~ Where the Sun Will Never Set on Our liberty ~
Seems a great article on the Crusades, that Obama and the Muslims say were huge and horrible, yet they seem minor compared to the Muslim world takeovers.
I also wanted to research the Inquisition. I understand that some claim there were at least 2 - the Medieval Inquisition and the Spanish Inquisition. I understand that the total deaths over 500 years was 6000 or around there. Muslims can kill that many on a good day. On 911, Muslims killed about half as many Americans as the grand total in the Inquisitions over 500 years. Think Obama will tell us that?
At some point, all of this nonsense out of Obama, the Muslims and those who worship them ... seems to be.. ... not very truthful might be the best way of saying it all. I do admit that some others words and phrases for lies from Obama and his fellow Muslims.
Watch the video Folks.
He will say and do anything, even if it's wrong and a lie! He knows those that follow him blindly will not check any facts. Useful idiots that can't think for themselves. No wonder they go after them young in school.
That was a good chart Watchman. I sent it onto a few. Well, the low numbers on the Inquisition sort of match the low numbers on the Crusades. But I intend to find more. Part of the Inquisition I read was that for a time, the Politicians, who were also Christians (hmm, I think the politician side is the most dangerous of the two) seemed to do a bit of what is the Muslim daily diet. And by that I mean they seemed to tell Muslims and Jews to get out of town, or it could be a bad day. While that is not right, I admit I only feel sorry about the Jews who really are a part of Christianity. Jesus was born and died a Jew lest we forget. However, what the Inquisition was, as bad as it was, was a tiny sample of what Muslims do as a general rule ... convert, get out of town, or things can get shaky. And as Bobby Jindal said better than I could. He said something about - he thinks the world has the Christian inquisitions under control. Good one Bobby. And of course, Obama does not even wish to get Muslim torturers and killers under control.
I am surprised that so few seem to guess the obvious - that Obama is one of them. Both his fathers were Muslim. He grew up in the world's largest Muslim country, and said he roomed with two Muslims in college. His book "Dreams from his father" would be the dreams of a Muslim radical, since that is ... what his father was.
When Christianity became the official religion of Rome, it ended persecution which was great but on the downside it politicized Christianity. Soon everyone wanted to become Christian because it gained them power, status, and wealth. So you had people who were sincere Christians and those who were Christians out of convenience. It's been described as a tale of two churches, the Church of Piety and the Church of Power. The two were often at odds with one another, and those who did evils under the guise of Christianity came from the Church of Power. I tend to think of them as Christians in name only or CINO's. It was them who gave legitimate Christians a bad name.
As for Obama, I agree he's not American. And it has nothing to do with where he was born, but how he was raised. He didn't have an all-American childhood, the America we know is foreign to him.
We can easily see conflict in religious belief as dynamic concerning Christian-Islamic war. Consider what is said by the book our President swore upon:
"But what does the Scripture say? 'Get rid of the slave woman and her son, for the slave woman's son will never share in the inheritance with the free woman's son.' Therefore, brothers, we are not children of the slave woman, but of the free woman." (Galatians 4:30-31)
The rest of chapter four exactly clarifies what 30-31 means. The "slave woman" is Abraham's servant Hagar, which bore the son Ishmael.
The "free woman" is Abraham's wife Sarah, who bore the second son, Isaac.
It is through Isaac that we arrive at Jesus Christ and his New Covenant, which teaches salvation through baptism. Those followers are known world-wide as Christians.
Those relating to the God of Abraham through Ishmael are known as ISLAMISTS, and their slavery is accomplished by enforcing arcane religious law called "sharia". (Basic research clearly confirms modern islam claims connection to Abraham's God through Ishmael.)
According to the word of God, Christianity and Islam cannot coexist. As just one example, Christ teaches forgiveness of adultery, whereas islamists take the guilty out and stone them to death. And etc., etc., etc.
It so happens our President has declared "if the political winds shift in an ugly direction, I will stand with the muslims ("Audacity of Hope" ).
With the Catholic Pope now scheduled to address a joint session of Congress for the first time, even during hurricane season, it seems our President should prepare---wind's fixin' to blow in history of Biblical proportion. America's motto is "In God We Trust" and it's done through Abraham, Isaac, and Jesus Christ, to the exclusion of Ishmael and islam.
I found this and thought I would add it!
With the possible exception of Umberto Eco, medieval scholars are not used to getting much media attention. We tend to be a quiet lot (except during the annual bacchanalia we call the International Congress on Medieval Studies in Kalamazoo, Michigan, of all places), poring over musty chronicles and writing dull yet meticulous studies that few will read. Imagine, then, my surprise when within days of the September 11 attacks, the Middle Ages suddenly became relevant.
As a Crusade historian, I found the tranquil solitude of the ivory tower shattered by journalists, editors, and talk-show hosts on tight deadlines eager to get the real scoop. What were the Crusades?, they asked. When were they? Just how insensitive was President George W. Bush for using the word "crusade" in his remarks? With a few of my callers I had the distinct impression that they already knew the answers to their questions, or at least thought they did. What they really wanted was an expert to say it all back to them. For example, I was frequently asked to comment on the fact that the Islamic world has a just grievance against the West. Doesn't the present violence, they persisted, have its roots in the Crusades' brutal and unprovoked attacks against a sophisticated and tolerant Muslim world? In other words, aren't the Crusades really to blame?
Osama bin Laden certainly thinks so. In his various video performances, he never fails to describe the American war against terrorism as a new Crusade against Islam. Ex-president Bill Clinton has also fingered the Crusades as the root cause of the present conflict. In a speech at Georgetown University, he recounted (and embellished) a massacre of Jews after the Crusader conquest of Jerusalem in 1099 and informed his audience that the episode was still bitterly remembered in the Middle East. (Why Islamist terrorists should be upset about the killing of Jews was not explained.) Clinton took a beating on the nation's editorial pages for wanting so much to blame the United States that he was willing to reach back to the Middle Ages. Yet no one disputed the ex-president's fundamental premise.
Well, almost no one. Many historians had been trying to set the record straight on the Crusades long before Clinton discovered them. They are not revisionists, like the American historians who manufactured the Enola Gay exhibit, but mainstream scholars offering the fruit of several decades of very careful, very serious scholarship. For them, this is a "teaching moment," an opportunity to explain the Crusades while people are actually listening. It won't last long, so here goes.
Misconceptions about the Crusades are all too common. The Crusades are generally portrayed as a series of holy wars against Islam led by power-mad popes and fought by religious fanatics. They are supposed to have been the epitome of self-righteousness and intolerance, a black stain on the history of the Catholic Church in particular and Western civilization in general. A breed of proto-imperialists, the Crusaders introduced Western aggression to the peaceful Middle East and then deformed the enlightened Muslim culture, leaving it in ruins. For variation on this theme, one need not look far. See, for example, Steven Runciman's famous three-volume epic, History of the Crusades, or the BBC/A&E documentary, The Crusades, hosted by Terry Jones. Both are terrible history yet wonderfully entertaining.
So what is the truth about the Crusades? Scholars are still working some of that out. But much can already by said with certainty. For starters, the Crusades to the East were in every waydefensive wars. They were a direct response to Muslim aggression — an attempt to turn back or defend against Muslim conquests of Christian lands.
Christians in the eleventh century were not paranoid fanatics. Muslims really were gunning for them. While Muslims can be peaceful, Islam was born in war and grew the same way. From the time of Mohammed, the means of Muslim expansion was always the sword. Muslim thought divides the world into two spheres, the Abode of Islam and the Abode of War. Christianity — and for that matter any other non-Muslim religion — has no abode. Christians and Jews can be tolerated within a Muslim state under Muslim rule. But, in traditional Islam, Christian and Jewish states must be destroyed and their lands conquered. When Mohammed was waging war against Mecca in the seventh century, Christianity was the dominant religion of power and wealth. As the faith of the Roman Empire, it spanned the entire Mediterranean, including the Middle East, where it was born. The Christian world, therefore, was a prime target for the earliest caliphs, and it would remain so for Muslim leaders for the next thousand years.
With enormous energy, the warriors of Islam struck out against the Christians shortly after Mohammed's death. They were extremely successful. Palestine, Syria, and Egypt — once the most heavily Christian areas in the world — quickly succumbed. By the eighth century, Muslim armies had conquered all of Christian North Africa and Spain. In the eleventh century, the Seljuk Turks conquered Asia Minor (modern Turkey), which had been Christian since the time of St. Paul. The old Roman Empire, known to modern historians as the Byzantine Empire, was reduced to little more than Greece. In desperation, the emperor in Constantinople sent word to the Christians of western Europe asking them to aid their brothers and sisters in the East.
That is what gave birth to the Crusades. They were not the brainchild of an ambitious pope or rapacious knights but a response to more than four centuries of conquests in which Muslims had already captured two-thirds of the old Christian world. At some point, Christianity as a faith and a culture had to defend itself or be subsumed by Islam. The Crusades were that defense.
Rest of the article here. Too long to post it all
Credit goes to El Gallo:
I believe the world is increasingly anesthetized to POTUS' actions and statments. Sometimes shocking words may remind us just how far afield he goes. The old chestnuts of the Crusades (political reaction to an existential threat), the Inquisition (Satanic otruture inspired by a harsh temporal world view), Christianity as an agent of racism (Christians were the first ones in history to suggest slavery and racism were immoral) are so profoundly untrue as to be slanderous.
We became a great robust, and tolerant country because culturally we have been a Judeo-Christian nation. Today, when they even pay attention, the elite boo birds prattle on about their laundry list of horrors (Conquest of Canaan 4000 years ago!; The Crusades!; The Inquisition!; The Salem Witch Trials!; Jim Crow!). Those arguments have the flimsiest historical verity or context, and ignore the central truth that Judeo -Christian culture -- not Islamic, nor Buddhist, nor Hindu, nor any other religion -- gave the world the primary context of what today we consider as righteousness. That tradition is more than a desirable thing: it is what will preserve our slowly failing union. It is time to stop simpering, pussyfooting around, or apologizing for that central fact. This is not merely an intellectual issue, but it is about a culture adrift, and rapidly failing. Either we step back from that, and by doing so again step forward, or the devil will be in the whirlwind. Time to choose.”
Some may have wondered if they were due some more explanation. Good point, and a splendid place to start is with the Book of Proverbs, which Dave Ramsey’s internationally-known financial counseling firm states has all the information needed for either an individual or organization wishing to wisely management resources. Then try the Book of Deuteronomy, which established many of the bases for individual charitable contributions and service. Look at the Sermon on the Mount and 1 Corinthians 13, “the love chapter.” Then look to John Locke, Thomas Paine, and the other writers influenced by the Judeo-Christian ethics, who in turn influenced the founding fathers. There.
Some say EG errs by not noting the many fine things Islam does. Apparently it is a social sin to make distinctions against a non-Western believe system. Bad show and all that. Given the zeitgeist, apparently opining about Judeo-Christianity’s demonstrated superiority leavesome in shock, if not burbling with rage. Such things are simply not said in this age –especially about the Religion of Peace, AKA Islam.
Nothing new there. A few Hindus and Buddhists in Asia notwithstanding, nearly all violent opposition to the Judeo-Christian tradition comes from Islam. And much of that comes with the intent of specifically hushing up any discouraging words.
Indeed, EG should pause at saying anything about Islam not amounting to fulsome praise. Shakespeare wrote of the closeted “love which dare not speak its name.” The modern corollary is the religion that dare not speak its name, or more correctly, the religion one dare not criticize. Just ask columnist Mark Stein, an American hauled before the Canadian Human Rights Commission for disagreeing with Islam’s imperialistic tendencies. Across Europe, cartoonists, those few intellectuals willing to buck the leftist love affair with Islam, and even icons like Bridget Bardot are regularly hauled before the courts to answer for any criticism, however muted, against Muslim practices. That not being enough, Islam now kills them.
Perhaps it would be more prudent to speak only about the “I word,” which can be a code between those who dare speak up, since “Islam” may only be spoken in reverent terms. Same goes for the “K word,” or as our President who readily ridicules Judeo- Christianity (and who always has time to mark Muslim holidays, but not Judeo Christian ones): “the holy Koran.” This is the same K word which its adherents in Afghan prisons regularly “desecrate” with hate messages written on its sacred pages. Yet if those same K word pages are inadvertently burned this too leads to murderous threats and acts.
In fact just putting the K word and desecration in the same sentence is always an easy way for bored imams to get a few riots going. They can even do it with provably false charges, like the old laughable one of Korans being flushed down Guantanamo toilets. That particular preposterous allegation was shown to be wholly false, but not until it caused riots in various Muslim enclaves, and much genuflection by our State Department.
But somehow, the frequent Muslim desecrations against Christian churches and Bibles are of little note to the Western media. Churches by the dozens are burned by Muslim agitators in Nigeria, Malaysia, Indonesia, Iraq, Egypt and elsewhere month after month. Did you hear about that? No? Not surprised. How about the one about Palestinians occupying the Church of the Nativity, and then using the Bible as toilet paper? No? Those and many similar instances died a very quiet news cycle death.
Neither are imams and their fellow travelers on the Left ever troubled by the plenteous reports of Muslim violence, mostly against Christians, but also Hindus, Buddhists, or even insufficiently Islamic Muslims, or the other hundreds of acts each year, any one of which which the Left would never countenance from folks even remotely tied to Christians. Within the last month alone, there have been attacks by the Religion of Pieces in Nigeria, Kenya, Somalia, and pick-it ME countries. Expand the period to five years and you would document attacks in nearly any country that has a significant Islamic presence, and many more – like China, Russia, and the Western nations -- that do not.
Then there are the thunder clap-like mullah pronouncements in recent months which the media also coyly looks away from. Not just the routine death threats again Israel or Muslim Armageddon against the west, but statements supporting slavery as still a relevant Muslim practice; appeals to eradicate all churches from the Middle East; a popular new self-help book for Muslim men on how to best beat and subjugate your women folk; and of course the yodels for jihad, here, there, and everywhere. Crickets chirping.
And speaking of selectively forbidden speech, let’s touch on the other I word, bestowed upon us by Islam: infidel. This is a word which, if seriously used by a Westerner against any other religion, would elicit guffaws of disbelief (no pun intended) from our media betters. But in Islam, the word is reportedly just as popular now as when Mohammed shuffled off this mortal coil more that 1200 years ago. The Muslims see nothing wrong at all with categorizing the non-Muslim world as infidels. They even do better than that: Muslim lands are termed “The land of Islam, or Peace,” while all other lands are termed “The Land of War.” Now that is awkward for our multiculturalists.
But why do those multi’s so admire and cover for Islam? The Western Left pines mightily to feel Muslim love. They see much to admire. Islam, though purportedly less centralized than Catholicism, is in fact much more ideologically pure than Catholicism. Unlike Catholics, Islam has no liberal wing. “Moderates” are not those who would blush at using the infidel term, but simply those who quibble about how openly to push the Islamic agenda. There it is. If you do not get all lathered up about immediately bombing every infidel in sight, you are a moderate. The Western Left could only wish for such monolithic lockstep.
The Left, having lost the Cold War, also sees reflected in Islamic doctrine many of the Left’s favorite ideas: no acceptable bright line between the individual and the state; top down faith statements; astrong admiration for communal principles; and a unashamed intent to conquer the world. Alas for the atheistic Lefties, it is unrequited love. For Islam has little time for anything but alliances of convenience. Islam is self-confident of ultimate victory, just as Mohammed promised, and all those Leftists, should it come to it, will either be invited to convert, or meet the sword.
It is nothing personal. Major General Jerry Curry, U.S. Army, Retired, writes that during the first Gulf War U.S. and Arab forces fought side by side and some of the officers became close friends. But after the war when Western officers startling getting all misty eyed about the friends-forever routine, the senior Arab general quickly splashed cold water in their face. Curry relates that the Arab general stated “Look we have fought together and some of us have died together. I know you feel that that makes us brothers. But that is not the way it is in my world. I don’t want to see you hurt so I need to share this with you. There will be no tomorrow for us jointly. No matter how much you have helped my country — and you came and helped us when we desperately needed your help – and no matter how friendly you feel toward us, we are still Muslims and you are still Christians. That means that in our eyes, we can never be brothers. I’m sorry but, to us, you will always be – Infidels!”
Well then, there you have it. Any well versed Islamic scholar could tell you ISIS’s beliefs believes were hardly on the Muslim fringe or anti-K Word. It is just that ISIS is uninterested in subtle jihad. Nothing personal mind you.
And nothing personal about the relentless Muslim attacks for 1200 years which in the Old World conquered all but the heart of Western Europe (and nearly that too); which conquered half of India, half of Africa, all the near east, most of central Asia, and which penetrated far into the Pacific; which lead to an estimated 1 million Europeans and Americans being enslaved by the Barbary Pirates (added to the millions of Black Africans they also enslaved, right up until this day); and finally the ongoing low grade warfare we get to savor in our daily newspapers. Nothing personal infidels, but war is war, and if the West cannot bring itself to understand and embrace its own roots, much less robustly stand up against the Muslim onslaught, so much the better! History favors the strongest horse. Judeo-Christianity has every right to be that, but it is ceding the field.