by Al Benson Jr.
By now everyone has heard about our Marxist president's comments at the National Prayer Breakfast where he excoriated Christians for the Crusades which happened 700 years and more ago but he could barely bring himself to find fault with Muslim terrorists today. As usual, the president has done no history homework on this subject, or if he has then he sincerely hopes you don't come up with what he did because that would blow his speech out of the water.
I find it almost incomprehensible that Christians would invite this man to any kind of Christian function. I know he's the president and all that, but his attitude toward Christians and their faith has been exceedingly negative since he took office and though he claims to be a Christian, if you do any research on the church he attends you will be in for a shock. It's practically the Black (Marxist) Liberation capitol of the country, which probably explains why Obama even attends there. To say that it is a place where socialism trumps the Christian faith would be an understatement.
But now that the president has publicly castigated the Crusades (and by implication the Christian faith) it might not hurt to look a little more at the Crusades to see what they were really all about. I recently read a good article by A. J. Delgado which was posted on http://ajdelgadoblog.files.wordpress.com entitled The Crusades are nothing for which to apolotize.
In the article Delgado quotes Professor Thomas F. Madden, a professor of history as well as an author, and a leading authority on the Crusades. Professor Madden observes: "The Crusades are quite possibly the most misunderstood event in European history...The crusades were in every way a defensive war. They were the West's belated response to the Muslim conquest of a full two-thirds of the Christian world...Despite modern laments about medieval colonialism, the (First Crusade's) real purpose was to turn back Muslim conquests and restore formally Christian lands to Christian control. The entire history of the crusades is one of Western reaction to Muslim advances. The crusades were no more offensive than was the American invasion of Normandy."
And Delgado also quotes Dr. Timothy Furnish, who has a doctorate in Islamic history, and Dr. Furnish notes: "The Crusades, far from being the first time Muslims and Christians fought, were actually merely the first time that Christians, after four centuries of defeats (and lost territory), really fought back." It seems that, if you really get in there and start to read some of the history, provided you can find some accurate history books, that the "peaceful" Muslims were quite a bit like the "peaceful" Communists--whatever "peace" was to be had was required to be on their terms. It was, literally, their way or the highway.
I recently saw a map showing most of the battles the Muslims had fought in Europe and there were literally hundreds of them. If they had not been an expansionist and aggressive religion why would they have been fighting in Europe, the cradle of Christendom? They were fighting there because they sought world domination in the Middle Ages, and they still do. Delgado stated that: "With the fall of Acre, the Crusaders finally went home in 1291 and the "Crusades" as we know them officially ended. But did the Muslims call it a day and keep to their land (they certainly had conquered enough Christian territory), leaving us to ours? Nope! Their campaign of expansion by the sword--what prompted the Crusades in the first place, and even preceded it by centuries--continued into the very heart of Europe." So remind me again who the aggressors were and why I should apologize for the Crusades?" Well, I guess we should apologize for it because Mr. Obama and the politically correct (Marxist) community organizer coterie in this country feels that if we don't we might "offend" the Muslims. Wouldn't that be a pity?
Earlier this week I also read an article by a Robert Spencer entitled Most U.S. Mosques Teach Violence. Mr. Spencer noted that: "Last week came new confirmation that mosques in the U.S. aren't quite holding potluck suppers and teaching civic pieties. A new study has demonstrated that 80% of mosques right in this country are teaching jihad warfare and Islamic supremacism. Researchers Mordechai Keder and David Yerushalmi reported in the Summer of 2011 issue of Middle East Quarterly about a new survey that found that '51% of mosques had texts that either advocated the use of violence in the pursuit of a Sharia-based political order or advocated violent jihad as a duty that should be of paramount importance to a Muslim.' Another 30% of mosques in the United States 'had only texts that were moderately supportive of violence,' while only 19% had no violent texts at all." It really makes you wonder what goes on in their Friday afternoon prayer services.
It seems that the more Muslim violence that takes place the more excuses for it we get from the political correct, Cultural Marxist leftists having to do with it. I will admit that the U.S. should have kept its long nose out of the Middle East. Everyone would have been better off. However, I am beginning to think there is more than that involved. In spite of all their protests and the protests of their friends to the contrary, the Muslim theology is one of aggressive expansion and force and they will try to convert you to Islam--with words if they can, with swords if they can't. Such an ideology must be resisted both here and abroad, and if the Christian church is too afraid to speak out against this, they may end up getting the sword.