WS>>Is America ashamed of its Christian past?

Steven Laib stevenlaib at SBCGLOBAL.NET
Sun Apr 4 12:19:01 MDT 2004


I don't always agree with Buchanan.  Sometimes I think his world view
is too narrow.  But here I have to agree wholeheartedly.  The problem is
that we are trying to be too sensitive.  You can't do that and be
successful
in a world where the dominant force is power.

What was wrong with the President's speech was that he didn't call the
9/11 attacks a criminal act of aggression against the Judeo Christian
West
and that the Bin Ladin's of the world are trying to do is force Islam
down the
throats of everyone else world wide.  At least the Crusaders were after
only one
thing; possession of the Holy Land.

As Buchanan points out we have sufficient evidence that Jesus was a
real person
and that he did engage in teaching in the Holy Land.  To this day there
are still
scholars who believe that Mohammed was a mythical person and back it up.
What is worse, is that the historic track of this person, if he did
live, was as a
bandit leader who made his way be robbing and killing.  Jesus did no
such thing.

While the Crusaders were mistaken in their methods, as the inquisition
was in error
as well, at least the Catholics have learned from their mistakes and
other Christians
have taken great pains to avoid doing the same thing.  Muslims, in
contrast, are still
living in the past and remember everything as if it were yesterday.
Yes, payback is
on their minds, but it is because they haven't learned the basic lesson
of psychology:
"Get over it."  They never do, and so they agonize over thousand year
old wrongs, and
complain that they haven't got their just due.  That's why,
incidentally, they are so interested
in Spain.  They believe that it belongs to them because they had
conquered it once.
They don't believe in setbacks.  They believe in advancement of their
political system and
the demise of all others.  BTW, a close reading of Islam shows it to be
more a political system
than a religion.

What America needs to do is to get over the idea that it has anything
to be ashamed of.
It needs to take the attitude in the Middle East that it will not take
any guff from anyone,
and if some two bit terrorist is going to try anything, they will pay
the price along with anyone
implicated in helping him.  They house of Saud should be on trial right
now.  Why we are
waiting, I don't know.

Steve Laib


On Saturday, April 3, 2004, at 11:43  PM, carl william spitzer iv wrote:

>           by Patrick Buchanan
>
>
>           Five days after declaring war on terrorism, the  presi-
>      dent  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  Euro-
>      pean  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,  Clin-
>      ton 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 origi-
>      nal  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  God-
>      frey 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  abomina-
>      tion.  The greatest explorers, like Columbus, are  genocidal
>      racists.  Our founding fathers were slave-owning hypocrites.
>      The soldier-statesmen of Western empires were brutal imperi-
>      alists.   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-privi-
>      leged  children who are undermining this greatest  civiliza-
>      tion  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  Partys
>      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.
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> The best thing to hit the Internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
> Surf the Web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
> Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!
>



More information about the Rushtalk mailing list