Professor beaten; attackers cite KU creationism class

LAWRENCE - A professor whose planned course on creationism and intelligent design was canceled after he sent e-mails deriding Christian conservatives was hospitalized Monday after what appeared to be a roadside beating.

http://www.kansas.com/mld/eagle/livi...n/13337930.htm


hmmmm.."Judge not lest ye be judged," seems to be an optional part (one of many, apparently) for American Christian radicals. Why are there so many Christians who feel the only solution to anything they can come up with is violence? Is our society creating these people? People who simply cannot accept that people have differing views or beliefs from their own and think that's justification for violence? I also have to wonder why he was beaten after his proposed class was cancelled.

Smacking him around is, of course, stupid, senseless, and prosecutable, but the guy is not entirely blameless himself:

from the article:
...One recent e-mail from Mirecki to members of a student organization referred to religious conservatives as "fundies," and said a course describing intelligent design as mythology would be a "nice slap in their big fat face." ...

That's like walking onto a bull's field waving a red flag.

things like that are posted in this very forum all the time. to say they deserve anything but a "warning" or personal opinion deriding their own bad decisions is pretty specious.

Wow, an intolerant professor got a dose of people not being tolerant of intolerance. Maybe if said prof. hadn't been such a jerk, he wouldn't have gotten beat.

Not to mention, he was really stupid for getting out of his car in the first place.

Crazed Rabbit

Stupid and intolerant he may have been, beating him is not going to change his or anyone else's opinion and is wrong despite the professor's provocation.

This sort of hypocrisy seems pretty rampant amongst many religious folk I know. I remember reading a history of the Byzantines and being shocked over the idiotic things people used to riot and wage war over, but maybe things just haven't changed as much as I had thought.

I guess the whole letting he who hasn't sinned thing is for fags.

~:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by solypsist

Is our society creating these people? People who simply cannot accept that people have differing views or beliefs from their own and think that's justification for violence?

---

I don't think so. I think that a society such as ours, where there is little government censorship, fosters tolerance for ideas. But, that tolerance comes from conflicting ideals, and perhaps some people get a little too swept up in the conflict of ideas and take it to a physical level.

He appears to have taken only a mild-beating, not that it's any better or more comforting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Wow, an intolerant professor got a dose of people not being tolerant of intolerance. Maybe if said prof. hadn't been such a jerk, he wouldn't have gotten beat.

---

And if the fundamentalists would've agreed w/ him, he wouldn't have been intolerant to them... His being a verbal jackass in no way justifies being beaten, and people should not have to censor themselves in fear of physical retaliation.

so a personal/political opinion justifies physical violence. okay, you've answered what i wanted to know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Wow, an intolerant professor got a dose of people not being tolerant of intolerance. Maybe if said prof. hadn't been such a jerk, he wouldn't have gotten beat.

---

I think CR was saying more that provoking people can often lead to unpleasant consequences.

Just because the professor was beaten doesn't mean he isn't a jackass.

CR was suckered in by Soly's gambit, so we have to give this round to Soly.

Soly carefully labeled the "bad guys" as "American Christian Radicals" and then provided enough info to show how the prof had antagonized them. At least a few yahoos knocked the guy around -- stupid and pointless of them as well as illegal.

Soly was reasonably sure that at least one right-winger would say something vaguely along the lines of what CR said, jumped on it with a quote, and declared victory. He now smurks at any further response having achieved his objective.

CR, my pal, you just charged the skirmishers with your cavalry and landed on the hoplite spears during the follow through -- as Soly intended from the opening post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Soly was reasonably sure that at least one right-winger would say something vaguely along the lines of what CR said, jumped on it with a quote, and declared victory. He now smurks at any further response having achieved his objective.

---

I expected that as well ~D Admittedly, this professor’s comments weren't the smartest either...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by solypist

Is our society creating these people? People who simply cannot accept that people have differing views or beliefs from their own and think that's justification for violence?

---

Considering, it's the people who create the society and not the other way round, it's hardly surprising. Every day, science is pushing the borders of knowledge further. The religions we know were invented in a time when education was scant. The religious played on that lack of knowledge and people's fears to lure them into following their religions (whatever they may be, it's not a specific criticism on Christianity).
Yet some people refuse to acknowledge the truth because when science negates long lasting fallacies, it's not just an assault on their religious beliefs but it's an assault against their whole conception of the world. When someone is cornered, violence is often the only solution at hand.

All right.

Rest of the thread to go as follows:

Members ignore attempts by a few Christian Conservatives to distance themselves from the incident, pointing out that a few bad apples (~;p ) don't mean all Christians are stupid or hypocrites.

Anti-religion fundamentalists say Christians (and religious people in general) are stupid and how it should be outlawed and all Christians persecuted for being stupid, hypocrites, and having their own beliefs.

Let the generalizations flow, gentlemen.







Aside: Prole, I don't really mean to indict you, since you won't use this incident to belabor all Christians. I am disappointed that you seem to know many religious hypocrites, and I acknowledge that those in the article are hypocrites themselves.

EDIT: Didn't read well enough, can a mod delete this post?

You'd have to be pretty insecure about your convictions to take offense from the opinions of some guy you don't even know.

That said, if I was a professor and I knew that my words would be read by a lot of people, I'd be more careful of what I'd say. Was it right to beat him? Of course not. Was it to be expected? Yes.

What I find most disturbing about this thread is not the fact that a couple of morons beat a guy up in the name of Christ; there have been idiots doing that and worse for thousands of years. It's sad, but nevertheless it's old news.

What I find truly disturbing is that two people so far (one with whom I usually agree, and one with whom I almost never agree, but both of whom I respect) have gone so far as to say that the victim shares some of the blame for his being attacked, because he used words that Christians might disagree with.

That simply boggles the mind.

I know it's cliché, but I'll throw this one out there anyway: Does a woman who was dressed in extremely slutty/revealing clothes share any of the blame for her own rape because she was "asking for it?"

Think about it people.

As my old grandad was always so fond of saying: "Jesus wept..."

note that his comments were made public by a leaked e-mail. he wastn't standing around on the street with a bullhorn or screaming fire in a crowded theater.

open season on jackasses it is. anyone found to be offensive because of his/her opinion towards a certain group is now eligible to be physically attacked by said group.

woe unto anyone who creates a flash-based animation showing someone being humiliated via cgi - they obviously are in the wrong since real-life abuse is the way to go.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Proletariat

I think CR was saying more that provoking people can often lead to unpleasant consequences.

Just because the professor was beaten doesn't mean he isn't a jackass.

---

and

Quote:

---

Does a woman who was dressed in extremely slutty/revealing clothes share any of the blame for her own rape because she was "asking for it?"

---

according to some users (and certain people roaming the streets of Kansas), she apparently is.

Quote:

---

...but the guy is not entirely blameless himself:

---

I typed that, but looking back, I regret having done so. The prof shares no blame for his beating.

To Soly's wider question: " Is our society creating these people?" I guess so. It'll be interesting to hear the assaulters' version of events, when they are caught.

I agree, Alexander.

to be honest I'm mroe interested in the other questions rather than trying to indict a group that is obviously in the minority (if i just wanted to raise toches and pitvchforks i could just post a bunch off fred phelps articles).

so let's drop the christian bashing and instead look at the macro.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good

Let the generalizations flow, gentlemen.

---

The macro, then?

People have been beating other people for saying unpopular things for a long time. I'm sure you could find at least one example for every year since such things were recorded. I think such incidents will continue; this is only interesting in that the beating coincides with a national hot-button issue.

Aside: reading the article, it sounds like the professor was planning a course at odds with what the Kansas State Board of Ed. was planning.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the article

The class was added after the Kansas State Board of Education decided to include more criticism of evolution in science standards for elementary and secondary students.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the article

One recent e-mail from Mirecki to members of a student organization referred to religious conservatives as "fundies," and said a course describing intelligent design as mythology would be a "nice slap in their big fat face." Mirecki has apologized for those comments.

---

What is a learned man doing in Kansas in the first place? That's just asking for it...~:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by solypsist

note that his comments were made public by a leaked e-mail. he wastn't standing around on the street with a bullhorn or screaming fire in a crowded theater.

---

Why would the people who felt insulted care?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by solypsist

open season on jackasses it is. anyone found to be offensive because of his/her opinion towards a certain group is now eligible to be physically attacked by said group.

---

What are you trying to say?

Of course they are eligible. Everyone is eligible to be physically attacked anywhere. Did I say it was right that this professor was attacked? I thought I was pretty clear in stating that this was very wrong.

.
While I -naturally- condemn the beating, the whole case seems a clash between two radical camps, common among them being their ultimate idiocy. The so-called creationist campaign against evolution is as stupid as the case of "evolutionists" who take a scientific problem as a faith or rather a counter-faith.

~:handball:
.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by solypsist

note that his comments were made public by a leaked e-mail. he wastn't standing around on the street with a bullhorn or screaming fire in a crowded theater.

---

Point taken. I misread some parts of the article as I was in a hurry. I've read it fully now, and now I have to agree with you.

The professor has resigned as head of department , though he still retains his teaching post .
Apperently it is acceptable to question religeous phiosophy if you teach religeous philosophy , but you cannot head the department for teaching religeous philosophy if you question religeous philosophy~:confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by solypsist

Why are there so many Christians who feel the only solution to anything they can come up with is violence?

---

This is not only an atribute of christians. Many people, as people, tend to violence without fitting in any specifical category.

Quote:

---

Is our society creating these people?

---

The answer is no. People tend to be violent if they're not properly educated, adding extremist phylosophies, such as religions, to the equation can lead to this undesirable ends. The context is not important, they existed in all times and places and will appear again.

Quote:

---

People who simply cannot accept that people have differing views or beliefs from their own and think that's justification for violence?

---

Those actions were not justified as they're written in the article. The first thing I'll do is sue them civilly.

Quote:

---

I also have to wonder why he was beaten after his proposed class was cancelled.

---

I think that the only thing this people cared about was the mensage and the freedom of the liberal system in wich, wheter they like it or not, they're living in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soulforged

People tend to be violent if they're not properly educated, adding extremist phylosophies, such as religions, to the equation can lead to this undesirable ends.

---

Yeah, listening to Beethoven's 5th is bad too, right? I disagree, my droogie.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by solypsist

open season on jackasses it is.

---

When is it not?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

He was doing the right thing, for the wrong reasons. Somebody has to stamp out this ridiculous reactionary anti-intellectual line of reasoning before it gets out of hand, but insults and physical quarrels are not the right way to do it.

---

He never intended to insult though, but I agree with your post ~:cheers:

I don't understand why he resigned as head of his departement. ~:rolleyes:

I and most of the christians I know believe in evolution, it does not contradict the old testament when evolution is viewed as a tool used by god and 7 days are taken to mean 7 periods of time.
why is it always the nutters that get the attention!, surely this guy has the right to air his views, thats just freedom of speech!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Byzantine Mercenary

I and most of the christians I know believe in evolution, it does not contradict the old testament when evolution is viewed as a tool used by god and 7 days are taken to mean 7 periods of time.

---

That would be intelligent design (sort of), pretty much what he was going up against...:hide:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doc_bean

That would be intelligent design (sort of), pretty much what he was going up against...:hide:

---

well in so much as God knew that we would result from evolution given the circumstances on earth

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Byzantine Mercenary

I and most of the christians I know believe in evolution, it does not contradict the old testament when evolution is viewed as a tool used by god and 7 days are taken to mean 7 periods of time.
why is it always the nutters that get the attention!, surely this guy has the right to air his views, thats just freedom of speech!

---

.
That kind of view is not unique to Christians; all sound "people of the books" seem to be thinking and expressing it. A handy example would be the American composer Steve Reich, a devout traditional Jew. Another one is the single most important person on this planet: Me! ~;p ~D

Pretty much "evolutionism" can be found in classical and post-classical Islamic bibliography. :book2:
.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doc_bean

I don't understand why he resigned as head of his departement. ~:rolleyes:

---

Possibility #1: He was catching grief for expressing opinions on the school-owned e-mail that some professors found belittling of students. He therefore resigned his hierarchical position so that he publicly dis-associated his private views from the hierarchy of the organization.

Possibility #2: After years of crappy paper work and a slew of extra meetings for the "honor" of being chair over a department who -- like most -- are about as "biddable" as an equivalent-sized herd of cats, the prof used this opportunity to get rid of the hassle and go back to his nice tenured office and let some other schlob play eternal catch-up with all the administrative gunk.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mouzafphaerre

.
That kind of view is not unique to Christians; all sound "people of the books" seem to be thinking and expressing it. A handy example would be the American composer Steve Reich, a devout traditional Jew. Another one is the single most important person on this planet: Me! ~;p ~D

Pretty much "evolutionism" can be found in classical and post-classical Islamic bibliography. :book2:
.

---

Indeed, i heard somewhere that some jewish text spoke of god slaying a dragon, before man came along, perhaps this is aluding to the dinosaurs?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Byzantine Mercenary

well in so much as God knew that we would result from evolution given the circumstances on earth

---

Yep, he's was going to speak against that. Intelligent design is an interpretation of the evolution theory (some would say a rather strange one), as is 'religious atheism' the likes of Dawkins preach.

This is not so much a debate about science as it is about philosophy religion though. :knight:

I don't understand why he resigned as head of his departement.
Well you have Seamus' option #1&#2 , or you have the official version from the Dean

"Professor Mirecki said he thought it appropriate to step down and did so on the recommendation of his colleagues in the department, and I have accepted his resignation .
This allows the department to focus on what's most important -- teaching, research and service -- and to minimize the distractions of the last couple of weeks."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doc_bean

Yep, he's was going to speak against that. Intelligent design is an interpretation of the evolution theory (some would say a rather strange one), as is 'religious atheism' the likes of Dawkins preach.

This is not so much a debate about science as it is about philosophy religion though. :knight:

---

Not necessarily. You're not an ID supporter if you admit basing your beliefs on faith, and not claiming it as a scientific theory. ID supporters are different in that they try to present their views as "scientific", reasoning that life is to complex to have been the result of random mutations and natural selection.

https://img236.imageshack.us/img236/...tmethod0eq.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by solypsist

so a personal/political opinion justifies physical violence. okay, you've answered what i wanted to know.

---

~:rolleyes:

This reminds me of something...

Number 2 probably comes closest to what you did, though I didn't even put forth an arguement, just commented.

And since when does not expressing surprise at an event mean I agree with what happened? If I were to say something like 'wow, another terrorist bombing in Iraq' would I then automatically support terrorist bombings in Iraq? Perhaps you could prove when I said anything similar to what you stated...oh, what's that you can't? Wow. Big surprise there.

I grow tired of this silliness.

Crazed Rabbit

P.S. One wonders what the prof said when he got out of his truck-a terribly stupid thing to do-and if he was lying about the reasons the men attacked him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

P.S. One wonders what the prof said when he got out of his truck-a terribly stupid thing to do-and if he was lying about the reasons the men attacked him.

---

You know, I had thought that the whole incident sounded more like road rage than anything else, given the situation that it occurred in. Also, given that the guy clearly hates Christian fundamentalists I wouldn't be totally blown away to discover that he attributed it to them after the fact. Of course, I have no evidence at all to say that's how it happened... then again he has no evidence at all to support his version either does he?

Quote:

---

CR, my pal, you just charged the skirmishers with your cavalry and landed on the hoplite spears during the follow through -- as Soly intended from the opening post.

---

Yes, but this is RTW 1.0, and I've got cataphracts, which charge, completely undetered, through his hoplites, knocking them wildly about like bowling pins.
~:cool:

Crazed Rabbit

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeonGod

Yeah, listening to Beethoven's 5th is bad too, right? I disagree, my droogie.

---

No it isn't and I'm not sure where you want to go with that statement.

Conservatives ------------------ Enviormentalist wackos
https://img236.imageshack.us/img236/...tmethod0eq.jpg

Hmmm sounds like global warming.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

You know, I had thought that the whole incident sounded more like road rage than anything else, given the situation that it occurred in. Also, given that the guy clearly hates Christian fundamentalists I wouldn't be totally blown away to discover that he attributed it to them after the fact. Of course, I have no evidence at all to say that's how it happened... then again he has no evidence at all to support his version either does he?

---

Well in his own words

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by article

University of Kansas religious studies professor Paul Mirecki said that the two men who beat him made references to the class that was to be offered for the first time this spring.

---

Since the two men who beat him have not been caught - several comments on this thread are really kind of unfounded - to include the individual who started the thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by article

She said Mirecki reported he was attacked around 6:40 a.m. in rural Douglas County south of Lawrence. Mirecki told the Lawrence Journal-World that he was driving to breakfast when he noticed the men tailgating him in a pickup truck.

---

I wonder where he actually lives in relationship to the University of Kansas - I know lots of the rural roads around the Douglas County area because my wife's family lives outside of Lawerence on one of these rural roads.... especially when Yahoo.com people search gives an address for the same named individual inside the city of Lawerence.


Interesting what you can find on the internet isn't?

http://maps.yahoo.com/py/maps.py?add...zip=66046-4541

Something about the story doesn't add up - the area for the address is not rural - and near address is about 6 good breakfast restraunts within 5 miles - that are not in the rural areas. Only town south of Lawerence is Ottawa and there is a one horse town inbetween - but I can't remember if it has a breakfast place or not.

http://maps.yahoo.com/py/maps.py?add...zip=66046-4541

Could it be he was beaten up for reason not associated with his teaching - but something else....... One must wonder about the other possiblities with the lack of evidence associated with only his story being told.


Try searching your name on the internet - it could just scare you what information is available for public consumption about yourself.

OK, let's put this topic on the backburner for awhile, until more concrete information emerges. What we have now is a reported assault, with attendant cuts and bruises, in a highly charged political environment, and motives on all sides being attributed by the world at large.

All we here at the Org can do is speculate and extrapolate from that speculation - an interesting pastime, to be sure - but one that, experience shows, makes us focus more on each other than on the meat of the issue.

Therefore: temporarily closed for comment until the story develops further. Thanks to all contributors :bow:

TheLJ-World, local Kansas newspaper,hascontinuing coverage here:
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2005/de...ing/?evolution

Thread reopened after this tip from Redleg. Let's stay on-topic and civil.

Yes indeed - I particlurly like this part of the article - its brings to question what is indeed the details of the attack. No suspects have been caught from the reading I have done -and lots of questions remain unclear and/or unanswered.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by article

Key facts about the reported attack remained unclear Tuesday, including exactly where it happened. A report released by the Douglas County Sheriff’s Office said the location was “unknown” and listed it as south of 31st Street on either East 1400 Road or East 1500 Road.

Louisiana Street turns into East 1400 Road outside the city limits. Haskell Avenue becomes East 1500 Road.

Also, there was conflicting information about whether Mirecki reported it at the scene or at the hospital. In an interview Monday with the Journal-World, he said he called police from the side of the road, but sheriff’s officials said they were dispatched to the hospital.

Mirecki declined to clarify the discrepancy when asked about it Tuesday outside the sheriff’s office.

“I can; I just don’t want to,” he said.

---

Same caption ------------------ Big Bad Oil/Bush Adm.
https://img236.imageshack.us/img236/...tmethod0eq.jpg

Hmmm sounds exactly like global warming.

.
Yahoo People Search doesn't cover "the rest of the world". ~;) Am I safe now? :stunned:
.

Wow, it is scary what you can find on the net.

And it looks like our dear professor has been spinning some lies recently. And talk about a good description-2 white guys in a pickup truck in Kansas. They'll stand right out, I imagine.

Crazed Rabbit

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mouzafphaerre

.
Yahoo People Search doesn't cover "the rest of the world". ~;) Am I safe now? :stunned:
.

---

Who knows - ~:eek:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

Conservatives ------------------ Enviormentalist wackos
https://img236.imageshack.us/img236/...tmethod0eq.jpg

Hmmm sounds like global warming.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bartix

Same caption ------------------ Big Bad Oil/Bush Adm.
https://img236.imageshack.us/img236/...tmethod0eq.jpg

Hmmm sounds exactly like global warming.

---

Splendid. ~:joker:

Good god, it's a comic! If either Gawain or Bartix had a sense of humour he'd have posted another political cartoon or something, instead of trying to ruin the joke.

Not to mention that the comparison creationists=environmentalists hold no water.
Researchers gathered data on climate change and industrial activity and formulated a theory that may be wrong or right.
Creationists on the other hand read a dusty book written and compiled thousends of years ago, call it "intelligent design theory" and then try to be accepted in the scientific community. Global warming is a theory whose support is unfortunately is tainted by political motivations, but ID was never science to begin with.

Quote:

---

Why are there so many Christians who feel the only solution to anything they can come up with is violence?

---

Why are there so many idiots who feel wrongdoing by a few Christians among billions is an indictment of the whole religion?

This country is vastly Christian, yet it has one of the most offensive and vocal anti-Christian elements found in the world, and all you can do is produce some beating in Kansas to support such an ignorant claim.

The real question should be: Why are Christians in the Western World so tolerant of people who hate them living in their midst, when other religions around the world resort to beheadings and slaughter of infidels?

Christians are extremely tolerant people, but if you look hard enough, and you want to make a point bad enough, you can find dirt on any type of affiliation so huge as a religion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

Why are there so many idiots who feel wrongdoing by a few Christians among billions is an indictment of the whole religion?

---

Because of the brasen hypocrisy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

The real question should be: Why are Christians in the Western World so tolerant of people who hate them living in their midst, when other religions around the world resort to beheadings and slaughter of infidels?

---

Ah come on, there's only one religion doing that these days. :san_undecided:

Islam is on the whole, a tolerant religion, during the crusades and later they have behaved very tolereantly towards Jews and christians, to this day there are many christian and jewish comunitys in muslim countrys.
of course just like with christians there are a few fundamentalists who give the rest a bad name.

Islam? Tolerant?

I suggest you read this.

They began waging a holy war on the rest of the world from the time of Mohammed. Their 'prophet's' instructions were to convert people to Islam, tax them if they didn't convert, and kill them if they didn't pay the tax. Even if they paid the tax, they were oppressed second class citizens with no right to self defense ot free practice of religion.

For hundreds of years the armies of Islam ramapged about, slaughtering whole cities. The Crusades were a defensive response.

Crazed Rabbit

The crusades to the holy land (wich most people are thinking about when talking about "the" crusades) were certainly not defensive. They were set out to conquer territories that had been inhabitated by muslims for centuries already. That'd be like England launching an invasion of America and calling it a "defensive move". And while on their way, the crusaders killed thousends upon thousends of people- not only muslims as one would expect, but jews too.

That is not to say, muslims were somehow better then christians. But burning down villages and enslaving the survivors was common practice in pre-industrial times, and christians did it too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Islam? Tolerant?

I suggest you read this.

They began waging a holy war on the rest of the world from the time of Mohammed. Their 'prophet's' instructions were to convert people to Islam, tax them if they didn't convert, and kill them if they didn't pay the tax. Even if they paid the tax, they were oppressed second class citizens with no right to self defense ot free practice of religion.

For hundreds of years the armies of Islam ramapged about, slaughtering whole cities. The Crusades were a defensive response.

Crazed Rabbit

---

.
Go read a textbook or two and get your facts straight before spreading such bulshit around.
.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

For hundreds of years the armies of Islam ramapged about, slaughtering whole cities. The Crusades were a defensive response.

---

:san_laugh: :san_laugh: :san_laugh: :san_laugh:

So you're telling me people like Reynald de Chatillon was a defender of truth, justice, and Christianity? You're saying that the Franks who invaded Palestine were DEFENDERS? Very funny.

If it's the Byzantine empire that engaged in the war then that MIGHT be an aggressive defense or some attempts at resurgence, but here we find ambitious Feudal lords from Western Europe sailing to take some lands for themselves. The Islamic expansion Westward stopped centuries before the Crusades start.

You know, right, that the Crusaders when first stepped into Jerusalem started killing everybody around them--Christians, Jews, or Muslims--who happened to be in their way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

Let's stay on-topic and civil.

---

One should think that this was a rather straight-forward statement...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Islam? Tolerant?

I suggest you read this.

They began waging a holy war on the rest of the world from the time of Mohammed. Their 'prophet's' instructions were to convert people to Islam, tax them if they didn't convert, and kill them if they didn't pay the tax. Even if they paid the tax, they were oppressed second class citizens with no right to self defense ot free practice of religion.

For hundreds of years the armies of Islam ramapged about, slaughtering whole cities. The Crusades were a defensive response.

Crazed Rabbit

---

i must start by informing you that i am not biased against christians (i am one) but the actions of the crusaders were one of the most dispicable violent and unprovoked campiagns of history, they were fighting purely for glory and power, while Saladin spared the christians in the settlements he took and christians to this day still live throughout the holy land, the crusaders on the other hand slaughtered the populations of many muslim cities and to top it off during the forth crusade captured Constantinople capital of the christian Byzantine Empire, sacked it (killing the men and rapeing all the women, even the nuns) and took over.
Why?
Because the Byzantines were rich, it is clear from this what was realy guiding the crusaders.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

The Crusades were a defensive response.

---

Lemme guess...

The Pope had intelligence reports indicating that the Saracens were developing WMDs, so he had no choice but to send thousands of good Christians to rape and pillage their way through the middle east as a "defensive" measure...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Byzantine Mercenary

i must start by informing you that i am not biased against christians (i am one) but the actions of the crusaders were one of the most dispicable violent and unprovoked campiagns of history, they were fighting purely for glory and power, while Saladin spared the christians in the settlements he took and christians to this day still live throughout the holy land, the crusaders on the other hand slaughtered the populations of many muslim cities and to top it off during the forth crusade captured Constantinople capital of the christian Byzantine Empire, sacked it (killing the men and rapeing all the women, even the nuns) and took over.
Why?
Because the Byzantines were rich, it is clear from this what was realy guiding the crusaders.

---

It had always been my opinion that the crusade 'movement' was indeed a response to pressure by muslim forces on the Byzantine Empire. It was also handy for Western Europe because it gave them something to do with all of the landless nobles that were milling about causing trouble. Instead of killing each other, they could send them off to gain their own lands while killing the 'infidel'. Naturally, the pope also expected it would result in the return of Jerusalem to Christian hands. Things went fairly well at first, the Byzantines reclaimed some lands, Jerusalem was (brutally)retaken, but later greed and stupidity seemed to take over and successive crusades went downhill accordingly.

...this is all terribly off-topic isnt it? ~D

More on-topic:

Quote:

---

Why are there so many idiots who feel wrongdoing by a few Christians among billions is an indictment of the whole religion?

---

Guilt by association is a commonly used tactic by some around here it seems. :san_wink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

It had always been my opinion that the crusade 'movement' was indeed a response to pressure by muslim forces on the Byzantine Empire. It was also handy for Western Europe because it gave them something to do with all of the landless nobles that were milling about causing trouble. Instead of killing each other, they could send them off to gain their own lands while killing the 'infidel'. Naturally, the pope also expected it would result in the return of Jerusalem to Christian hands. Things went fairly well at first, the Byzantines reclaimed some lands, Jerusalem was (brutally)retaken, but later greed and stupidity seemed to take over and successive crusades went downhill accordingly.

...this is all terribly off-topic isnt it? ~D

More on-topic:
Guilt by association is a commonly used tactic by some around here it seems. :san_wink:

---

I agree with most of what you say but I don't think that the pope and the rest of western europe thought very highly of the Byzantines as the Byzantines were in theory Romans and so blocked any attempts by the west and in particular the holy roman empire to decare themselves the reborn Roman empire. I seem to remember that the crusaders took Antioch and refused to give it back to the Byzantines?

your right, guilt by association is rife on these forums, and the world in general!:san_grin:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

It had always been my opinion that the crusade 'movement' was indeed a response to pressure by muslim forces on the Byzantine Empire.

---

To continue this off-topic part.

The Byzantines weren't too happy about those unruly barbarian crusaders, they had hoped on some good mercs or money.

The Byz did have to fight the less noble lords almost from the beginning though, as those lords weren't so happy about surrendering their conquered parts to the Byz as they were supposed to and they didn't exactly considered Byzantine ground as unconquerable either.

It's pretty obvious that the membership would rather debate/discuss ancient history than current events, so we'll not let this topic stand in their way.

Thanks to all contributors. Closed.