Are we evolving into a new era of crusades?

it takes at least two competing parties to start such a huge fight on a global scale. Why is it one side waging war on another? And why? Oil? I honestly don't think its that simple. Or how about total control of jerusalem? I can't see that. There might be a few extremists out there that idolise such a scenario, but does that motivate the leaders of the powers in the world?

If some see it as solely a war on islam, that why call it a crusade? That is not the definition of a crusade. Crusades either have to be waged by Christians, or under papal sanction. So, is the so called war on contraception a crusade in a sense of going out and killing non christians, no. So the war needs to be waged for religious reasons, and fought by christians. Is the US christian? The public may well be overwhemingly. But are they fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan? No. It is the intstruments of state, who are not Christian. Whatever you say about Bush, if a christian religious leader of ANY denomination quizzed bush on aspects of the bible, he just wouldn't have a clue. Thus he is not a Christian (coupled with other aspects of the murky past of himself, his family, and his 'nation') Bush is a puppet of corporations, not Christian. Has Bush called on all 'Christian' (not secular) nations to send troops to reclaim jerusalem or kill every non-beliefer in sight? No, they could if they wanted, they could easily go and invande smaller fry Islamic nations, and slaughter everyone in sight for a 'higher' purpose. He has not. Nor has the current Pope, he may look evil, he hasn't officially sanctioned the war on terror, and he hasn't used any language referring to a crusade or a holy purpose, not has Bush.

There are other reasons for the conflict in the Middle East and across the globe, many valid, many obsurd, but I see no holy purpose or sanction coming from the Christian world. The only such activities witness recently, has been splinter groups, claiming to be of islamic faith, who use the Koran to justify terrorist or insurgent attacks on civilians or millitary targets in occupied lands.

I'd just like to reitirate the fact that the West, the supposed modern crusaders, aren't christian nations, they are secular, and church attendance is dwindling as we speak. Only the Vatican is by true definition, anywhere close to being a Christian nation. And a very tiny one for that matter.

[edit on 19-9-2006 by Peyres]

[edit on 19-9-2006 by Peyres]

I'm not sure that we're using the term 'crusade' in its historical context, I think it's just the easiest way to articulate a possible outcome.

I do agree that it takes two to fight, but you have to recognize that there isn't a unified Catholic movement calling for the destruction of the middle east and their religious leaders, and there aren't Vatican-sanctioned Catholics burning down mosques and shooting imams, while the opposite is true of the Muslims.

Originally posted by Astygia
I'm not sure that we're using the term 'crusade' in its historical context, I think it's just the easiest way to articulate a possible outcome.

I do agree that it takes two to fight, but you have to recognize that there isn't a unified Catholic movement calling for the destruction of the middle east and their religious leaders, and there aren't Vatican-sanctioned Catholics burning down mosques and shooting imams, while the opposite is true of the Muslims.

oh, yes, I agree. Thats my point. The only evidence given for a Christian instigated war of civilisations, is the war on terror, and just because the pope may support the concept, it doesn't mean he stands shoulder to shoulder with hordes of angry christians with guns. Nor does it mean that the war is being waged for ideological or religious reasons, it could well be over vital resources

The only agression, using religous reasoning, logic and justification is coming from extremist islamic splinter elements, that are taking their beliefs to a global scale, involving innocent civilians as legitimate targets.. I don't know who in the Islamic religious echelons has any authority to sanctioned a widely backed jihad? Do they even have that authority?

We could argue that the term crusade, and the practical concept has evolved, into fighting for non religious ideas, or material possesions

Bush spoke the truth, for once, in his speech at the UN. Christians/the west/whatever are not at war with Islam, but some people want muslims to sincerely believe this, and these people are winning the hearts and minds. Which can only lead to disaster.

Iran's president is one example of an islamic leader who claims the Pope is part of Anglo-American war on islam, and so, as he supposedly gives consent, is has holy authority or consent.

My mistake Peyres, I misunderstood what you were getting at. I'd have to agree with you, though I'm not sure there are hordes of angry Christians ready to launch a crusade; it seems the general populace keep such opinions amongst their own groups, and are fairly cowed when it comes to taboo topics like criticizing Islam.

As to Islamic authority, it is the head clerics that issue and retract religious orders, sort of like a collective Pope if you will. But it seems that Muslim extremists -if there is such a thing- take virtually any encouragement as divine will, whether the source is political or otherwise.

I can't disagree with Bush's point, but I can't quite bring myself to agree with him either. I believe Bush is one of a long line of pawns pushing an agenda, and to him anything that happens until that agenda becomes a reality, such as this current Muslim situation, is just another way to spin things in that direction.