Posted on 11/26/2001 9:07:31 PM PST by ouroboros
Five days after declaring war on terrorism, the president urged Americans to be patient: "This crusade ... is going to take awhile." Immediately, the cry arose, "How could he be so cruelly insensitive!"
Bush was scourged and admonished that he had insulted the Islamic world. Did he not know the Crusades were wars of criminal Christian aggression marked by pillage and massacre? The president apologized, and no one has since embraced the dreaded term.
At Georgetown, Bill Clinton suggested Sept. 11 may even be payback. "Those of us who come from various European lineages are not blameless," said the paragon of the Woodstock generation. "In the First Crusade, when the Christian soldiers took Jerusalem, they first burned a synagogue with 300 Jews in it, and proceeded to kill every woman and child who was Muslim on the temple mount. The contemporaneous descriptions of the event describe soldiers walking on the temple mount, a holy place to Christians, with blood running up to their knees. I can tell you that story is still being told today in the Middle East, and we are still paying for it."
But why Americans, whose first president was a Mason who did not take office until 1789, should be slaughtered in 2001 because of a crusade preached by a pope in 1095, Clinton left unexplained.
A little history. In 600 A.D., the Mediterranean basin was largely Christian. But within a century of the death of Mohammed in 632, armies of Islam had conquered Syria and Palestine, swept over North Africa, and overrun Spain, only to be defeated at Poitiers by Charles Martel. Had they triumphed, Christianity might have died in Europe, as it would in the cities of Augustine and Athanasius.
"The common assumption that the Crusades were an act of unprovoked Christian aggression" is false, writes Warren Carroll, the historian of Christendom. Before 1095, "all the aggression had been Muslim. The Muslims were the original and continuing attackers and conquerors of Christian territory." Only after centuries living in fear of the hosts of Islam did Urban II preach the First Crusade.
The goal that animated the Crusaders was Jerusalem. "Those who deride this as a Christian objective have lived too long in books and under lamps," writes Carroll. "Real men and women, as distinct from scholarly abstractions, have homes which they love. Jesus Christ was a real man. He had a home. He loved it. His followers [and] worshipers who came after Him loved the land and places He had loved and trod, simply because He had loved and trodden them. Utterly convinced that He is God, they could not believe it right that any people not recognizing Him as God should rule His homeland."
A majority in Palestine was probably still Christian in 1095, writes Carroll, "They had ... as much right to their land as the Muslim conquerors." If Mecca were overrun by heathen armies, would not Muslim peoples be justified in launching a "jihad" to liberate their holy city? Would they apologize or be ashamed of having done so?
The Crusader armies, led by Godfrey of Bouillon and Raymond of Toulouse, captured Jerusalem in 1099, where a massacre did occur. But that same evil befell the knights, and their wives and children, when the last Crusader castle, Acre, fell to the Mameluks in 1291. Have we heard any apologies for the slaughter at Acre?
Offered the title King of Jerusalem, Raymond and Godfrey both refused to wear a crown of gold in the city where Christ had worn a crown of thorns. It was an age of faith. The First Crusade, writes Carroll, was "a just war conducted for a deeply spiritual purpose, though often seriously flawed in its execution." As was World War II.
After that Good War in which British Air Marshal "Bomber" Harris incinerated thousands of refugee women and children in Dresden, Dwight Eisenhower titled his memoir "Crusade in Europe." If he was not ashamed of the term, why are we?
Because this generation has been indoctrinated in a pack of lies by the moral sappers of the 1960s nesting in our schools. To them, Western Civilization is an abomination. The greatest explorers, like Columbus, are genocidal racists. Our founding fathers were slave-owning hypocrites. The soldier-statesmen of Western empires were brutal imperialists. Now, we must also be ashamed of crusades launched to recapture, in the name of our Lord, the Holy Land seized from Christendom by the armies of Islam.
The great enemies of the West today are its over-privileged children who are undermining this greatest civilization the world has ever seen. If we should be ashamed of anything, it is for having twice elected one of them as president. Bill Clinton could not carry the sandals, let alone the sword, of Godfrey of Bouillon.
Patrick J. Buchanan was twice a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination and the Reform Party’s candidate in 2000. Now a commentator and columnist, he served three presidents in the White House, was a founding panelist of three national televison shows, and is the author of six books. His current position is chairman of The American Cause. His newest book, "Death of the West," will be published in January.
Hello! Looks like amnesty is not just for Mexicans anymore. Hope you do your best to remain a voice of dissent inside the gates rather than outside.
Sounds to me like the boss wants them only on that thread. [not that I care one way or another]
As far as the rest of you post goes, Pat Buchanan [as I said before] if his own worst enemy. Pat Buchanan's mouth and pen have gotten him in more trouble than any liberal basher or conservative critic has ever done. If you can't see this, you too are hopeless.
Sounds to me like the boss wants them only on that thread. [not that I care one way or another]
Thanks for the confirmation.
To: ouroboros
Hi 'Boros!
134 posted on 11/29/01 5:29 AM Pacific by Inspector Harry Callahan
To: Inspector Harry Callahan
Tisk, tisk.
JimRob said you are allowed only on the "Freeper" thread, not others.
136 posted on 11/29/01 7:14 AM Pacific by 11th Earl of Mar
Seriously, you sincerely think this was a violation of the spirit of Jim's invitation?
You certainly have a low threshold for what constitutes "making a nuisance of one's self."
Might I dare say that you've been a nuisance on every Buchanan thread you've entered?
Perhaps it is you who should live by the spirit of Jim's admonition, which you
clearly failed to do with Inspector Harry Callahan. At least before jumping others that is.
It sounds to me, like they were invited into only one thread.
So lets say you come to my door and I tell you, "I will invite you into my living room as long as you don't go into the other rooms and make a mess."
You, obviously, would take that as an invitation to wonder around my house without permission. Why am I not surprised?
How convenient. Let's just pick a year to start exposition...600, say. Makes it look like Mediterranean had always been Christian. Yeh, and our Lord, Jesus Christ, spoke wonderful English.
"The common assumption that the Crusades were an act of unprovoked Christian aggression" is false, writes Warren Carroll, the historian of Christendom. Before 1095, "all the aggression had been Muslim. The Muslims were the original and continuing attackers and conquerors of Christian territory."
After English and Saxon pagans landed in the British Isles, Christianity was wiped out from the land with the exception of a few tiny hamlets. It stayed pagan for about 150 years until St. Augustine arrived, and the realm was re-Christianized again. Does anyone know about Crusades against those "heathens"?
Only after centuries living in fear of the hosts of Islam did Urban II preach the First Crusade.Wow, a bad lesson of history gets worse.
"Fear of the hosts of Islam" may be experienced at (at least) two levels: personal and national. It is hard to believe that there were personal reasons to fear the Muhammedans: historians often bring al Andalus (Moorish Spain) as an example of tolerance. The Christians, Jews, and even pagans lived there in peace.
As for the national aspects, by the time of the first crusade (forgive me for not capitalizing here), the boundaries of Islam have been fairly stable. Moreover, Gall was not in danger, for even the Basque Country in what is now Northern Spain has not been captured (famously, the Romans, too, had failed to concur that territory).
Let's go futher. Suppose you are in Gall, you are Christian, and you are damn tired of Islam being so victorious. You have a sophisticated leader, Urban II, who inspires you to put an end to that expansion. So, what would you do? Probably the same thing as all warriors in all ages did: counteract the immediate threat on your border --- in this case, with Iberia. Islam was just a hundred or so miles from Toulouse.
Well, the crusaders march instead all the way trough Europe, cross the Bosphorus, arid and formidable Anatolia and Lebanon to attack Jerusalem. All the while ignoring the immediate threat to their native city, Toulouse.
Why did they do that? Because there was no threat from Muslims in Iberia at the time. This is a post factum justification to make the enterprise heroic, so that we can now write in capital letters --- the First Crusade! The fact is, the crusaders did what had been done before them by pagan Goths who sacked the West (had Goths been threatened by the Christian Byzantium?), and what Muslims had done. That was the state of morals and sensibilities of the world.
Neither Pat Buchanan nor the historian he chooses to cite also explain what the burning of the Jews inside the synagogue had to do with "fear of the hosts of Islam." They also fail to mention that crusaders massacred pagans and Jews on the way to Jerusalem, thus liberating Europe from fellow Europeans. Was that also done out of "fear of the hosts of Islam?"
Pat Buchanan suffers, as usual, from selective retention of facts and selective attention to detail: only the sources that concur with his premises get through.
This country was founded as a Christian nation and should be proud of its traditions. Pat Buchanan's posture is something else altogether. One does not need to be a bigot to be proud of his roots.
Because this generation has been indoctrinated in a pack of lies by the moral sappers of the 1960s nesting in our schools. To them, Western Civilization is an abomination. The greatest explorers, like Columbus, are genocidal racists. Our founding fathers were slave-owning hypocrites. The soldier-statesmen of Western empires were brutal imperialists. And then plug into the list something questionable but sounding similar:
Now, we must also be ashamed of crusades launched to recapture, in the name of our Lord, the Holy Land seized from Christendom by the armies of Islam.
HISTORIANS ON THE LINCOLN ERA:
The motto IN GOD WE TRUST was placed on United States coins largely because of the increased religious sentiment existing during the Civil War. Secretary of the Treasury Salmon P. Chase received many appeals from devout persons throughout the country, urging that the United States recognize the Deity on United States coins. From Treasury Department records, it appears that the first such appeal came in a letter dated November 13, 1861. It was written to Secretary Chase by Rev. M. R. Watkinson, Minister of the Gospel from Ridleyville, Pennsylvania. I mean the recognition of the Almighty God in some form on our coins. In wrote in part: "You are probably a Christian. What if our Republic were not shattered beyond reconstruction? Would not the antiquaries of succeeding centuries rightly reason from our past that we were a heathen nation? What I propose is that instead of the goddess of liberty we shall have next inside the 13 stars a ring inscribed with the words PERPETUAL UNION; within the ring the allseeing eye, crowned with a halo; beneath this eye the American flag, bearing in its field stars equal to the number of the States united; in the folds of the bars the words GOD, LIBERTY, LAW. This would make a beautiful coin, to which no possible citizen could object. This would relieve us from the ignominy of heathenism. This would place us openly under the Divine protection we have personally claimed. From my hearth I have felt our national shame in disowning God as not the least of our present national disasters. "
As a result, President Abraham Lincoln instructed Secretary Chase to request James Pollock, Director of the Mint at Philadelphia, to prepare a motto, in a letter dated November 20, 1861: Dear Sir: No nation can be strong except in the strength of God, or safe except in His defense. The trust of our people in God should be declared on our national coins. You will cause a device to be prepared without unnecessary delay with a motto expressing in the fewest and tersest words possible this national recognition. It was found that the Act of Congress dated January 18, 1837, prescribed the mottoes and devices that should be placed upon the coins of the United States. This meant that the mint could make no changes without the enactment of additional legislation by the Congress. In December 1863, the Director of the Mint submitted designs for new one-cent coin, two-cent coin, and three-cent coin to Secretary Chase for approval. He proposed that upon the designs either OUR COUNTRY; OUR GOD or GOD, OUR TRUST should appear as a motto on the coins. In a letter to the Mint Director on December 9, 1863, Secretary Chase stated: I approve your mottoes, only suggesting that on that with the Washington obverse the motto should begin with the word OUR, so as to read OUR GOD AND OUR COUNTRY. And on that with the shield, it should be changed so as to read: IN GOD WE TRUST. The Congress passed the Act of April 22, 1864. This legislation changed the composition of the one-cent coin and authorized the minting of the two-cent coin. The Mint Director was directed to develop the designs for these coins for final approval of the Secretary. IN GOD WE TRUST first appeared on the 1864 two-cent coin. Another Act of Congress passed on March 3, 1865. It allowed the Mint Director, with the Secretary's approval, to place the motto on all gold and silver coins that "shall admit the inscription thereon." Under the Act, the motto was placed on the gold double-eagle coin, the gold eagle coin, and the gold half-eagle coin. It was also placed on the silver dollar coin, the half-dollar coin and the quarter-dollar coin, and on the nickel five-cent coin beginning in 1866. Later, Congress passed the Coinage Act of February 12, 1873. It also said that the Secretary "may cause the motto IN GOD WE TRUST to be inscribed on such coins as shall admit of such motto."
-- The U.S. Treasury Department
PUKEANAN on the Lincoln era
The article in the 1st Quarter 1996 Southern Partisan was by long time Southern Partisan columnist Tom Landess. Pat Buchanan is and has been a Senior Advisor for Southern Partisan since the 1st Quarter 1993 issue and the category on the masthead was started. This is a publication which sold in their 1995 Christmas catalog a T-shirt celebrating the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. The front side of the T-shirt had a picture of Lincoln and under it the words "SIC SEMPER TYRANNIS" which are the words John Wilkes Booth shouted when he assassinated Lincoln. On the back side of the T-shirt is a tree with the words written over it...The close relation of Pat Buchanan is not merely the regular column he has contributed of and on to the Southern Partisan, but by the fact that the Southern Partisan was given an exclusive to reprint his speech that he was not allowed to give at the 1996 Republican Convention in San Diego. Pat Buchanan is not just involved with the Southern Partisan only. He contributes to other publications run by neo-Confederates such as Chronicles, The Southern Re-enacting Veteran (later Southern Heritage and now defunct), and his frequent columns is in the Council of Conservative Citizens' publication Citizens Informer. I am going to list his neo-Confederate involvements by publication in the following sections...The theme of the interview is, from the table of contents, "We asked Patrick Buchanan to tell us just how hard it is to persuade Ronald Reagan to do the right thing. The Great Communicator's Director of Communications answered that question (and everything else we asked him) with disarming candor ..." However, the article is primarily Pat Buchanan justifying the actions of Ronald Reagan and his policies and saying that Reagan is conservative on his own. Pat Buchanan asserts that Reagan does what he can under the circumstances as part of a long term strategy. Buchanan explains that he feels Bradford was persecuted for being unorthodox. M.E. Bradford was proposed as an appointment by Ronald Reagan. He was rejected when there was a public outcry against it, including by George Will, conservative columnist. Bradford was a former Texas campaign manager for George Wallace, a virulent hater of Abraham Lincoln whose one review on the subject was rejected by National Review, a well known opponent of civil rights , and a regular contributor and Senior Editor of Southern Partisan. It was George Will I believe who pointed out that M.E. Bradford was against everything since the Missouri Compromise of 1850.
--TempleofDemocracy.com
PUKEANAN hates the very people who were promoting the Christian Era he "misses". Your boy is the KING of Hypocrites. The very people who PUKEANAN slanders as athetist tyrants, were, in fact, those who brought about the Second Great Awakening.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.