Duh Won has done it again. This time he is trying to blame Christians for the savagery of present day Islamic terrorists known to the world as IS. I think it is time that Duh Won is put in his place over his lack of perspective when it comes to history…. and that goes for all of the claims that the Crusades were somehow savage and brutal.
First of all, there were several Crusades that were called and the purpose of most was to free the Holy Land from the grip of the barbarians known as Mohammedans. However, by the time of Richard the Lionheart there were other reassons for the Crusade. I am not sure if I wrote about those other issues in a previous post. It is suffice to say that the security of Jerusalem as a Holy Place was not necessarily the goal for at least one crusade. Also not all crusades were called by the Pope.
Second, some mention in the past has been made of the role of the Knights Templar. It is only by re-reading the book on Robin Hood that I began to dig into some of the mystery surrounding the attitude towards the Knights Templar that persists even today. At least by digging I understand why this attitude arose in the first place. At some point, and it is not clear when this happened, the Knights Templar had become heretics. They became a part of a movement that is best represented by the Albigenses in France known as Catharism – the Cathars believed that they were the pure (it reminds me of modern vegetarians). The Cathars also believed in dualism, that is there were two gods – a god of good and a god of evil. As such they did not accept that Jesus had died on the Cross (please note that this is a brief summary for the purpose of this post).
My appetite to find out the truth was whetted when I saw the most recent movie about Robin Hood, also known as Robin of Locksley and then read Sir Walter Scott’s version of the tales of Robin Hood. Although the T.V. series was loosely based on this book, there was a lot more in the book to excite the mind of the curious. In my case it was the manner in which king Richard treated the members of the Knights Templar who were present at the joust. The real story of Richard the Lionheart and of the Knights Templar is quite interesting. I will point out that there are accusations against King Richard that are simply not true, in regard to what happened on the island where his wife was living. The people who live there certainly have a different viewpoint than the revisionist historian who was attempting to dent the reputation of Richard.
There is one crusade, it was not sanctioned by the Vatican, and it took place in France. What you have to remember is that during the period in question there was no difference between Church and State. What you also have to keep in mind is that the Church as well as the State felt threatened by the rise of such groups. The Knights Templar were a parter of a larger organizationl The State of France went to war against them. It was a crusade against those who were thought to be a threat against the monarchy or at least the local dignitary.
Third, in Europe there were at least 2 phases of the Inquisitions. There were admitted abuses by individuals who participated in the Inquistions. However, despite such abuses which led to a few deaths for political rather than religious reaons, the first Inquisitions saved more people than those who actually died.When the Inquisitor came to town the accused were confronted about whether or not they were adopting certain practices. The numbers who died in this period were very low (more than 10 times less than those killed through violence perpetrated by Mohammedans. However, it is the Spanish Inquisition that was in fact dubious from its inception. Yes, people died. Yes, some people were tortured. However, what they endured was a picnic compared to the torturs used on the many innocent victims of the Islamic State. The Spanish Iquisition was a government tribunal.
The claim that somehow IS is worse than the Christians during the period of the crusades is ludicrous. It is also a claim that is not based upon fact.