Strange how the ones that do nothing are lumped together, and when confronted they can speak up but are ignored. You did not try to distance yourself from the Catholic extremists of that time or current time until now.

If a Muslim is acting out terrorism under a Muslim leader's fold then that Muslim leader is obligated to speak out. I'm not saying that they aren't speaking out, but that they should.

And the Pope called for the Crusuades. Not Islam. It was not for Islamic aggression. Islam was not doing anything around the world at the time. Kings were looking to expand empires and religious people wanted the Holy Land by any means necessary

I already told you that Pope Urban II called for the Crusades. The reason he called for it was due to the Muslim aggression. The Muslims were very busy around that time. Read Pope Urban II's speech that I provided for as to why he called for the Crusades.

 

[freako104]

Take a look at the Wikipedia (if you deem it worthy) links I posted for spike to look at in this post.

I don't. There is a tab at the top of every page that says edit this page.


Also it was not due to Muslim aggression. Once again read real history. The Muslims were attacked by Christians. Hell most of the extremists are probably still pissed about it because they were the victims back then.


If they should speak out then all people should speak out. Not just Muslims. I have yet to hear anyone say Christians need to speak against terrorists such as the Christian Identity or Army of God. I have yet to hear anyone say Buddhists need to speak out against some of the actions Hare Krishnas have taken in India.

 

[Gotholic]

I don't. There is a tab at the top of every page that says edit this page.

Also it was not due to Muslim aggression. Once again read real history. The Muslims were attacked by Christians. Hell most of the extremists are probably still pissed about it because they were the victims back then.

I feel the same way about Wikipedia. However, if you go to www.encyclopedia.com then you can confirm what Wikipedia said here. All those conquests did happen. They were in no way the victims.

If they should speak out then all people should speak out. Not just Muslims. I have yet to hear anyone say Christians need to speak against terrorists such as the Christian Identity or Army of God. I have yet to hear anyone say Buddhists need to speak out against some of the actions Hare Krishnas have taken in India.

Whatever denomination those hate groups are part of then it is those Christian leaders who should speak out.

 

[spike]

I thought so. You cannot find proof that Muslims attacked non-Muslims first.

You're the one supposed to be proving muslims attacked non muslims first.

Wikipedia is biased through those who put in and modify the entries. But since anyone can modify anything in Wikipedia, it cannot be trusted.

Any catholic can put together a biased website with no accountability or checks of any kind unlike wikipedia. That makes your sites less trustable.

It was all circumstantial. In those times it was deemed needed. And the civil authorities agreed.

Catholic authorities or those pressured by catholics.

The Cathars were protected by local nobles, and also by bishops who resented papal authority. In 1204 the pope suspended the authority of the bishops in the south of France, appointing papal legates.

What was needed was someone to stop the twisted fascist catholics from slaughtering and burning those that thought differently than them.

No, I told you to google it to verify it if you doubt it. I already did before I posted it. Besides, even Wikipedia coincides pretty much with what the person posted about Mohammad. You can check them out in the following links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_persecution_by_Muslims
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_as_a_general

Muhammad as general bit sounds a lot more defensive than the catholic slaughters of cathars. And this stuff too.

The Crusades were, in part, an outlet for an intense religious piety which rose up in the late 11th century among the lay public. A crusader would, after pronouncing a solemn vow, receive a cross from the hands of the pope or his legates, and was thenceforth considered a "soldier of the Church".

This was partly because of the Investiture Controversy, which had started around 1075 and was still on-going during the First Crusade. As both sides of the Investiture Controversy tried to marshal public opinion in their favor, people became personally engaged in a dramatic religious controversy. The result was an awakening of intense Christian piety and public interest in religious affairs.

This was further strengthened by religious propaganda, advocating Just War in order to retake the Holy Land—which included Jerusalem (where the death, resurrection and ascension into heaven of Jesus took place according to Christian theology) and Antioch (the first Christian city)—from the Muslims. Further, the remission of sin was a driving factor. This provided any god-fearing men, who had committed sin, as an irresistible way out of eternal damnation in hell.

On a popular level, the first crusades unleashed a wave of impassioned, personally felt pious Christian fury that was expressed in the massacres of Jews that accompanied the movement of the Crusader mobs through Europe, as well as the violent treatment of "schismatic" Orthodox Christians of the east. The violence against the Orthodox Christians culminated in the sack of Constantinople in 1204, in which most of the crusading armies took part. During many of the attacks on Jews, local Bishops and Christians made attempts to protect Jews from the mobs that were passing through. Jews were often offered sanctuary in churches and other Christian buildings, but the mobs broke in and killed them anyway.

Check it out! The Crusades were caused by the Flying Spaghetti Monster too! I'm not leaving it there though, so once you acknowledge I did it I will remove it.

Checked at 9:40 PST and nothing.

 

[Gotholic]

You're the one supposed to be proving muslims attacked non muslims first.

I did.

Any catholic can put together a biased website with no accountability or checks of any kind unlike wikipedia. That makes your sites less trustable.

The sources I gave have given their sources. Wikipedia allows anyone to edit.

Catholic authorities or those pressured by catholics. What was needed was someone to stop the twisted fascist catholics from slaughtering and burning those that thought differently than them.

They were a threat, and agreed.

Muhammad as general bit sounds a lot more defensive than the catholic slaughters of cathars. And this stuff too.

The Crusades were, in part, an outlet for an intense religious piety which rose up in the late 11th century among the lay public. A crusader would, after pronouncing a solemn vow, receive a cross from the hands of the pope or his legates, and was thenceforth considered a "soldier of the Church".

This was partly because of the Investiture Controversy, which had started around 1075 and was still on-going during the First Crusade. As both sides of the Investiture Controversy tried to marshal public opinion in their favor, people became personally engaged in a dramatic religious controversy. The result was an awakening of intense Christian piety and public interest in religious affairs.

This was further strengthened by religious propaganda, advocating Just War in order to retake the Holy Land—which included Jerusalem (where the death, resurrection and ascension into heaven of Jesus took place according to Christian theology) and Antioch (the first Christian city)—from the Muslims. Further, the remission of sin was a driving factor. This provided any god-fearing men, who had committed sin, as an irresistible way out of eternal damnation in hell.

On a popular level, the first crusades unleashed a wave of impassioned, personally felt pious Christian fury that was expressed in the massacres of Jews that accompanied the movement of the Crusader mobs through Europe, as well as the violent treatment of "schismatic" Orthodox Christians of the east. The violence against the Orthodox Christians culminated in the sack of Constantinople in 1204, in which most of the crusading armies took part. During many of the attacks on Jews, local Bishops and Christians made attempts to protect Jews from the mobs that were passing through. Jews were often offered sanctuary in churches and other Christian buildings, but the mobs broke in and killed them anyway.

Wikipedia is not credible.

Checked at 9:40 PST and nothing.

Nevermind, it was there. I think you must be regular member for it to stay.

 

[spike]

I did.

Nope

The sources I gave have given their sources. Wikipedia allows anyone to edit.

Where only a biased catholic can edit your sources.

They were a threat and agreed.

Catholics were the threat.

The Cathars were protected by local nobles, and also by bishops who resented papal authority. In 1204 the pope suspended the authority of the bishops in the south of France, appointing papal legates.

Wikipedia is not credible.

Much more so than your sources.

But here's Answers.com

The crusaders sacked the town of Beziers, in north-east Languedoc, and slaughtered the entire population. "Kill them all! God will recognize His own!" cried Arnald-Amaury as his army killed some 10,000 to 20,000 people, with just over 200 estimated to have been Cathars.

The effects of these brutal tactics initially worked in favor of the crusaders, for Narbonne and most of the smaller towns yielded to the papal demands of conversion and payment of a ransom.

The first four years of the Albigensian crusade were the bloodiest of the entire war. This was due directly to the actions of the elected leader of the Crusading army, Simon de Montfort. Known as "the butcher," Montfort's victories were marked by civilian atrocities. For example, at the siege of Bram, Simon took a hundred hostages, cut off their noses and upper lips, and blinded all but one. In turn, this lone individual was forced to lead this horrific procession of mutilated individuals to the castle of Cabaret as a warning to all those who would oppose the crusaders.

http://militaryhistory.about.com/od/medievalwarfare/a/albigensiancrus_2.htm

These twisted catholic crusaders were a threat to civilized society.

Nevermind, it was there. I think you must be regular member for it to stay.

Harder than you thought huh?

Here's some more from Answers who cite their sources at the bottom.

Crusades - attempts by European Christians to impose their vision of religion upon Jews, Orthodox Christians, heretics, Muslims, and just about anyone else who happened to get in the way.

Pilgrims resented the fact that sites holy to Christianity were not controlled by Christians, and they were easily whipped into a state of agitation and hatred towards Muslims. Later on, crusading itself was regarded as a holy pilgrimage - thus, people paid penance for their sins by going off and slaughtering adherents of another religion. Indulgences, or waivers of temporal punishment, were granted by the church to anyone who contributed monetarily to the bloody campaigns.

Tens of thousands of peasants followed Peter the Hermit who displayed a letter he claimed was written by God and delivered to him personally by Jesus. This letter was supposed to be his credentials as a Christian leader, and perhaps he was indeed qualified - in more ways than one.

Not to be outdone, throngs of crusaders in the Rhine valley followed a goose believed to be enchanted by God to be their guide. I'm not sure that they got very far, although they did manage to join other armies following Emich of Leisingen who asserted that a cross miraculously appeared on his chest, certifying him for leadership. Showing a level of rationality consistent with their choice of leaders, Emich's followers decided that before they traveled across Europe to kill God's enemies, it would be a good idea to eliminate the infidels in their midst. Thus suitably motivated, they proceeded to massacre the Jews in German cities like Mainz and Worms. Thousands of defenseless men, women and children were chopped, burned or otherwise slaughtered.

This sort of action was not an isolated event - indeed, it was repeated throughout Europe by all sorts of crusading hordes. The lucky Jews were given a last-minute chance to convert to Christianity in accord with Augustine's doctrines. Even other Christians were not safe from the Christian crusaders. As they roamed the countryside, they spared no effort in pillaging towns and farms for food. When Peter the Hermit's army entered Yugoslavia, 4,000 Christian residents of the city of Zemun were massacred before they moved on to burn Belgrade.




When Muslim cities were captured by Christian crusaders, it was standard operating procedure for all inhabitants - no matter what their age - to be summarily killed. It is not an exaggeration to say that the streets ran red with blood as Christians reveled in church-sanctioned horrors. Jews who took refuge in their synagogues would be burned alive, not unlike the treatment they received in Europe.

In his reports about the conquest of Jerusalem, Chronicler Raymond of Aguilers wrote that "It was a just and marvelous judgment of God, that this place [the temple of Solomon] should be filled with the blood of the unbelievers." St. Bernard announced before the Second Crusade that "The Christian glories in the death of a pagan, because thereby Christ himself is glorified."

Sometimes, atrocities were excused as actually being merciful. When a crusader army broke out of Antioch and sent the besieging army into flight, the Christians found that the abandoned Muslim camp was filled with the wives of the enemy soldiers. Chronicler Fulcher of Chartres happily recorded for posterity that "...the Franks did nothing evil to them [the women] except pierce their bellies with their lances."



There's much more here,
http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/christian/blfaq_viol_crusades.htm?terms=christian+slaughter+jews+crusade

Defensive?

 

[freako104]

I feel the same way about Wikipedia. However, if you go to www.encyclopedia.com then you can confirm what Wikipedia said here. All those conquests did happen. They were in no way the victims.



Whatever denomination those hate groups are part of then it is those Christian leaders who should speak out.

Actually they were. In that case. Recently they are not. The extremists once again give a bad name to the rest and harbour a grudge against the West because of the destruction and death of the crusuades. And once again I take anything on Wikipedia with salt. I wonder what is said under Christian Conquests since you opted to use Islamic.




I have yet to hear those leaders speak against the groups. But they are not affiliated with them, so should they have to? Same goes for Muslims. If they are not affiliated with said groups, why do they need to speak against them or be called violent terrorists?

 

[spike]

In those times it was deemed needed. And the civil authorities agreed.

Needed.

In the Languedoc, famous at the time for its high culture, tolerance and liberalism, the Cathar religion took root and gained more and more adherents during the twelfth century. By the early thirteenth century Catharism was probably the majority religion in the area, supported by the nobility as well as the common people. This was yet another annoyance to the Roman Church which considered the feudal system to be divinely ordained as the natural order (Cathars disliked it because it depended on oath taking). In open debates with leading Catholic theologians Cathars seem invariably to have come out on top. This was embarrassing for the Roman Church, not least because they had fielded the best professional preachers in Europe against what they saw as a collection of uneducated weavers and other manual workers. Worse still a number of Catholic priests had become Cathar adherents (Catharism was a religion that seems to have appealed especially to the theologically literate and whole Cathedral chapters are known to have defected, as they did for example at Orleans). Worse, the Catholic Church was held up to public ridicule (some of the richest men in Christendom, bejeweled, dressed in finery, and preaching poverty, provided an irresistible target even to fellow Catholics). Worst yet, Cathars in the Languedoc refused to pay tithes to the Catholic Church.

The Cathar view of the Catholic Church was as bleak as the Catholic Church's view of the Cathar Church. On the Cathar side it manifested itself in ridiculing Catholic doctrine and practices, and characterising the Catholic Church as the "Church of Wolves". The Catholics accused Cathars of heresy or apostasy and said they belonged to the "Synagogue of Satan". The Catholic side created some striking propaganda. When the propaganda proved only partly successful, there was only one option left - a crusade - the Albigensian Crusade.

During this period an estimated 500,000 Languedoc men women and children were massacred - Catholics as well as Cathars. The Counts of Toulouse and their allies were dispossessed and humiliated, and their lands annexed to France. Educated and tolerant Languedoc rulers were replaced by relative barbarians; Dominic Guzmán (later Saint Dominic) founded the Dominican Order and soon afterwards the Inquisition, manned by his Dominicans, was established explicitly to wipe out the last vestiges of resistance. Persecutions of Languedoc Jews and other minorities were initiated; the culture of the troubadours was lost as their cultured patrons were reduced to wandering refugees known as faidits. Their characteristic concept of "paratge", a whole sophisticated world-view, was almost destroyed, leaving us a pale imitation in our idea of chivalry. Lay learning was discouraged and the reading of the bible became a capital crime. Tithes were enforced.



http://www.languedoc-france.info/12_cathars.htm

Civil Authorities agreed

In the year 1198 Pope Innocent III delegated two simple monks to judge the heretics. “We command”, he says “to the Princes, to the Counts, and to all Lords of your lands, to aid them against the heretics, by the authority that they have been given to punish the evil-doers, so that when Brother Rainier has excommunicated them, the Lords should seize their property, banish them from their lands, and punish severely those who dare to resist. Now, we have given authority to Brother Rainier to compel the Lords to do this, on pain of excommunication and interdiction of their property, etc.” This was the first foundation of the Inquisition.

The Count, who knew the power that a papal bull could have, submitted and did what was demanded of him (1209). One of the papal legates, named Milon, ordered him to go to Valence, to surrender seven castles that he held in Provence, to join the crusade against the Albigensians – his own subjects, and to make due apology. The Count obeyed every requirement: he appeared before the legate, stripped to the waist, bear foot and bare legged, clothed in simple breeches, at the door of the Church of Saint-Gilles [10] ; there, a deacon placed a noose around his neck. Another deacon flogged him while the legal held the free end of the noose; after which the prince was obliged to prostrate himself at the door of this church while the legate ate his supper.

On one side of him were to be seen the Duke of Burgundy, the Count of Nevers, Simon Count of Montfort, the Bishops of Sens, of Auytun, of Nevers, of Clermont, of Lisieux, and of Bayeux, all at the head of their troops, and the miserable Count of Toulouse like a hostage in their midst: on the other side a mob animated by fanaticism of their faith. The city of Béziers tried to hold out against the crusaders; all the inhabitants who sought refuge in a church had their throats cut and the city was reduced to ashes [11] . The citizens of Carcassonne, frightened by this example, begged for mercy from the crusaders and their lives were spared. They were permitted to leave their city, almost naked, and all their goods were seized.

The spirit of justice and reason, which has been introduced into European civil law since then, has finally made clear that there was never anything as unjust as the was against the Albigensians. The people were not attacked for rebelling against their prince: it was the prince who was attacked to force him to destroy his own people. What would we say today if some bishops came to lay siege to the Elector of Saxony or of the Palatine, under the pretext that the subjects of these princes had favoured ceremonies different from those of the subjects of these bishops?

-Voltaire

More interesting stuff
http://www.languedoc-france.info/articles/t_voltairecathars.htm

Do you view the Inquisitions as defensive too?

 

[A.B.Normal]

http://tv.peekvid.com/s4331/

 

[Gotholic]

Nope

I showed you that Mohammad and crew attacked Jews and others unprovoked by them. Mohammad's successors also went on many Islamic conquests unprovoked. If you believe they were provoked to spread the will of Allah than show me where.

Where only a biased catholic can edit your sources.

It is better to be selective than to have an open door policy.

Catholics were the threat.

The Cathars were protected by local nobles, and also by bishops who resented papal authority. In 1204 the pope suspended the authority of the bishops in the south of France, appointing papal legates.

You used Wikipedia again. If that were true, it would not negate the majority.

Much more so than your sources.

Not really.

But here's Answers.com

The crusaders sacked the town of Beziers, in north-east Languedoc, and slaughtered the entire population. "Kill them all! God will recognize His own!" cried Arnald-Amaury as his army killed some 10,000 to 20,000 people, with just over 200 estimated to have been Cathars.

The effects of these brutal tactics initially worked in favor of the crusaders, for Narbonne and most of the smaller towns yielded to the papal demands of conversion and payment of a ransom.

The first four years of the Albigensian crusade were the bloodiest of the entire war. This was due directly to the actions of the elected leader of the Crusading army, Simonde Montfort. Known as "the butcher," Montfort's victories were marked by civilian atrocities. For example, at the siege of Bram, Simon took a hundred hostages, cut off their noses and upper lips, and blinded all but one. In turn, this lone individual was forced to lead this horrific procession of mutilated individuals to the castle of Cabaret as a warning to all those who would oppose the crusaders.

http://militaryhistory.about.com/od/...siancrus_2.htm

These twisted catholic crusaders were a threat to civilized society.

That quote, "Kill them all! God will recognize His own!", was not said by Arnald-Amaury. The article that says he said it lessens the credence of it. The least thing the author could have done was to say, "he allegedly said". Anyways, the Crusaders did use excessive force and did do many evil acts, such things happen in wars, but that does not negate the just cause of any war when soldiers do what is not commanded of them to do. The Crusade against the Cathars was a last resort and was only called for after the Cathars became hostile.

Harder than you thought huh?

Actually, it is quite easy. But I do not want to put in the effort to prove a well known flaw.

Here's some more from Answers who cite their sources at the bottom.

Crusades - attempts by European Christians to impose their vision of religion upon Jews, Orthodox Christians, heretics, Muslims, and just about anyone else who happened to get in the way.

Pilgrims resented the fact that sites holy to Christianity were not controlled by Christians, and they were easily whipped into a state of agitation and hatred towards Muslims. Later on, crusading itself was regarded as a holy pilgrimage - thus, people paid penance for their sins by going off and slaughtering adherents of another religion. Indulgences, or waivers of temporal punishment, were granted by the church to anyone who contributed monetarily to the bloody campaigns.

Tens of thousands of peasants followed Peter the Hermit who displayed a letter he claimed was written by God and delivered to him personally by Jesus. This letter was supposed to be his credentials as a Christian leader, and perhaps he was indeed qualified - in more ways than one.

Not to be outdone, throngs of crusaders in the Rhine valley followed a goose believed to be enchanted by God to be their guide. I'm not sure that they got very far, although they did manage to join other armies followingEmich of Leisingen who asserted that a cross miraculously appeared on his chest, certifying him for leadership. Showing a level of rationality consistent with their choice of leaders,Emich's followers decided that before they traveled across Europe to kill God's enemies, it would be a good idea to eliminate the infidels in their midst. Thus suitably motivated, they proceeded to massacre the Jews in German cities likeMainz and Worms. Thousands of defenseless men, women and children were chopped, burned or otherwise slaughtered.

This sort of action was not an isolated event - indeed, it was repeated throughout Europe by all sorts of crusading hordes. The lucky Jews were given a last-minute chance to convert to Christianity in accord with Augustine's doctrines. Even other Christians were not safe from the Christian crusaders. As they roamed the countryside, they spared no effort in pillaging towns and farms for food. When Peter the Hermit's army entered Yugoslavia, 4,000 Christian residents of the city ofZemun were massacred before they moved on to burn Belgrade.




When Muslim cities were captured by Christian crusaders, it was standard operating procedure for all inhabitants - no matter what their age - to be summarily killed. It is not an exaggeration to say that the streets ran red with blood as Christians reveled in church-sanctioned horrors. Jews who took refuge in their synagogues would be burned alive, not unlike the treatment they received in Europe.

In his reports about the conquest of Jerusalem, Chronicler Raymond of Aguilers wrote that "It was a just and marvelous judgment of God, that this place [the temple of Solomon] should be filled with the blood of the unbelievers." St. Bernard announced before the Second Crusade that "The Christian glories in the death of a pagan, because thereby Christ himself is glorified."

Sometimes, atrocities were excused as actually being merciful. When a crusader army broke out of Antioch and sent the besieging army into flight, the Christians found that the abandoned Muslim camp was filled with the wives of the enemy soldiers. ChroniclerFulcher of Chartres happily recorded for posterity that "...the Franks did nothing evil to them [the women] except pierce their bellies with their lances."



There's much more here,
http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/christian/blfaq_viol_crusades.htm?terms=christian+slaughter+ jews+crusade

Defensive?

Again, the Crusaders did do horrible acts, but that does not negate the just cause of the Crusades. The Crusades was a response to Muslim aggression. Thus they were defensive wars. This can be found here, here, and even here.

Actually they were. In that case. Recently they are not. The extremists once again give a bad name to the rest and harbour a grudge against the West because of the destruction and death of the crusuades. And once again I take anything on Wikipedia with salt. I wonder what is said under Christian Conquests since you opted to use Islamic.

Mohammad led attacks and so did his successors in the attempt for Islam to have dominant political control and to spread their faith. Muslims have a history that can be traced backed to their founder that they are violent. The same cannot be said of Christians - show me where Jesus ever fought anyone. People can argue that Christians detracted from their faith and became violent. However, the argument cannot be said of Muslims since Mohammad himself was violent.

I have yet to hear those leaders speak against the groups. But they are not affiliated with them, so should they have to? Same goes for Muslims. If they are not affiliated with said groups, why do they need to speak against them or be called violent terrorists?

I never said they must.

Needed.

In the Languedoc, famous at the time for its high culture, tolerance and liberalism, the Cathar religion took root and gained more and more adherents during the twelfth century. By the early thirteenth century Catharism was probably the majority religion in the area, supported by the nobility as well as the common people. This was yet another annoyance to the Roman Church which considered the feudal system to be divinely ordained as the natural order (Cathars disliked it because it depended on oath taking). In open debates with leading Catholic theologians Cathars seem invariably to have come out on top. This was embarrassing for the Roman Church, not least because they had fielded the best professional preachers in Europe against what they saw as a collection of uneducated weavers and other manual workers. Worse still a number of Catholic priests had become Cathar adherents (Catharism was a religion that seems to have appealed especially to the theologically literate and whole Cathedral chapters are known to have defected, as they did for example at Orleans). Worse, the Catholic Church was held up to public ridicule (some of the richest men in Christendom, bejeweled, dressed in finery, and preaching poverty, provided an irresistible target even to fellow Catholics). Worst yet, Cathars in the Languedoc refused to pay tithes to the Catholic Church.

The Cathar view of the Catholic Church was as bleak as the Catholic Church's view of the Cathar Church. On the Cathar side it manifested itself in ridiculing Catholic doctrine and practices, and characterising the Catholic Church as the "Church of Wolves". The Catholics accused Cathars of heresy or apostasy and said they belonged to the "Synagogue of Satan". The Catholic side created some striking propaganda. When the propaganda proved only partly successful, there was only one option left - a crusade - the Albigensian Crusade.

During this period an estimated 500,000 Languedoc men women and children were massacred - Catholics as well as Cathars. The Counts of Toulouse and their allies were dispossessed and humiliated, and their lands annexed to France. Educated and tolerant Languedoc rulers were replaced by relative barbarians; Dominic Guzmán (later Saint Dominic) founded the Dominican Order and soon afterwards the Inquisition, manned by his Dominicans, was established explicitly to wipe out the last vestiges of resistance. Persecutions of Languedoc Jews and other minorities were initiated; the culture of the troubadours was lost as their cultured patrons were reduced to wandering refugees known as faidits. Their characteristic concept of "paratge", a whole sophisticated world-view, was almost destroyed, leaving us a pale imitation in our idea of chivalry. Lay learning was discouraged and the reading of the bible became a capital crime. Tithes were enforced.



http://www.languedoc-france.info/12_cathars.htm

Civil Authorities agreed

In the year 1198 Pope Innocent III delegated two simple monks to judge the heretics. “We command”, he says “to the Princes, to the Counts, and to all Lords of your lands, to aid them against the heretics, by the authority that they have been given to punish the evil-doers, so that when Brother Rainier has excommunicated them, the Lords should seize their property, banish them from their lands, and punish severely those who dare to resist. Now, we have given authority to Brother Rainier to compel the Lords to do this, on pain of excommunication and interdiction of their property, etc.” This was the first foundation of the Inquisition.

The Count, who knew the power that a papal bull could have, submitted and did what was demanded of him (1209). One of the papal legates, named Milon, ordered him to go to Valence, to surrender seven castles that he held in Provence, to join the crusade against the Albigensians – his own subjects, and to make due apology. The Count obeyed every requirement: he appeared before the legate, stripped to the waist, bear foot and bare legged, clothed in simple breeches, at the door of the Church of Saint-Gilles [10] ; there, a deacon placed a noose around his neck. Another deacon flogged him while the legal held the free end of the noose; after which the prince was obliged to prostrate himself at the door of this church while the legate ate his supper.

On one side of him were to be seen the Duke of Burgundy, the Count of Nevers, Simon Count of Montfort, the Bishops of Sens, of Auytun, of Nevers, of Clermont, of Lisieux, and of Bayeux, all at the head of their troops, and the miserable Count of Toulouse like a hostage in their midst: on the other side a mob animated by fanaticism of their faith. The city of Béziers tried to hold out against the crusaders; all the inhabitants who sought refuge in a church had their throats cut and the city was reduced to ashes [11] . The citizens of Carcassonne, frightened by this example, begged for mercy from the crusaders and their lives were spared. They were permitted to leave their city, almost naked, and all their goods were seized.

The spirit of justice and reason, which has been introduced into European civil law since then, has finally made clear that there was never anything as unjust as the was against the Albigensians. The people were not attacked for rebelling against their prince: it was the prince who was attacked to force him to destroy his own people. What would we say today if some bishops came to lay siege to the Elector of Saxony or of the Palatine, under the pretext that the subjects of these princes had favoured ceremonies different from those of the subjects of these bishops?

-Voltaire

More interesting stuff
http://www.languedoc-france.info/art...irecathars.htm

You used a Catharism sympathizing site (I actually have been there before). I don't think I need to say more on that. However, I will say this, you can find tons of sites that condemn the Catholic Church and side with anyone who opposes the Church in any way. I know the opposition well having been taught that the Crusades were the Catholic Church's way of imposing Christianity. I don't think you know the Catholic side of it. The most objective view point from the Catholic side without trying to whitewash the Crusades is from the 1919 Catholic Encyclopedia, which can be found here (I have already provided a link to this earlier in this post). Another great site that provide short articles on the Crusades can be found here.

Do you view the Inquisitions as defensive too?

Let's save that one for another thread.

 

[freako104]

Mohammad led attacks and so did his successors in the attempt for Islam to have dominant political control and to spread their faith. Muslims have a history that can be traced backed to their founder that they are violent. The same cannot be said of Christians - show me where Jesus ever fought anyone. People can argue that Christians detracted from their faith and became violent. However, the argument cannot be said of Muslims since Mohammad himself was violent.

Wasn't there a story of Jesus killing someone when he was a child? Or was that not canonised? Muhammed himself did not fight anyone. Once again his followers did, this does not mean he did. And most of the Christians who used violence were not at all detracted from their faith.

Again, the Crusaders did do horrible acts, but that does not negate the just cause of the Crusades. The Crusades was a response to Muslim aggression. Thus they were defensive wars. This can be found here, here, and even here.

How was it justified? Once again, they were to take the holy land by any means though the Muslims were not expanding and were there. And it wasn't just about religion, kings wanted to expand their lands and territories.

I never said they must.

You and SnP both claim that they need to speak against it or they are just as bad. Which is hypocritical since apparently buddhists, Christians, Hindus, et al don't need to

 

[Gotholic]

Wasn't there a story of Jesus killing someone when he was a child? Or was that not canonised? Muhammed himself did not fight anyone. Once again his followers did, this does not mean he did. And most of the Christians who used violence were not at all detracted from their faith.

Jesus never killed anyone. Mohammad killed plenty of people. Ibn Ishaq reports that Mohammad participated in 27 battles and Mohammad himself fought in 9 engagements.

How was it justified? Once again, they were to take the holy land by any means though the Muslims were not expanding and were there. And it wasn't just about religion, kings wanted to expand their lands and territories.

The Muslims conquered Jerusalem in 638, but the Christians were there before them. Did the Christians want it back? Of course they did. You deny that the Muslims were expanding their empire through conquests, which is ridiculous. Try looking up what happened to Syria in 635, Persia in 636, Armenia in 639, Egypt in 639, North Africa in 642, Transoxiana in 662, Sindh in 664, Iberia in 711, Constantinople in 717, Italy in 831, and Anatolia in 1060. And keep in mind that this only a partial list of Muslims conquests. Yeah, the Crusades were a response to Muslim aggression.

You and SnP both claim that they need to speak against it or they are just as bad. Which is hypocritical since apparently buddhists, Christians, Hindus, et al don't need to

I want you to quote me where I said that Muslims leaders must denounce terrorism by those who are not of their fold.

 

[spike]

I showed you that Mohammad and crew attacked Jews and others unprovoked by them. Mohammad's successors also went on many Islamic conquests unprovoked. If you believe they were provoked to spread the will of Allah than show me where.

And mohammad's ancestors were attacked before that and the catholics went on many conquests unprovoked to spread the will of the popes.

It is better to be selective than to have an open door policy.

That ensures a one sided viewpoint.

If that were true, it would not negate the majority.

It shows that the authorities were on the Cathars side until the pope forced it to be otherwise.

Not really.

Yes, the bias of the sites you are using is clear yet you complain about Wikipedia and "Catharism sympathizing" sites. You can't have it both ways. Just address the points.

the Crusaders did use excessive force and did do many evil acts, such things happen in wars, but that does not negate the just cause of any war when soldiers do what is not commanded of them to do. The Crusade against the Cathars was a last resort and was only called for after the Cathars became hostile.

The crusaders were doing what was commanded of them. It was not a last resort as they should have just let them be. It was the catholics who became hostile. The cathars were peaceful and were slaughtered.

Again, the Crusaders did do horrible acts, but that does not negate the just cause of the Crusades. The Crusades was a response to Muslim aggression. Thus they were defensive wars. This can be found here, here, and even here.

Interestingly you totally ignore that your second two links give several unjust causes as well.

Mohammad led attacks and so did his successors in the attempt for Islam to have dominant political control and to spread their faith.

Sounds like what the pope's did.

Muslims have a history that can be traced backed to their founder that they are violent. The same cannot be said of Christians - show me where Jesus ever fought anyone.

It would be hard to top the catholic violence yet as is written in the bible tthere was genocide of entire cities in the old testament. So christian violence goes back long before Jesus.

You used a Catharism sympathizing site (I actually have been there before). I don't think I need to say more on that. However, I will say this, you can find tons of sites that condemn the Catholic Church and side with anyone who opposes the Church in any way. I know the opposition well having been taught that the Crusades were the Catholic Church's way of imposing Christianity. I don't think you know the Catholic side of it. The most objective view point from the Catholic side without trying to whitewash the Crusades is from the 1919 Catholic Encyclopedia, which can be found here (I have already provided a link to this earlier in this post). Another great site that provide short articles on the Crusades can be found here.

Catharism sympathizing? That's like saying I found a Holocaust sympathizing site. As the catholics slaughtered the cathars simply because they were different like Nazis.

You complain about a cathar sympathizing site (while one of the quotes is just from Voltaire) and then give two links two catholic sympathizing sites. You can't see how ridiculous you continue to be on this? Catholic Encyclopedia objective?

It's becoming pretty transparent that you only consider catholic whitewashing of history and can't be objective.

Let's save that one for another thread.

Yes, it's probably hard enough to try to defend the papal history of violence already.

The Muslims conquered Jerusalem in 638, but the Christians were there before them

And how did the christians get there? Because the Romans conquered Jerusalem in 135 and banned all the Jews from the city.

 

[catocom]

[Shooter McGaven] Yeah, well Grizzle Adams had a beard.[/Shooter McGaven]