Kev, Kev, Kev once again you let your god bother tendencies get in the way of logical thought. The "Judeo-Christian" myth is only pushed by Judeo-Christians funnily enough. European civilisation early roots where not Judeo-Christian but rather Greco-Roman. Modern Europe was born form the secularisation of Europe. The period were the Judeo-Christian ethic reigned supreme is rightly called the dark ages. As for the moral equivalency of the crusades and 9-11 I’d say it’s spot on. Both represent disenfranchised youths committing terrible act’s of violence and terror on innocent people in the name of Religion, but really for poli cal motives. So I’d say it’s spot on. Religious fanatics rale see themselves as such. Old religions like Christianity, Judaism and Islam are less relevant to average Australians and so they should be. For much of the churches history it has showed little of the attributes you describe. All of these ideas have only been embraced by the church in it’s death throws.

Kev you are a riot.
You ask how can the crusades be compared to the attack by terrorists. I'll answer by a quote from a vengeful crusader Raymond of Aguilers [dated 1099] concerning the fall of Jerusalem.

"Wonderful things were to be seen. Numbers of the Saracens were beheaded...Others were shot with arrows, or forced to jump from the towers; others were tortured for several days, then burned with flames. In the streets were seen piles of hands & feet. One rode about everywhere amid the corpses of men & horses. In the temple of Soloman, the horses waded in blood up to their knees, nay, up to the bridle." Is Raymond lamenting all this barbarity? By no means, for he adds "It was a just & marvelous judgement of God, that this place should be filled with the blood of unbelievers"

The terrorist attacks were caused by religious fanaticism that was made use of for political gain. The crusades were also [as the quote above shows] caused by religious fanaticism & which was made use of for poitical gain. What is the difference in motivation between the two Kev? Or is this whole article [as I suspect it is] a sly parody of the religious right's views?

Kevin Donnelly complains about a school text which states: "there are many perspectives on events and...explanations are often incomplete and contested"'. I would have thought that was just a statement of fact. And a desirable state of affairs. For example, peruse On Line Opinion with its wide range of contested opinions. Even the perspectives of someone as illogical and narrow-minde as Donnelly gets regular airing. Now stand back and witness the truth of the quotation in the forum that follows. If Donnelly is really arguing for just one world view, I hope it is not his that is the chosen one.

Some good sense here. Thanks for the article. Already a few knee-jerk angst-filled reactions in the posted comments thus far, show you have hit the spot.

For those who would like to read further, about the Crusades, by a well researched writer, please click on to: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2005/118/52.0.html

The article appeared in Christianity Today, but I am sure many open minded secularists, in pursuit of truth, will at the least consider it. It may be a great help and compliment to the numerous good points you have made.

Cheers

Further to Bosk's post on the fall of Jerusalem in 1099 and in light of Kev's concern for all things Judeo-Christian: Re the JUDEO, Arab historian Ibn al-Qalanisi reported that: "The Jews [of Jerusalem] had gathered in their synagogue and the Franj [Crusaders] burned them alive. They also destroyed the monuments of saints and the tomb of Abraham, may peace be upon him!" Re the CHRISTIAN we read in Amin Maalouf's 'The Crusades Through Arab Eyes': "Not even their coreligionists were spared. One of the first measures taken by the Franj was to expel from the Church of the Holy Sepulchre all the priests of Oriental rites...Dumbfounded by this degree of fanaticism, the dignitaries of the Oriental Christian communities decided to resist. They refused to tell the occupiers where they had hidden the True Cross, on which Christ died...But the invaders...arrested the priests...and tortured them to make them reveal the secret." A fine application of Judeo-Christian values.

"School texts present the 9-11 terrorists and Christian Crusaders as morally equivalent"

Sorry to turn the light on but they are equivalent.
Terrorism, brutality and murder of innocent people is evil doing, it does not (and should not matter) which religion the culprits claim to follow.

Years ago whilst reviewing some submissions - I came upon this drawing. It showed a Crusader on his great steed. He has run through a peasant Arab with his hugh lance and pinned the dead man to the ground. The Arab lay their in a pool of blood. His family gathered around and wailing as the Crusader gloated over his kill. The "gallant" Crusader is saying (in the caption): "We have come in the name of God to Christianise you."

I can picture a stealth bomber over Iraqi villages. We have a frontal view of the pilot. He has all the armour to protect him. We see the devastation and plumes of smoke from his bombing run in the background. The caption: "We've come, like good Christians, to democratisise you." I think the Coalition of the Killing needs to be added to the list as they are certainly morally equivalent to 9-11 terrorists, Christian Crusaders and all the other lunatics that are coerce people into darkness.

It is always the little people who pay the price of the big people's love of warfare. I guess that is why the big people and their dupes think war, which is terror with more continuity, is a valid form of dispute resolution.

I think our world rulers need to be sat down in a secular school room and showed how to behave in an appropriate manner. They would be regarded as troubled kids -they would be the school-yard bullies with a serious character disorder. They would be the high-school thugs. These thugs are not resilient people. They rely on violence and its power for validation. Among others, some aspects of a well-developed child are respect for the autonomy of themselves and others, healthy communication patterns and a connectness to others. These basic characteristics are not aspects that rulers have displayed in their relations with other nations and their own people. (The Little People)

I took your advice, tennyson's_one_far-off_divine_event, and read the recommended article in “Christianity Today” by the ‘well researched writer’, Thomas F, Madden). He describes some of the ‘mishaps, blunders, and crimes’ of the Crusaders. For example:
‘During the early days of the First Crusade in 1095, a ragtag band of Crusaders led by Count Emicho of Leiningen made its way down the Rhine, robbing and murdering all the Jews they could find…In the eyes of these warriors, the Jews, like the Muslims, were the enemies of Christ. Plundering and killing them, then, was no vice. Indeed, they believed it was a righteous deed, since the Jews' money could be used to fund the Crusade to Jerusalem.’

Madden attempts to soften the brutality with three arguments:
(a) The violence was not so brutal as in modern wars – I would have thought butchery and death had a certain finality whether done by sword or missile.
(b) The Church strongly condemned the anti-Jewish attacks – Yes, but the condemnation was often ineffectual because the Church sent out mixed messages. Madden himself gives examples of Church-inspired carnage against both Jews and Muslims.
(c) The killing of Jews by Crusaders, however regrettable, was not the real purpose of the Crusades. ‘In a modern war’, he says, ‘we call tragic deaths like these "collateral damage."
Even with smart technologies, the United States has killed far more innocents in our wars than the Crusaders ever could. But no one would seriously argue that the purpose of American wars is to kill women and children.’

This last defence - by analogy - is patently fallacious and morally unacceptable. I think Madden is no help to Donnelly's attempt to deny the similarities between atrocities committed by Crusaders and modern terrorists.

Mr. Donnelly does his bit by bringing to public notice matters educational we may not be aware of.

Do we just agree or disagree, or do we do our bit?

“School textbooks such as the Jacaranda's SOSE Alive 2 and Humanities Alive 2 offer further evidence of the way Australia's mainstream cultural and religious beliefs and institutions are belittled.”

If these books are regarded as unsuitable for schools, what are the parents doing about it?

“Students are also asked: "Those who destroyed the World Trade Centre are regarded as terrorists. Might it be fair to say that the Crusaders who attacked the Muslim inhabitants of Jerusalem were also terrorists?"

Straight question. Straight answer. No! (if that’s what you believe). Kids should be able to ask interested parents.
“In addition to the selective nature of the outrage against the Danish cartoons and the fact Islam cannot be lampooned while Christianity is fair game is the irony that the very values most often stated in defence of accepting diversity and difference arise from the Judeo-Christian tradition.”

Islam can, and is, lampooned. Anyone in Australia, including Muslims, has the right to lampoon their own religion and/or someone else’s religion. It is not for schools to decide children’s beliefs. It’s up to the parents.

“As such, there can be no place for moral or cultural relativism. Tolerance and respect for others, the rule of law, separation of powers and popular sovereignty are all essential aspects of Western civilisation and have strong links with the Christian faith.”

Cultural relativism is totally unnatural, undesirable and impossible. All cultures and beliefs are not equal, and we damn well know it and feel it. To think that one’s beliefs are superior to another’s is perfectly natural, or we would all be the same boring buggers that the PC police want us to be. It needn’t start a war or a punchup. We can agree to disagree; but if we do have to fight, fight we should. Parents, again.

People like Mr. Donnelly describe the problem. It’s time for parents to sit up and take notice.

Leigh, Donelly doesn't "descibe the problem", he manufactures one.

Correction: Thought I'd catch you here. tennyson's_one_far-off_divine_event: and Philo: Jesus was so into political correctness. He also didn't explain why his Dad didn't write about dinosaurs in His story.

And another thing the way you Judeo-Christians treat the Palestinians suggests that you have read the Bible to suit your own hatreds. Hitler murdered six million Jews and still you have gathered not a jolt of empathy for others. Most religious folk who have experienced such pain would seek solace in the lesson learned which is that we must all be as politically correct as possible because Hitler's disregard for political correctness gradually escalated to genocide.

To just foul mouth every one under the guise of not wanting to be silenced by political correctness is not something Jesus would be a part of. It has nothing to do with love, the ultimate form of political correctness, which according to the Bible is not rude, not self-seeking and keeps no record of wrongs. Isn't Christian love supposed be patient, kind, does not envy, not boastful, not proud, delights in truth rather than evil, protects, trusts, hopes and preserves? Corin. 13

You can tell the truth for truth sake and that is the only example that Jesus gave of political correctness that involves having a go at another. Most of the people who go on about their right to be politically correct display all the negatives that Christians supposedly must NOT do.

Indeed, often their political incorrectness betrays the truth of the matter and unfairly portrays the peoples or people that they attack.

This attack on the Education mob is misleading and is just clearly a biased opinion. So don't start boasting about how Holier you are than people who think schools should remain secular. Your posts suggests that you are just another using the Bible to further your own OPINION .
Philo I argued for secular which means no religious dogma including atheism or religious moralising. Read my posts before commenting.(Trains

No one though has raised the spectre of the next inevitable chapter in the cartoon saga.

Our future textbooks of modern history, if they're of a reputable standard, will need to reproduce the drawings to be considered authoritative.

It won’t be necessary to print 12 but it'll be necessary to print some, or explain why multiculturalism (or whatever the trigger for censorship is) teaches us to exclude salient, objective evidence when it’s available.

It will just be screamingly dishonest for any authoritative study to omit cartoons for history students to consult freely, and no doubt with a keen spirit of inquiry.

However, if texts become merely the abridged, Readers Digest version of what happened, eg describing the effect (the outrage) and not the cause (the cartoons), than we'll let our next generations down by abandoning the high value placed on the notion of the accurate ‘public record’.

Self-censorship or “history with holes” was once true of Australian history. We’re writing history more accurately nowadays so lets make sure we record other events comprehensively too. We’re also not that squeamish about history – it is often painful but we prefer the frank facts of the matter so we can face up to what happened head on, understand it and move on. If we hide cartoons from history they will come back and bite us.

There was a time when prominent exponents of Islam offered more options to followers than paranoia and a one book library. Yet that racist hypocrite Osama bin Ladin and his hideous ilk seem better known by certain muslims these days than the extraordinary intellectuals of their recent and not so recent past such as Ibn Khaldun, Syed Ahmad Khan and (in terms of our once great East-West history of intellectual inquiry) Ibn Rushd (Averroes) and Ibn Sina (Avicenna).

And to add insult to injury, Australians today are supposed to take seriously the sensitivity of those muslims who turn their back on their own complex intellectual legacy of astounding scientists and radical thinkers in order to pick up a rock for a miserable modern jihad.

"Terrorist" is a silly term really.

Back in the old days.. we just called them our ENEMIES.

How stupid to try to assign a moral superiority to 'our' military adventures, and an inferior one to those opposed to us.

One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. We all know that cliche. So, the appropriate language is 'us' and 'our enemies'.

Given that pretty much every centimeter of populated earth is land which 'used to belong' to someone else, who had it taken from them, its stretching the brain a bit to try to identify 'Mr Squeaky Clean'.

Kev Donnelly said:

"...it is not a good time to be a Christian. Secular humanism is in the ascendant, evidenced by the European Union constitution's refusal to mention Christianity in its preamble, and "European man has convinced himself that in order to be modern and free, he must be radically secular".

I disagree, I don't think there has been a better time to be one of 'Christs'. We should be painfully aware that most of the attacks on the 'Church' raised by various posters, are based on Post Constantine events.

I highly recommend that all of us peruse the book of Acts, see just how life was for the early and generally pure church. It is like that today, but not so much in advanced western nations. But goto Africa, to China, Thailand.. Malaysia.. Singapore woweeeee....

Singapore alone, I still recall going to the East coast parkway with a small house church group.. no matter which way you turned.. 360 deg.. you could not miss the presense of a Christian group, singing, fellowshipping.. praying..
In HongKong recently, of 400 attending an evangelistic meeting, 100 went to give their lives to Jesus !

Will THIS....be our epitath in the West ?..........

21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools [FromRomans1]

Kev has a good point as usual, we need a Crusade on the Idiots who set up the education curriculum, selective fairy tales in Leftist attitude is what is taught and in print, real unethical and criminal and just plain stupid.

Strewth, Strewth you are amazing!
Selective diatribe again? I will get my time displacement software down pat; I will send you back to find out for your self.
It would be no surprise that Looting was the main game of those times, it would be poignant to note that Looters are on the come back, they just use psychobabble to confuse you these days, not as messy as it was back then. ( At the moment) Witch doctors and Moocher Ideology followed by Atillas. "Not Good"

I think a bhudda would appreciate the irony: two prophets spawn two religions which fit their beliefs, then the religious spawn two prophets which fit theirs.

I just love the way the messiah's words on compassion and forgiveness are rolled out sanctimoniously, then qualified with "but that only applies to people who are just like me".

Boaz and I must think alike as I was reading the OLO comments above I thought about the Word of God The Bible which has to direct and run our lives accordingly in the New Testament church. Read the book of Acts and that is how the church and Christians called The Way should conduct their lives daily even today.
But for the flesh of man we had Crusades and hate towards others,and that all started after The Catholic Church came into existence in 313AD .
Constantine declared that Rome and all peoples wouuld become Catholics by anyway possible.

All Christians are supposed to live by The Word of God not by man made ideologies and ways.
The Holy Spirit is our guide and comforter and He never cotradicts God's Word.

Secular humanistic beliefs that are promoted by media and governments have almost destroyed western living.
Europe and Middle East will all go fully secular as the anti christ and new world order governments,con the world into thinking their way .
Read the Book of Revelations in The New Testament Bible and it shows Europe going fully secular soon and try to control the world by secular humanism from there but it will fail.
Australia has never been multicultural when I was a kid in the 40's we never had it only a few refugess from a few nations .
Multi culture has always caused terrble trouble and expense for all who try it .Look at the UK and France right now.

Just get this, that religion is NOT Christianity,it is relationship with Christ our bridegroom who is Love.

Why are we trying to justify two evils as equivalent or not. Let us forgive the past and deal with the present. Do we still have Crusaders and Terrorists? If we do - then us writing and arguing about an ancient past is not sufficient. We must establish a moral right and support that position if we are to cooperate as a global society.

Example: That Australia endeavours to support a democratic system in the majority of Shiite Muslim Iraq does not mean they cry, "Death to Sunni". However it is the Sunni who are on a mission to eradicate democracy and re-state their control. Australia would prefer that they both cooperate in a civilized society, we have no agenda to destroy Sunni if they seek peacful cooperation with the Shiite. That the Sunni terrorists find themselves in the sights of coalition forces, can hardly be blamed entirely on the coalition forces holding the guns.

There is a moral principle at play here. Though we would prefer they both cease from killing each other. If we believe in equality and sharing in a democratic system over a totalitarian dictatorship then we have a moral principle to support.

Boaz, dobboman, et al.
I agree with you up to a point. The crusades, the inquisition, the witchtrials & so on were not examples of people following the Christ. However they were examples of christians doing these terrible things, in the belief that they were following God's will. The christians of those times saw themselves as devout followers of the word of God.

The fact is that christianity & its interpretation of scripture has changed many, many times over the centuries. Read the works of early christians, or those of the middle ages, or of the 17th, or 18th century. They sound odd to modern christian ears, yet they saw themselves as christians following christ. You may say that they were deluded but they would have replied "How can that be? We base our lives on the word of God!" But their interpretation would have allowed horrendous things.

So please, when you declare "I follow Christ" remember that these people would have said the same! How do you know that you too are not forsaking the example of Christ to follow your own interpretation of scripture as they did? You may well reply "I'm not just following my own interpretation of scripture. I follow the word of God & the life of Christ. But those christians from preceding centuries would have said the same. Do you see what concerns me?

Pastor RANCITAS

Ranc..well said mate.. re 1Corinthians 13.. the chapter on love. How we NEED these reminders, and what you said fits into the category of Hebrews 10

24And let us consider how we may spur one another on toward love and good deeds. 25Let us not give up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but let us encourage one another—and all the more as you see the Day approaching.

So, keep up the good work.

I would add to what you said, the idea of ‘let us not give up meeting together’ which is one place where we can also receive and give that love Paul speaks of. “Recharge” so to speak. Yet, if we limit our Christian love to church members we will dry up and become stale and rotten. (refer my reply to Sancho below)

SANCHO

Matthew 5

46If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that?

So, it seems to me, that all of the criticism of Christians past and present, is quite justified in the light of Christs own Word. Therefore...how should we approach each other ?

1/ Look to JESUS not to Christians. ‘Looking to Jesus, the pioneer and perfector of our faith”

2/ Encourage one another (as Rancitas did) to look to Jesus.

3/ Avoid judging others in a personal way.

"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.....
Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?" (Matt 7)

Is it possible, that those judging “Christians” also have the odd speck or plank ? :)

4/ Speak the truth in love. (which balances point '3' above)

Kev D laments that, while "Islam cannot be lampooned", Christianity is "fair game." He's right. Boaz_David does it daily.

Strewth:

The wry wit, I am in awe of such satirical mastery.

If Islam cannot be lampooned then what am I to do with the observation that is has obvious homoerotic overtones that need exploring?

That sibilant “s” in “Isssslam” that we hear so often from those that are incandescent with love for the prophet. Something deeply Freudian going on there I imagine. What say you? Surely one can still poke fun at the gayness of it all.

Keysar Trad’s website, the section dealing with Islamic wills. The long and detailed set of instructions on how the “Trad Todger ©” is to be revered and handled post-mortem. As if it were a religious relic. You mean that this is out of bounds for those chasing a good chuckle? Speaking of members, what of the suicide bombers who wrap their knobs in tin foil before setting off on their martyrdom operations, so that the important bits arrive in paradise in better shape for all the virgins. What is that all about? What are these people thinking? Have they thought it all the way through?

No, I think you are wrong there. Islam can and should be lampooned. Regularly. And loudly. By people far more talented than you and I. It is probably the only chance it has of being dragged out of the dark ages that does not involve horrible consequences for everyone.

dobbadan,

Your awareness of history is truly lamentable: ignorantly or deceitfully so I don't know. If the Catholic Church came into existence in 313AD, how come it was mentioned long before then? Don't forget, if it wasn't for the Catholic Church you wouldn't have a Bible (as incomplete as the Protestant one is).

Mr Pig, Didn't you notice the quotation marks? I was quoting Kev Donnelly. You know, the guy that wrote the essay above? Personally I enjoy a good lampoon, especially BOAZ's efforts. Your paltry effort pales by comparison with this master of the genre.

Mr Strewth.... *grrr*

I don't 'lampoon' Islam, I condemn it outright. There is a difference.
Its not something I regard as a joke or funny... nor entertaining.
As far as I am concerned, speaking from a Gospel centric perspective, Islam is a false faith, an empty hope, and a huge lie. None of those things strikes me as funny.

One cannot associate the evils of Islam with the average Muslim any more than one can associate the essense of Christs teaching and ethics with the average nominal cultural Christian.

Make no mistake, Jesus condemned educated falsehood without reservation. But, for the hapless ignorant sinner.. he had gracious compassion, why ? because it was not 'calculated' as was the behavior of the Scribes and Pharisees.

Mat 23

5"Everything they do is done for men to see: They make their phylacteries[a] wide and the tassels on their garments long; 6they love the place of honor at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues; 7they love to be greeted in the marketplaces and to have men call them 'Rabbi.'

13"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the kingdom of heaven in men's faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to.[c]

As Solomon said, there is a TIME for everything. For comforting and for condemnation. Jesus taught it and lived it.

I see we have descended into 'storytime' in the other thread :)
Uzi's and Wolves and Sheep....makes for more interesting reading that's for sure.
cheers

[Deleted for inappropriate language.]

BD...
On 8 April you stated:

"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.....
Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?" (Matt 7)

Is it possible, that those judging “Christians” also have the odd speck or plank ? :)

Then, later on 8 April, you stated”
“I don't 'lampoon' Islam, I condemn it outright. There is a difference.
..blah blah blah..”

Simply put, you are a hypocrite, much like the secularists, atheists and those you denigrate claim. But at least now you are being honest...

Rancitas.. please continue with the enlightenment of the will-less ignorant...

Asking a person to compare X and Y isn't the same as telling them that these are the same thing.

Surely it makes sense for students to compare these acts and to practise articulating and refining their conclusions.

Dear Reason....

if you looked at my post CLOSEly :) you would have noticed the following:

1/ I used JESUS example as my foundation. He condemned the Pharisees for very sound reasons.
2/ I condemn the teachings/beliefs/'prophet' of Islam on the same basis.

One thing is clear, He KNEW when he was using 'revelation' and God's name for the justification of his own carnal lusts. (look up everything about females in connection with him.)

You are welcome to condemn me as a hypocrite when I depart from Christs own example. But don't worry, I could tell you a lot about my life which would justify the accusation, I just reject it on the basis of what you are levelling it at me for now.

I have to freely adMIT to be hypocritical in many ways and many times. When I realize this I do actually repent.. turn away...

You know what they say about hypocrites, ..there is only one thing worse.."someone who hides from God behind one".

So, the issue for you, should not be inconsistencies in my own life (which I've already confessed to) but the position of your own life before a just and eternal God, how did you respond when last you heard that Christ died for your sin ? Did you laugh ? Did you scowl ? did you roll your eyes ?

I proclaim Christ as Savior now to you mate... he died for your and my sin, that you and I might live. There is only one difference between us in regard to this truth..... and you know what it is.

LAST LETTER HOME
by Dropkick Murphys

Hello there my dearest love
Today I write to you about our sons
The boys start school today
They're the spitting image of you in every way

Hey son it's Dad
I hope this letter finds you well out of harm's way
We saw the news today it frightened your Mom
Now all she does is pray

CHORUS:
If I lead will you follow?
Will you follow if I lead?

Hey Melissa it's me don't be afraid
I'm in good hands I'm gonna be home soon
It's time to watch the children grow up
I wanna be more than a voice on the phone

Thanks Ma I got your package today
I love "The Fields Of Athenry"
I swear I want 'em to play that song on the pipes
At my funeral when I die

CHORUS

I stand alone in the distance
And the foreground slowly moves

CHORUS

"We regret to inform you that on January 28th Sgt. Andrew Farrar died while serving his country in the Al-Anbar province of Iraq words cannot convey our sorrow"

CHORUS

When there's nothing on the horizon
You've got nothing left to prove

If I lead will you follow?

This song was re-written when the family of Sgt. Farrar (see lyrics) wrote to The Dropkick’s to tell them that he was a Murphy’s supporter. The Farrar’s wrote that Andrew thanked his Mum for the Dropkick Murphy CD she had sent him and requested a Dropkick song be played at his funeral should anything happen.
Farrar’s tour of duty was nearly over and he was to come home to his wife, Melissa and sons, Tyler & Liam. Melissa and Andrew were to renew their marriage vows and they planned to play Dropkick’s “Forever” at the ceremony.

The Dropkick’s played live at Sgt. Farrar’s funeral.

“Farrar died on January 28th, on his 31st birthday. We(The Dropkick Murphys) were present at his funeral to grant his wish and played "Fields of Athenry" as his casket entered the church. This song was re-written to include excerpts from that letter.”

(Empathy The Code)

BD,
I accept that you have a truth to your world and I accept that you acknowledge your faults, doing what you can to live up to the model you propose to follow – admirable and no issues here. But when you acknowledge your faults and admit that they are not in accord with you model, it is purely hypocritical to then continue in a way that is ‘at fault’ and not adjust your behaviour to act in accord with your model. Do not hide behind ‘I am only human’. It is a weak excuse.

As to my beliefs and position in God’s eyes, I’ll again use one of your quotes –
"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.....
Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?"

On Christ ‘saving’ me - I have a different view that is not as homocentric in its outlook as yours. To me, the mode of worship is immaterial; rather it is the heart that counts. For example, in my eyes, Ghandi is already at the right hand of what God there may be. How could any faith not believe that a man such as he is not worthy, simply because he did not believe in a specific dogma?

So, thanks for the slights – as backhanded and subtle as they are (and as you can be). However, I am comfortable that whatever version of divinity there is and my place in its grand plan. I believe it is well aware of my character and more likely to provide me with the correct path than any earthbound man or man dogma.

Perhaps you could try this approach a little more and not be so demeaning and judgemental of others? Then perhaps we could dialogue without the undercurrent of distaste that often arises.

Rancitas,
Nicely put (as usual)...

UNBELIEVABLE
wow
i cant believe this.....
how do people say this crap...
?
wow

Meyve.... 3 of us have posted just now.. can you be more specific as to 'who's crap ? or do you mean all of us ?

Reason and Rancitas.

On the 'hypocrisy' thing. Read CLOSELy :) (reminder) 'As I become aware... I turn away'.....
But still, you are seeking to impose on scripture a view of personal holiness which is not there.
To become Christs, is not to BECOME Christ, but it is to become Christlike. In Christ we have a new centre of gravity.

Exposing falsehood, is not Un Christ like. Rather it is a fulfillment of our calling "Salt and Light".

Paul says 12Not that I have already obtained all this, or have already been made perfect, but I press on to take hold of that for which Christ Jesus took hold of me. But one thing I do: Forgetting what is behind and straining toward what is ahead, 14I press on toward the goal to win the prize for which God has called me heavenward in Christ Jesus.

That is where we all should be, striving with Paul to be more Christ like.
I understand your explaination of how you relate to the cosmos, and I also know that nothing short of a 'damascus' road experience (perhaps a pruned down one) will change that view to the one I am sharing with you guys. Which is why I present the Gospel. It 'is' the power of God for salvation. Maybe not today, or tomorrow for you, but b4 you depart this world, I hope it becomes a reality in your own hearts.

I don't mind you blokes ripping into me, tends to focus the mind, Paul got much worse. When you pick up rocks to throw at me THEN...I'll worry :)

Well I'm late to this one but I'll offer a couple of viewpoints (as a secular humanist).

The Crusades were brutal and bloody, the norm for the time. The sack of Jerusalem was gruesome, but followed a long line of sackings, where the inhabitants were slaughtered if they resisted. This continued for many centuries, I recall reading it happening in India and in the Peninsular War (Spain) long after the Crusades and not religiously motivated. Simply poor discipline and soldiers going mad with bloodlust and greed for booty.

I'd make the point, one that many people forget, is that the Crusades happened because of Islamic expansionism. It's a joke to portray the Muslims as "victims" and indeed, discipline amongst Crusaders seems to be have been so poor that most of their victims were actually Christian.

Comparison between the 9/11 bombers and Crusaders is yet another example of the idiotic rot in the education system.

According to Kevin D. "Tolerance and respect for others, the rule of law, separation of powers and popular sovereignty are all essential aspects of Western civilisation and have strong links with the Christian faith." Sorry Kev, your history is as faulty as your reasoning, I'm glad YOU aren't setting the history curriculum. All of these things are either universal human values (though more often honoured in the breach than the observance) or products of the Enlightenment which were actively opposed by Christian churches. For example, Montesquieu, who invented the dooctrine of the separation of powers, had his books listed in the Index Librorum Prohibitorum (the Catholic church's list of banned books). Other banned authors included Thomas Hobbes, John Stuart Mill, Rene Descartes, David Hume, John Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau etc etc.

According to Kev "The fact is, the church cherished, preserved, studied and taught the works of the ancients." The fact is Kev, most of the ancient texts surviving were preserved by the Moslems and the works of Aristotle and Plato, for example, came to the West after the fall of Moslem Toledo (with its enormous library).

The churches have only grudgingly given up temporal power and for every Francis of Assissi or William Wilberforce there seems to have been a Torquemada. For every Christian martyr there has been a Galileo.

I cannot understand how OLO could publish such a ludicrously poor article. It relies on lazy thinking, no research and a pile of cliches. All of you who nodded along with Kev about "moral relativism" and "political correctness" get a big F, and need to try harder. We live in a secular society, and a bloody good thing too if you lot are a representative sample of "thinking Christians." You all need to go back to school.

Viking
Quote "I'd make the point, one that many people forget, is that the Crusades happened because of Islamic expansionism."
Actually mate there is NOTHING in the texts from this period that would justify that interpretation.
The only christian civilisation that felt threatened by the Turks [not the moslems by the way] was Byzantium.
The king of Byzantium sent a request to the pope for aid & the pope agreed but the pope had his own agenda. He wanted to create a power base in that area of the world, answerable only to him.

The crusaders came from all over Europe. Germany, Southern France & so on. Most had never seen or heard of the moslems. Indeed when you read their description you get the impression they expected people with horns & a pointy tail.

The religious bigotry of the crusaders is shown by two incidents.
1) before EVERY crusade [but most especially the 1st] the crusaders would start their crusade by killing jews. Did they threaten the western kingdoms as well?
2) by the time the crusaders reached Jerusalem the Turks had been kicked out by the Egyptians & they got on fine with the jews & christians of the city. The crusaders slaughtered them anyway.
3) After the crusades had been going on for several centuries the moslems actually contacted the crusaders & told them they could keep the levant if only the crusaders would leave them alone. What did the crusaders reply? "It is not proper that Christians make deals with unbelievers. We will make peace only over the bodies of your dead"

Viking wrote:

"I'd make the point, one that many people forget, is that the Crusades happened because of Islamic expansionism. It's a joke to portray the Muslims as "victims" and indeed, discipline amongst Crusaders seems to be have been so poor that most of their victims were actually Christian."

Interesting interpretation:

Of course the Crusades had nothing to do with Emperor Alexius Comnenus asking the pope for a bit of help dealing with the invading Turks on his eastern borders. What the emperor wanted was a thousand or so well armed and trained men to wok with his own army.

What the Pope saw was the chance to rid Europe for a while of the second and third sons of Lords, who, as the first son got the estate, the second son and subsequent sons were given a set of armour, a decent sword and a good horse, and sent on their way.

The result was a lot of second and third, and subsequent sons, making a living by brigandage, pillage and mercenary activities. The Pope probably also thought that it may be a good idea to create a Christian kingdom in Palestine.

But it wasn't just the second and subsequent sons that went, but firstly a load of peasants wanting to do 'Gods Will' who didn't have a clue about where they were going or why.

The next group was all those armoured adventurers out for glory / profit and land - all under the guise of 'God's work'.

The only actor on this middle ages stage whose motives seemed at all 'pure' was Ghengis Khan, whose Mongols didn't give a damn about the religion of those they killed. But at least the Mongols didn't kill for the sake of killing. If a town surrendered on approach it was spared the sword. It it resisted then it was destroyed.

Meanwhile, it didn't matter to the Crusaders if a town surrendered - the infidels were killed anyway.

And the god bothers move in and try to swamp the majority with their filth.

Viking asserts (a) "...the Crusades happened because of Islamic expansionism" and that "most of [the Crusaders'] victims were actually Christian"? These are mere assertions. Aside from the God-botherers, why is it that posters such as Viking also persist in wasting our time with undocumented assertions?

When can we have a persepctive on educational issues that does not belong to Kevin Donnelly - former Coalition minister adviser?

Boaz,

Many posters on these forums quickly spot your 'selective honesty' when talking about Islam.

First, if you practice what you preach: freedom, equality, blah, blah...then you should accept all religions as 'ways of worship'..
To claim that your faith is the only good thing and others are wrong is at best immature.

Second, perhaps the question I have for many people like you who can only see their faith in contrast for another. Why do you need an enemy to survive? I mean, would you still follow your faith if the 'other' is not there?

third is a theological question: why being so annoyed with Islam even though they glorify Jesus as a prophet? I can understand a prophet is much less than God status, but you applaude the Judeo-Christian whatever which paints Jesus at best as a Jewish reformist or a creative rabbi. Is this hypocricy or just plain ignorance?

I second WhiteWombat. Asking students to compare and contrast isn't the same as proposing a moral equivalence. This is the kind of question that might actually make for an interesting lesson. i'd hate to have to study a textbook by Donnelly.

It's a statement of the bleedin' obvious that once Islam had conquered the Christian and Jewish Holy lands, that there would come a time when Christians would wish to regain them for Christendom. One doesn't have to be a "God-botherer" to understand that. The replacement of the relatively mild-mannered Fatimids by authoritarian Seljuk Turks changed the situation of Christians in the Holy Land and from the point of view of pilgrims from Europe, their safety and access.

As for the Crusaders causing many casualties amongst Christians, it is well known that, while it was Orthodox eastern Christians who initially asked them to rescue them from the Saracens, the price they paid was rather high.

These are far from mere assertions,if you bothered, "Strewth" to put in a few keystrokes or visit a library you'd find this out for yourself.

I know a range of Christians (mainly Protestants, mind you) who see the Crusades as one of the worst excesses of Papal power. The idea, promoted by the Pope in the later Crusades, that a man who went on Crusade would have his sins, past, present and future forgiven, not through the salvation of the sacrifice of Christ, but by papal decree, is in no way 'Christian'.

The underlying principle of this decree was to grant licence to any Crusader to do anything to anyone and nothing would be held against them.

It is more than a little akin to a suicide bomber being granted paradise and whatever number of virgins for dying in the cause.

These were the days before the Reformation, obviously. One of Martin Luther's complaints was in regard to the selling of indulgences, that is, selling heaven and salvation for gold coins, which sounds a lot like Crusader doctrine to me.

As I Christian I see the Crusades as an utterly sinful set of activities on a massive scale, that in no way could ever be justified by any reasonable reading of the Bible.

Viking, Your "bleedin obvious" is far from being so. You first asserted that "the Crusades happened because of Muslim expansionism." Your implication was that the 11thC Crusades were a response to "Muslim expansionism" in the 11th C. If by "Muslim expansionism" you mean the Arab Conquest of the Byzantine and Persian Empires in the 7thC, then I fail to see any direct connection between what happened in the 7thC and what happened 4 centuries later. Are you suggesting that Christian Europe somehow had the restoration of the Byzantines on its agenda for 4 centuries? Definitely not "bleedin obvious." Your use of the term "Christian and Jewish Holy lands" suggests that because Judaism and Christianity began in Palestine and are still associated with certain holy sites there, Palestine is therefore somehow eternally and wholly a Christian/Jewish land, a decidedly Christian Zionist/political Zionist perspective. Palestine is not the monopoly interest of any one (or two) religious ideologies. Nor does your earlier assertion that "most of [the Crusaders'] victims were actually Christian" gel with your later statement that "the price [the Christians] paid was rather high." High it may have been, but that's not what you asserted earlier. I think you're the one who should be hitting the books.

Hamlet, Pity the Protestants didn't practice what they preached what with the burning/drowning/hanging of witches; the massacres they engaged in; Martin Luther's hatred for the peasants, and for the Jews and his encouragement to burn them out (read his Tract on "The Jews and their Lies"......so much so that he has been called the Spiritual Father of the Nazis"), the brutality of the anabaptists at Munster etc. In fact, most of the Protestant reformers approved the use of torture.

Francis,
Martin Luther [1483 - 1546 AD] lived well after the Crusades [the last 1240 s] and he was the first Roman Catholic Priest to denounce the practises of corrupt Priests selling indulgences. His message only had minimal influence in his lifetime and he retained much of the theology taught in the Roman Catholics semenaries. The protestant reformation occurred well after the Crusades as people read for themselves the teachings of Christ which developed enlightenment.

For you to introduce Protestanism is an attempt to move the debate into a different field. If protestants used unjust and immoral agression to gain territory they also are condemned. But that is not the point in view in Kevin's complaint.

The Crusades are something that Muslims have never forgiven and forgotten and they raise it every time current Muslim terrorists cause havock on Western innocents. It is Just that they know little about forgivness and must equalise the power struggle and gain greater moral power to expunge what they feel is a past injustice.

Islam is about power and political submission, not about forgivness and uniquivical reconciliation. That is why current events in Muslim minds are equated to ancient battles as equal. Reconciliation often means one party is reconciled to a lesser position eg Japan in the World War 11. Muslims have not moved foward from their medieval theology: 'that Power is given by Allah and the believers in Allah always must win'.

Islamic expansion was occurring in the Byzantine region.. to the point where Alexius's empire was crumbling.
Europe noted this trend, and with a bit of extrapolation, and 2+2 = "If we don't act now it will be too late in future".

One only needs to look at maps from 630 to 1000 to see the expansion of the Islamic empire by military conquest. Only a thickheaded dullard would not be able to piece together the 'future' based on this trend.

It would not matter that it was 'Islamic', it just had to be 'different' from the prevailing power balance for it to be a threat.

The crusades, were a multi dimensional action, and cannot be either written off wholus bolus as 'evil' or condoned. It is neccesary historically to look at the various factors, and ultimately, in regard to the 'Christian-ness' of them, to compare and contrast with the Word of God and Christ, the teaching and life of the Apostles.

ZPhilo,
Where are you coming from? Hamlet introduced Martin Luther....my reply was basically that those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. My point is that Protestantism is not the enlightenment that you seem to allude to but an unholy mess of competing sects and cults as capable, as history shows, of being as corrupt as any corrupt Catholic official

Strewth!! Not only bleedin'obvious but can't read! Go back over the fatimid and Seljuk bit, it's pretty clear. Look it up for youself, and try to keep Zionist plots from clouding your vision.

As for "Your use of the term "Christian and Jewish Holy lands" suggests that because Judaism and Christianity began in Palestine and are still associated with certain holy sites there, Palestine is therefore somehow eternally and wholly a Christian/Jewish land, a decidedly Christian Zionist/political Zionist perspective".
My perserctive is historical- Neither Arabs nor Muslims have any historical right to the Holy Lands, there religion didn't arise there, the only claim is through conquest. The claim to the "third-most holy site in islam" comes about merely because (as was their habit) they built one atop the Hebrew temple and then claimed the propit acesnded to heaven from it (with no proof nor is Jerusalem mentioned once in Quran). So in that respect, yes, the Holy Land is that only for Jews and Christians. The other cultists can bugger off.

Boaz_D: You pop up like spam, don't you? Are you claiming that, because the Seljuq Turks were knocking on the gates of Constantinople in 1080 and Christian Europe perceived this as a direct threat, this gave them licence not simply to go to Constantinople's aid and restore "the prevailing power balance" as you say, but to push on and invade an otherwise peaceful Palestine as well? Please explain how the Seljuq threat to Constantinople justified messing with areas inhabited by Muslims since the 7thC?

Francis, I agree that Protestantism is a 'mess', but I would prefer a mess that seeks the truth through debate and Biblical study over that of the corruption of pre-Reformation Catholicism, which in its own was was also competing with the Eastern Church.

The two Romes - the Vatican and Constantinople - had long been in competition and a certain amount of conflict.

The Counter-Reformation was not just put into place to try to deal with Protestantism, but to also incorporate some of the lessons of Protestantism into the Church of Rome, which is one reason why you cannot buy indulgences anymore. Vatican 2 was a furtherence of that process. The modern Catholic Church in its basic beliefs and doctrines is as far away from the Catholic Church of the Crusades as modern Protestantism is away from that Church.

Unfortunately all human institutions have among their constituants a number of people who cannot look inward to see where the institution has changed or failed.

The Crusades were a political exercise of a corrupt Church of Rome. In the same way William the Conqueror used Papal authority to justify his invasion of Britain. That invasion had the same theological character as the Crusades, but were really a naked quest for power. There was nothing spiritual in that exercise, the Crusades to Palestine or the Crusades against the Slavs. If you want to research more look up the Battle of Lake Peipus for the activities of Teutonic Knights.

Viking, Why pretend? We both know that I was responding to your original post where there is NO "fatimid and Sejuk bit", just the bald assertion - here we go again - that "the Crusades happened because of Muslim expansionism." Your "historical perspective", that "neither Arabs nor Muslims have any historical right to the Holy Lands [Just how many are there?]" because "there (sic) religion didn't arise there, the only claim is through conquest", doesn't make sense, implying as it does that anyone in the world calling himself a Jew or a Christian has a "historical right to the Holy Lands". A "historical right" to do what there? I suppose, by your (il)logic, an Indonesian Muslim has a "historical right" to the Arabian Peninsula? Today's Palestinian Arabs, on the other hand, whether Muslim, Christian, or neither, have national rights (recognised in international law) to Palestine as the land of their ancestors stretching back to the beginnings of human settlement there. As for "Zionist plots", for a self-proclaimed "secular humanist" your little rant about the "Hebrew temple" and the "Holy Land [Only one this time?]...only for Jews and Christians" seems eminently compatible with the claims on Palestine made by political Zionism and those of Christian Zionists. If you're not a believer in one or the other, it must just be your sloppy language and 'thought' processes that give this impression.

Extrapolation is a dangerous debating tool, Boaz.

>>One only needs to look at maps from 630 to 1000 to see the expansion of the Islamic empire by military conquest. Only a thickheaded dullard would not be able to piece together the 'future' based on this trend.<<

One might as convincingly have taken a look at the map of Europe from 432 to 453 and deduced that the Hunnish Empire would cover the entire known world within a few years.

>>It would not matter that it was 'Islamic', it just had to be 'different' from the prevailing power balance for it to be a threat<<

Sorry, that won't wash. The entire sequence of expeditions was orchestrated and executed by anti-Islamic zealots – right down to cross on their armour.

Try as you might, you cannot disguise the Crusades as anything other than what they were – a concerted attempt by one religion to subdue another.

>>The crusades, were a multi dimensional action, and cannot be either written off wholus bolus as 'evil' or condoned.<<

Only in the sense that all historical events should be examined in the context of their own time. Practices that have since died out – burning witches, exercising droit de seigneur, going on Crusades, that sort of thing – have done so largely because people have come to regard them as barbaric. Nonetheless, judged against the prevailing mores, a case can be made that “that's just what they did back then”.

But surely it doesn't reduce the abhorrence that we feel today when we consider those activities?

In these terms, surely the Crusades can only be viewed as evil. If not, please tell us on what level they can be “condoned”?

I have entered the debate a tad late here, but figure better late than never. When comparing the Crusades to the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Centre and other locations, two things must be considered:

1) The Crusades were wars - and medieval wars at that. Both sides were guilty of some horrific things in an age when war was not restricted to armed, trained and willing soldiers. Yes, civilians were targeted - but then, medieval armies were largely derived from civilian groups. AND it was the done thing at the time.

2) Kind of stems from 1). Comparing the Crusades with terrorist acts is akin to comparing Abraham's handful of wives with today's polygamists. Things change, and social expectations change, too. The only way the two can be morally equivalent is if the two were set in equivalent social and moral contexts. The Crusaders - and their society at large - believed that what they were doing was right. The terrorists may have believed that what they were doing was right, but their society seems to disagree with them. Morality is more about doing what you believe is right.

Ethically, on the other hand . . . ethics abide by a set of unyielding laws that do not change. Something may be morally right if you believe it is right, but it is still ethically wrong. Sort of complicated, but still . . .

Perhaps the two were ethically equivalent, but morally - no. And there IS a difference.

Otokonoko, yes, the Crusades were war. A war that essentially the western religious authorities started. The other side didn't realise that they were at war until it hit them.

You should also remember that this was prior to the Treaty of Westphalia, in which the major European powers essentially mapped out how states should act with each other, including such 'niceities' as declarations of war. Remember the uproar because Japan was a few minutes late in delivering its Declaration of War in 1941?

The terrorists who planned and took part in the September 11 attacks, as well as the previous less successful attack on the WTC and the attack on the USS Cole, considered themselves to be 'at war'. As far as they were concerned a pawn of the Western powers, Israel, was occupying part of their Holy Land in Palestine. Jerusalem was no longer under Islamic control.

US and other Western forces had been stationed in Saudi Arabia, this being an offront to Islam in itself. The West was also seen as propping up one of the worst of the Islamic Regimes, that is the house of Saud, which also wanted US troops off its soil. Remember that Osama was a Saud who particularly resented US interference in his country's affairs. I am trying to be neutral here, simply describing the situation.

It is interesting that US forces moved to Qattar, and also into Iraq, hence guaranteeing a US presence in the Middle East, even if they could not stay in Saudi Arabia. Perhaps it could even be argued that this move out of Saudi Arabia has been a factor in the US not being the subject of further terrorism.

Summarising: yes, the Crusades were war, but to at least one side in the 'War on Terror' that war had started well and truly before the Sept 11 attacks.

I appreciate your point, Hamlet - and I didn't really express myself too well in saying mine. Basically, what I am saying is that the atrocities of the Crusades were accepted by society as a whole. A very small minority in society genuinely accepts the atrocities of the September 11 attacks. Certainly, by today's standards, the Crusades were a much more serious atrocity and would not be accepted. But the point of my post was that morality is determined by society. The Crusades were not immoral, but the September 11 attacks were.

I guess, if we are to determine morality on an individual level - that if YOU believe that what you are doing is right, it is - you could compare the two.

Otokonoko, I would like to be able to agree with you regarding morality and attrocities, but as a philospher whose name escapes me commented that the path of the enlightment project lead to the gates of Dachau.

The attrocities committed by the 'socialist' regime under Stalin, the holocaust of the Nazis and their collaborators, the actions of the French army in Algeria and Pol Pot's Long March all have happened within living memory. This list is not exhaustive. The genocidal conflict between the Hutus and the Tutsies immediately comes to mind.

More recently than the 1980s, the break up of Jugoslavia let loose the pent up forces of ethnic and religious hate that was just under the surface for about 45 years, leading to not dissimilar attrocities in the name of religion to those of the Crusades of 900 years before. How was, in terms of morality, the seige of Sarajevo really different to a medieval siege?

Unfortunately I cannot see that the human species has evolved in the last millenium to have a better sense and form of morality than it had previously. Some of the trappings of diplomacy have changed, but overall the nature of 'humanity' has remained the same

I THINK KEV SHOULD GO BACK AND HIT THE THE BOOKS- PEOPLE HAVE DIED FOR MANY NON- RELIGIOUS REASONS 'IN THE NAME OF AN ALMIGHTY' THE CHRISTIANS WERE KILLING THE JEWS CENTURIES BEFORE THE HITLER AND HIS NAZI'S.
THIS COMING FROM SOMEONE BOUGHT UP C/E AND THEN CHRISTIAN. NOW I HAVE NO RELIGION- HOWEVER I DO BELIEVE. THE BIBLE SAYS NO TRUE RELIGION WILL TAKE PART IN POLITICS OR WAR. SO THEREFORE THEY BOTH MUST BE SOMETHING/ ARE YOU SO SHORT SIGHTED, SO MENTALLY CHALLENGED THAT YOU CAN ONLY SEE WITH YOUR EYES WIDE SHUT??
N.N. QLD

There's no need to yell. It sounds like a crusade.