Orlando Bloom Crusades in 'Kingdom of Heaven'

Hollywood Confidential ^ | April 30th, 2005

[LiveBait]

"Christians in the 1100s thought the crusades were valiant and glorious. They DID NOT know about some of what happened in those crusades."

While I agree with you on the larger argument, it can be noted that there were several occasions in which the church denounced the actions of the crusaders, when they went a bit too far.

[stands2reason]

Don't tell me a movie created postmodernism.

And somehow you're happy about that?

[MikefromOhio]

and to say it, we are still waiting on the head of the Muslims to come out and say that as well. But the problem is, unlike with the crusades, there really isnt a head of the Muslim faith insofar as it relates to the Pope and the papacy...

[Borges]

It contributed to a recent speificic school of 'Pomo'. Postmodernism isn't the Boogeyman it's made out to be. Lots of great Art has come out of it.

[what's up]

Surprise Surprise! :-)

No..no surprise. Of course gays are behind the promotion to "normalize" their behavior in society. And people who are "entertained" by what they put out play into their agenda.

[kkindt]

I am a knight under oath of the order of Westminster. There are still knights in the world today and always have been. And you are correct that the difference between Christian knights today and Muslim holy warriors is that we do not believe as did the knights of the Middle Ages, that you gain heaven by killing God's enemies. This was not Sciptural teaching back then and it is not Scriptural today. We of the order of Westminster believe God will take care of His enemies, we are to love them until He does. This does not mean we Christian knights believe in non-violence.

[osagebowman]

Evening Sam - I too am hopeful, but like you will wait for freeper reviews.

[Borges]

You don't have to agree morally with a work of Art to appreciate it.

[Lakeshark]

Scuse me, the Muslims in this country no perfectly well what is happening. A lot of them around the world know as well. they rarely say anything. It's a simple fact.

You have no idea what was known and what was said in the Middle Ages, and neither do I.

None.

I know of no Christians who support the killing of abortion doctors, or the crazy lune who set off a bomb in the Olympics. Lots of Christians spoke out agianst these acts. Lots. Your equivocation is preposterous and simply wrong.

[LiveBait]

Like I said, I agree with your larger point, and you certainly can find Muslim leaders who denounce terror.

[what's up]

You don't have to agree morally with a work of Art to appreciate it.

I don't agree with or appreciate gay art.

[Lakeshark]

For instance?

[what's up]

Here's something on your Kinsey played "amorally" by Neeson. He's a sicko.

Kinsey biographer James H. Jones, former adviser to the Kinsey Institute at Indiana University, has admitted that Kinsey, the father of three children, was not the conventional academic and family man the university presented, but was sexually compromised. In his 1997 book "Alfred C. Kinsey: A Public/Private Life," which was excerpted by New Yorker magazine, the author describes the sex researcher as a sadomasochistic homosexual on a perverted mission. Kinsey produced pornography in his attic v filming his wife, male staff and their wives as performers v and sexually harassed his male students.

Reisman notes that Kinsey, who died in 1956, is praised by the North American Man-Boy Love Association for creating the "data" that support "the struggle we fight today." She finds his work as the basis for weakened laws and cultural norms that have helped foster a sharp rise in sex crimes against children, noting that 58,200 abductions by non-family members were recorded by the FBI in 1999, most of which involved sexual victimization.

[MikefromOhio]

no but we CAN go by historical accounts and records. The English were very good at keeping records at the time. See if you find anything.

Hell if you wanted too you could find VOLUMES of historical records from the time. PEOPLE HAVE PH.D'S in this very subject!!!

but keep on not listening. that's right, Christians have never done anything wrong. What was I thinking!?!? Hell, lets go ahead and nuke the ME right now!!

If you are saying my equating of Muslims of TODAY to CHRISTIANS OF 1100 is wrong, then I am going to go ahead and think I hit the nail squarely on the head and drove it true.

sheesh....

[Borges]

Oh I'm not denying it. The movie actually shows some of his perversions. I'm sure you're rushing out to see it now! (just kidding)

[HairOfTheDog]

Oh no, really? I'm sorry to hear that. I really liked him in that movie, and in Pirates of the Caribbean. Maybe he'll mature and reconsider...

Continue to like whoever you like for their talents. I followed LoTR more closely than most, and I can't recall Orlando Bloom saying anything substantitive about our mission in Iraq. Sometimes, actors become so vocal we can't ignore their opinion, but for the most part, life's just simpler if you enjoy them for their art, and don't ask.

[MikefromOhio]

well when I was in Iraq, Sistani was denouncing attacks against fellow Muslims, which is all the insurgency in Iraq is focused on these days. They then turn it around and attempt to blame it on the coalition, but it doesnt work.

[ReeseKev27]

>>Sorry I can't keep up with all these posts, I'm 25 behind everyone else. And listen I'll concede here and now that you are much more acquainted with the details of the crusades so you'll have to forgive the broad strokes and random details.

YOUR problem lies in your inability to realize that a supposedly justified motive for war, protecting pilgrimage routes and securing the holy land, in no way justifies that conduct of the men who fight that war.

>>I see, and how is a medieval war supposed to be fought so as to not be thrown in the same boat as your enemy centuries later?Look at the wording you used, "securing"? Lets be honest here can we? its "take back", not "secure". You want to know what isn't justified? What isn't justified is your application of 20th century standards on Christian soldiers from the crusades. I'm not immersed in history every day like yourself but I'm pretty sure pillaging and plundering were the standard of the day. Its how you got to point b from a. I don't think they had rations, tents, horses for all, etc. The crusaders, just like the invaders, habitually took what they wanted and needed right?

How is massacring Jews part of the defense of the holy land? How the sack of Constantinople? How the butchering of the inhabitants of the city of Jerusalem...is that a measured response?

>>There you go again though, "measured response?". What exactly is a measured response? I have to admit I don't remember everything I was taught so I'll pick the one I remember best. The sack of Constantinople was a RESPONSE to the unruly inhabitants of the city whom previously responded to "measured response[s]" but were no longer. What should have been done? and yes I understand it was and is a highly debatable subject.

No one is saying the Muslims were "good guys," but I will say in that in 1453 when Constantinople was under siege by the turks, many of the residents expressed a preference for life under the Sultan to life under the Latins if unification were made a condition of Latin aid.

>>And how does that prove the Crusaders were as bad as the Muslim invaders? The peoples of Constantinople didn't want to unify as their Latin leaders wanted, so? Sounds to me like the Latin leaders wanted to bring peace and even tried to heal the division. And if I were surround on all sides by the most successful pillager of the day, I'd prefer to go quietly too. I think the writing was on the wall at that point.

>>"good guys". Actually I believe this discussion, in part, was started by just such a claim supposedly made by this movie. Wasn't it?

The Sultan would allow the Orthodox to worship as they pleased; not so the Pope.

>>Please, the Sultan had a circle of forces converging on the city, they weren't converging to help them worship.

If you think the "Crusader ideal" was an ever present fact of the Crusades, and not an initial piety quickly forgotten when the chance for pillage and plunder arose, then you really need to read a few books--and I'm not talking about propaganda Web sites or wherever you're getting your Crusader information from, but some well researched, non ideological BOOKS.

>>And what I'm saying is that pillage and plunder were facts of war, not reasons to condemn it. The "crusader ideal", which sounds more like propaganda for me, was long gone by the time the Sultan came knocking. You seem to be making the argument that because war is war, Christians are just as bad and that simply isn't the case. There has to be some shelter for the one who doesn't throw the first punch.
>>You mean books that may have been assigned during a study in Medieval history that you might find assigned by a certain college in Boston on the T?
By the way, I'm a PhD student in Medieval Studies at Boston University. If you want to debate the crusades, I'm
>>While I'd love to pull out all my old texts and have a go with you I'm not that interested. I took a high level course years ago and I distinctly remember having a higher opinion of my Christian brothers than my Muslim ones based on what I read not what I wanted to believe.

[Lakeshark]

I never said that, or anything near that.

You just can't admit you're wrong in what you're saying, so you're ranting.

[what's up]

I'm sure you're rushing out to see it now!

No...but all this talk might be making you eager to see it again to be entertained.

Sorry, but I do hold actors accountable for the roles they play. Just because acting is their job, doesn't mean they should play every sicko in an "amoral" fashion. I prefer actors who bring good messages to the public. Especially these days when there's so much perversion around.