If ISIS Is Not Islamic, then the Inquisition Was Not Catholic

New Republic.com ^ | 09/15/2014 | Jerry A. Coyne

[Tzfat]

Every time you show that you have apparently never read a single book or article about the topic you’re posting about I win.

Typical. You assume that your word is proof enough, but demand a different standard for your debaters. In a debate, you lose. In real life you lose, because the entire world (except some whacky RC purists) knows the Inquisition was Catholic.

[Kandy Atz]

If my last post seemed rude, I apologize. Let me try one last time to diffuse this.

My original post was never about establishing a definitive date for the start or end of the dark ages - that was your focus. I took offense to the abrupt tone, the degree dropping, and then telling me I need to read more. I should have ignored it.

I responded to a post suggesting that without the crusades, we would all be speaking Arabic. I disagree. Here was the key paragraph:

In my opinion, the crusades had little military significance in stopping Muslim expansion. The muslims reached their highwater mark in Western Europe (Spain & Southern France) 300 years before the first crusade, finally defeated in France by Charles Martel. And they were at the gates of Vienna (Ottoman Empire 1683) long after the last crusaders had left the Holy Land at the end of the 13th century.

You are welcome to agree or disagree. But IMHO, the crusades had little military significance in stopping the spread of islam further into Europe for the reasons listed above. The rest of the post was a general observation of what freedom (both religious and political) can do for a nation, which seems rather obvious when you look at the growth in Europe, and the rapid decline in muslim lands, leading to the colonization of many of them by the European powers just a short time later. Again, you may agree or disagree, it is merely an opinion. It was not a dissertation on dark ages, reform, military history, or anything else you may have imagined.

[vladimir998]

“Typical. You assume that your word is proof enough, but demand a different standard for your debaters.”

Typical. You assume that your baseless claims which are based on nothing at all apparently.

“In a debate, you lose.”

You never showed up for a debate. If you have not studied these things, then you know nothing about them.

“In real life you lose, because the entire world (except some whacky RC purists) knows the Inquisition was Catholic.”

Show me where I denied the inquisition was Catholic? The inquisition was a Roman invention used by bishops and then the papacy. If you’re going to accuse me of something at least get your facts straight.