Holy Cross Knights is offensive?

A Place to respectfully discuss those topics that you should never discuss.
post

Holy Cross Knights is offensive?

Postby DreadNaught » Tue Mar 20, 2018 8:30 am

This is NOT from The Onion.

Sadly this is a real story. Holy Cross College which is one of the oldest private Catholic/Jesuit colleges in this country has succumb to the PC dogma and announced they will be changing their mascot from the "Knights".

Here is the statement from the school regarding why;

“The visual depiction of a knight in conjunction with the moniker Crusader, inevitably ties us directly to the reality of the religious wars and violence of the Crusades … over the coming months, the college will gradually phase out the use of all knight related imagery."


Do they teach history at Holy Cross? Is the name "Holy Cross" not equally offensive as "Knight"? Why should people in 2018 feel bad about the Crusades? Are we going to take down monuments from WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam, etc b/c our mean ol American soldiers killed opposing forces? Muslims killed plenty of white Christians back in those days as both sides looked to expand their empires.

Yay progress!!!
Image
User avatar
DreadNaught
 
Posts: 12629
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 9:18 am
Has thanked: 523 times
Been thanked: 542 times

Re: Holy Cross Knights is offensive?

Postby Zarniwoop » Tue Mar 20, 2018 8:57 am

There’s a school here in Texas with the knickname Crusaders that is getting this too...they haven’t succumb to the PC crap yet though
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 5920
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 280 times
Been thanked: 274 times

Re: Holy Cross Knights is offensive?

Postby DreadNaught » Tue Mar 20, 2018 9:21 am

Zarniwoop wrote:There’s a school here in Texas with the knickname Crusaders that is getting this too...they haven’t succumb to the PC crap yet though


We have a popular Catholic HS here Tampa called the Crusaders. Knights/Crusaders is a popular mascot, especially for christian schools.

This is complete nonsense. The Turks and Mongols were brutal people and inflicted plenty of death. Genghis Khan was not some peaceful man that was a victim of the big bad Catholics.

Without the Crusades we'd all be praying 5x a day, killing gays, and women would be property. I'm damn happy the Crusades were successful and it's absurd to feel some type of guilt 1000+ years later.
Image
User avatar
DreadNaught
 
Posts: 12629
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 9:18 am
Has thanked: 523 times
Been thanked: 542 times

Re: Holy Cross Knights is offensive?

Postby beardmcdoug » Tue Mar 20, 2018 9:50 am

Image
User avatar
beardmcdoug
 
Posts: 3006
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2016 12:30 pm
Has thanked: 360 times
Been thanked: 236 times

Re: Holy Cross Knights is offensive?

Postby Zarniwoop » Tue Mar 20, 2018 9:53 am

Lol
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 5920
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 280 times
Been thanked: 274 times

Re: Holy Cross Knights is offensive?

Postby The Outsider » Tue Mar 20, 2018 9:56 am

DreadNaught wrote:
Zarniwoop wrote:There’s a school here in Texas with the knickname Crusaders that is getting this too...they haven’t succumb to the PC crap yet though


We have a popular Catholic HS here Tampa called the Crusaders. Knights/Crusaders is a popular mascot, especially for christian schools.

This is complete nonsense. The Turks and Mongols were brutal people and inflicted plenty of death. Genghis Khan was not some peaceful man that was a victim of the big bad Catholics.

Without the Crusades we'd all be praying 5x a day, killing gays, and women would be property. I'm damn happy the Crusades were successful and it's absurd to feel some type of guilt 1000+ years later.


That last part is pretty ****ing ridiculous.

Edit: And holy **** I just read the rest of your post. What does Ghengis Khan have to do with anything? Besides the fact that the Mongolians regularly kicked the **** out of Muslims?

Your history is awful.
Last edited by The Outsider on Tue Mar 20, 2018 10:00 am, edited 1 time in total.
Image
User avatar
The Outsider
 
Posts: 4124
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:02 pm
Location: Gettin' all up in ya
Has thanked: 59 times
Been thanked: 232 times

Re: Holy Cross Knights is offensive?

Postby NYBF » Tue Mar 20, 2018 9:58 am

Don't listed to Outsider. Let your racism shine!
Image
User avatar
NYBF
 
Posts: 5899
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 11:46 am
Has thanked: 192 times
Been thanked: 484 times

Re: Holy Cross Knights is offensive?

Postby PrimeMinister » Tue Mar 20, 2018 9:59 am

DreadNaught wrote:
Zarniwoop wrote:There’s a school here in Texas with the knickname Crusaders that is getting this too...they haven’t succumb to the PC crap yet though


We have a popular Catholic HS here Tampa called the Crusaders. Knights/Crusaders is a popular mascot, especially for christian schools.

This is complete nonsense. The Turks and Mongols were brutal people and inflicted plenty of death. Genghis Khan was not some peaceful man that was a victim of the big bad Catholics.

Without the Crusades we'd all be praying 5x a day, killing gays, and women would be property. I'm damn happy the Crusades were successful and it's absurd to feel some type of guilt 1000+ years later.


That’s ridiculous. I’m not interested in anyone feeling guilty, but as a Christian I for damn sure am not glad the Crusdades were “successful”. I recognize that those wars didn’t have a damn thing to do with Christ or the Gospel anymore than the Iraq war did. Strictly from a Gospel standpoint I would posit that the Crusades did more to turn the world against Christ than anything else in history. The Crusades Christians were just as evil as the Muslims and others they hated.

Anyway on topic I don’t think those schools should change mascots.
PrimeMinister
 
Posts: 8041
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:34 am
Has thanked: 35 times
Been thanked: 215 times

Re: Holy Cross Knights is offensive?

Postby Zarniwoop » Tue Mar 20, 2018 10:11 am

Every crusade was different with different motivations. Some were more “righteous” then others. Heck in the 4th crusade Christians basically just fought other Christians when they sacked Constantinople (basically the capital of Eastern Orthodix Christianity)
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 5920
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 280 times
Been thanked: 274 times

Re: Holy Cross Knights is offensive?

Postby The Outsider » Tue Mar 20, 2018 10:11 am

Zarniwoop wrote:Every crusade was different with different motivations. Some were more “righteous” then others. Heck in the 4th crusade Christians basically just fought other Christians when they sacked Constantinople (basically the capital of Eastern Orthodix Christianity)


It's Istanbul, not Constantinople.
Image
User avatar
The Outsider
 
Posts: 4124
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:02 pm
Location: Gettin' all up in ya
Has thanked: 59 times
Been thanked: 232 times

Re: Holy Cross Knights is offensive?

Postby Ken Carson » Tue Mar 20, 2018 10:12 am

My school mascot was a Crusader. I started a campaign to change the name because 1.) we weren’t even a Catholic school... wtf were we doing being named after Catholic Knights from the Middle Ages? and 2.) I liked the name the Wolf Pack way better.

Obviously, the history of the Crusades is rife with atrocities on both sides (war was really different back then). But to say that the Crusades protected the West from becoming Muslim is totally ridiculous. The Crusades were INVASIONS of the Middle East by Western Europeans who created and defended new ‘kingdoms’ in Acre, Edessa, Jerusalem, Antioch and Tripoli (coincidentally, not even remotely close to the actual city of Tripoli).

If you want to praise anyone for protecting Europe from Islam, it would be the dudes in Spain who stopped the Moorish invasion and booted them back to Northern Africa during the Reconquista.
Ken Carson
 
Posts: 3179
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:33 pm
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 177 times

Re: Holy Cross Knights is offensive?

Postby DreadNaught » Tue Mar 20, 2018 10:13 am

The Outsider wrote:
DreadNaught wrote:
We have a popular Catholic HS here Tampa called the Crusaders. Knights/Crusaders is a popular mascot, especially for christian schools.

This is complete nonsense. The Turks and Mongols were brutal people and inflicted plenty of death. Genghis Khan was not some peaceful man that was a victim of the big bad Catholics.

Without the Crusades we'd all be praying 5x a day, killing gays, and women would be property. I'm damn happy the Crusades were successful and it's absurd to feel some type of guilt 1000+ years later.


That last part is pretty ****ing ridiculous.

Edit: And holy **** I just read the rest of your post. What does Ghengis Khan have to do with anything? Besides the fact that the Mongolians regularly kicked the **** out of Muslims?

Your history is awful.


It was poorly worded but my point was that there was brutality on all sides of those wars. Whether it was the early Crusades with the Turks or later when the Khan and the Mongols got involved.

It's silly to feel bad about it 1000 years later.
Image
User avatar
DreadNaught
 
Posts: 12629
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 9:18 am
Has thanked: 523 times
Been thanked: 542 times

Re: Holy Cross Knights is offensive?

Postby beardmcdoug » Tue Mar 20, 2018 10:15 am

PrimeMinister wrote:
DreadNaught wrote:
We have a popular Catholic HS here Tampa called the Crusaders. Knights/Crusaders is a popular mascot, especially for christian schools.

This is complete nonsense. The Turks and Mongols were brutal people and inflicted plenty of death. Genghis Khan was not some peaceful man that was a victim of the big bad Catholics.

Without the Crusades we'd all be praying 5x a day, killing gays, and women would be property. I'm damn happy the Crusades were successful and it's absurd to feel some type of guilt 1000+ years later.


That’s ridiculous. I’m not interested in anyone feeling guilty, but as a Christian I for damn sure am not glad the Crusdades were “successful”. I recognize that those wars didn’t have a damn thing to do with Christ or the Gospel anymore than the Iraq war did. Strictly from a Gospel standpoint I would posit that the Crusades did more to turn the world against Christ than anything else in history. The Crusades Christians were just as evil as the Muslims and others they hated.

Anyway on topic I don’t think those schools should change mascots.


when tf do ya'll think "history" started? 1000 AD? the mf'ing muslims had been raiding and sacking european cities (Pisa, Marseille, Sicily, Rome, Madrid) for 400+ years when the crusades started. ya'll act like the crusades were some isolated unprovoked attacks against the poor muslims. no, the crusades didn't do more to "turn the world against christ" - that's a 2018 AD comfy US citizen's view of how things happened. Despite "losing" the crusades, christianity's influence and reach spread during and after the crusades. people didn't walk around with their nose upturned thinking "oh how nasty of those guys, I don't like those christian fellas, they're violent" - they were thinking "hell yeah, those ****ing guys from the middle east have been making it really hard to live around here, I'm glad the church is taking the fight to them and pushing them back so I can go about living my life peacefully and trade and **** and not have to worry about my friends and family getting burned down with the town"
Last edited by beardmcdoug on Tue Mar 20, 2018 10:16 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
beardmcdoug
 
Posts: 3006
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2016 12:30 pm
Has thanked: 360 times
Been thanked: 236 times

Re: Holy Cross Knights is offensive?

Postby DreadNaught » Tue Mar 20, 2018 10:15 am

Ken Carson wrote:My school mascot was a Crusader. I started a campaign to change the name because 1.) we weren’t even a Catholic school... wtf were we doing being named after Catholic Knights from the Middle Ages? and 2.) I liked the name the Wolf Pack way better.

Obviously, the history of the Crusades is rife with atrocities on both sides (war was really different back then). But to say that the Crusades protected the West from becoming Muslim is totally ridiculous. The Crusades were INVASIONS of the Middle East by Western Europeans who created and defended new ‘kingdoms’ in Acre, Edessa, Jerusalem, Antioch and Tripoli (coincidentally, not even remotely close to the actual city of Tripoli).

If you want to praise anyone for protecting Europe from Islam, it would be the dudes in Spain who stopped the Moorish invasion and booted them back to Northern Africa during the Reconquista.


So the Turks never invaded in an effort to spread their religion/way of life?
Image
User avatar
DreadNaught
 
Posts: 12629
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 9:18 am
Has thanked: 523 times
Been thanked: 542 times

Re: Holy Cross Knights is offensive?

Postby Zarniwoop » Tue Mar 20, 2018 10:15 am

The Outsider wrote:
Zarniwoop wrote:Every crusade was different with different motivations. Some were more “righteous” then others. Heck in the 4th crusade Christians basically just fought other Christians when they sacked Constantinople (basically the capital of Eastern Orthodix Christianity)


It's Istanbul, not Constantinople.


If you’ve got a date in Constantinople
She’ll be waiting in Instanbul
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 5920
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 280 times
Been thanked: 274 times

Re: Holy Cross Knights is offensive?

Postby PrimeMinister » Tue Mar 20, 2018 10:17 am

Ken Carson wrote:My school mascot was a Crusader. I started a campaign to change the name because 1.) we weren’t even a Catholic school... wtf were we doing being named after Catholic Knights from the Middle Ages? and 2.) I liked the name the Wolf Pack way better.

Obviously, the history of the Crusades is rife with atrocities on both sides (war was really different back then). But to say that the Crusades protected the West from becoming Muslim is totally ridiculous. The Crusades were INVASIONS of the Middle East by Western Europeans who created and defended new ‘kingdoms’ in Acre, Edessa, Jerusalem, Antioch and Tripoli (coincidentally, not even remotely close to the actual city of Tripoli).

If you want to praise anyone for protecting Europe from Islam, it would be the dudes in Spain who stopped the Moorish invasion and booted them back to Northern Africa during the Reconquista.


This.
PrimeMinister
 
Posts: 8041
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:34 am
Has thanked: 35 times
Been thanked: 215 times

Re: Holy Cross Knights is offensive?

Postby Zarniwoop » Tue Mar 20, 2018 10:17 am

Ken Carson wrote:If you want to praise anyone for protecting Europe from Islam, it would be the dudes in Spain who stopped the Moorish invasion and booted them back to Northern Africa during the Reconquista.


Throw some props Dracula’s way as well
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 5920
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 280 times
Been thanked: 274 times

Re: Holy Cross Knights is offensive?

Postby Buc2 » Tue Mar 20, 2018 10:24 am

DreadNaught wrote:
The Outsider wrote:
That last part is pretty ****ing ridiculous.

Edit: And holy **** I just read the rest of your post. What does Ghengis Khan have to do with anything? Besides the fact that the Mongolians regularly kicked the **** out of Muslims?

Your history is awful.


It was poorly worded but my point was that there was brutality on all sides of those wars. Whether it was the early Crusades with the Turks or later when the Khan and the Mongols got involved.

It's silly to feel bad about it 1000 years later.

Image
Image
Don't tread on me
User avatar
Buc2
 
Posts: 10929
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:16 pm
Location: America
Has thanked: 917 times
Been thanked: 377 times

Re: Holy Cross Knights is offensive?

Postby Ken Carson » Tue Mar 20, 2018 10:24 am

DreadNaught wrote:
Ken Carson wrote:My school mascot was a Crusader. I started a campaign to change the name because 1.) we weren’t even a Catholic school... wtf were we doing being named after Catholic Knights from the Middle Ages? and 2.) I liked the name the Wolf Pack way better.

Obviously, the history of the Crusades is rife with atrocities on both sides (war was really different back then). But to say that the Crusades protected the West from becoming Muslim is totally ridiculous. The Crusades were INVASIONS of the Middle East by Western Europeans who created and defended new ‘kingdoms’ in Acre, Edessa, Jerusalem, Antioch and Tripoli (coincidentally, not even remotely close to the actual city of Tripoli).

If you want to praise anyone for protecting Europe from Islam, it would be the dudes in Spain who stopped the Moorish invasion and booted them back to Northern Africa during the Reconquista.


So the Turks never invaded in an effort to spread their religion/way of life?

I didn’t say that. I said that the Crusades were invasions of the Middle East, not defensive actions against the rabid Islamic horde.
Ken Carson
 
Posts: 3179
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:33 pm
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 177 times

Re: Holy Cross Knights is offensive?

Postby beardmcdoug » Tue Mar 20, 2018 10:27 am

PrimeMinister wrote:
Ken Carson wrote:My school mascot was a Crusader. I started a campaign to change the name because 1.) we weren’t even a Catholic school... wtf were we doing being named after Catholic Knights from the Middle Ages? and 2.) I liked the name the Wolf Pack way better.

Obviously, the history of the Crusades is rife with atrocities on both sides (war was really different back then). But to say that the Crusades protected the West from becoming Muslim is totally ridiculous. The Crusades were INVASIONS of the Middle East by Western Europeans who created and defended new ‘kingdoms’ in Acre, Edessa, Jerusalem, Antioch and Tripoli (coincidentally, not even remotely close to the actual city of Tripoli).

If you want to praise anyone for protecting Europe from Islam, it would be the dudes in Spain who stopped the Moorish invasion and booted them back to Northern Africa during the Reconquista.


This.


no, not that. muslims and christians (and other types of christians) and non christians were, and have been, constantly jostling for space in Europe, ME and N. Africa, just like bacteria on a piece of bread. The "crusades" were part of an offensive move against a foe in a centuries-long fight. whatever positive gains christianity made against muslims is a victory for space on that piece of bread. so while it is short sighted to say "the crusades single handledly kept the muslims from conquering Europe" - it is even more short sighted to posit the idea that, because the crusades were offensive in nature, were not part of the greater defense against a centuries-long religious/cultural foe
User avatar
beardmcdoug
 
Posts: 3006
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2016 12:30 pm
Has thanked: 360 times
Been thanked: 236 times

Re: Holy Cross Knights is offensive?

Postby DreadNaught » Tue Mar 20, 2018 10:30 am

So if Knights/Crusaders are offensive, which apparently seems to be the case for some. Why isn't the Christian religion? Where does this slippery slope stop? Do we shut down/rename all christian schools since Christianity is apparently offensive to Islam? I mean we're ok with forcing this dogmatic way of thinking to make institutions change their mascots, so does it end there?
Image
User avatar
DreadNaught
 
Posts: 12629
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 9:18 am
Has thanked: 523 times
Been thanked: 542 times

Re: Holy Cross Knights is offensive?

Postby DreadNaught » Tue Mar 20, 2018 10:33 am

Ken Carson wrote:
DreadNaught wrote:
So the Turks never invaded in an effort to spread their religion/way of life?

I didn’t say that. I said that the Crusades were invasions of the Middle East, not defensive actions against the rabid Islamic horde.

It was war. I never claimed it was a defensive action.
Image
User avatar
DreadNaught
 
Posts: 12629
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 9:18 am
Has thanked: 523 times
Been thanked: 542 times

Re: Holy Cross Knights is offensive?

Postby Ken Carson » Tue Mar 20, 2018 10:50 am

DreadNaught wrote:
Ken Carson wrote:I didn’t say that. I said that the Crusades were invasions of the Middle East, not defensive actions against the rabid Islamic horde.

It was war. I never claimed it was a defensive action.

I’m just confused by your line of questioning then. The Crusades were invasions and nation building.

Western Europe fought plenty of defensive battles against Muslim kingdoms in Southern Europe (Spain, Southern France, Sicily, etc), but those battles/wars predate the Crusades by 200-300 years or more. Which is why I mentioned that you lauding Christians for saving you from being Muslims was misdirected and should ave been aimed at those guys.

Quick history. The Battle of Tours was in 732. Madrid was recaptured in the 9th century. Jerusalem fell in the 7th century. The First Crusade, under the pretense of retaking Jerusalem fo Christian pilgrims, launched in 1096. It took Christians 500 years to plan how to get it back? Or thin veil for some Western Europeans to go win some lands in the Middle East during the height of feudalism?
Ken Carson
 
Posts: 3179
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:33 pm
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 177 times

Re: Holy Cross Knights is offensive?

Postby Zarniwoop » Tue Mar 20, 2018 11:00 am

That’s just part of it. The Ottoman Muslims continued their aggression into both Sourhwestern Europe (the places you mentioned) as well as South Central Europe (hence my Dracula joke) for hundreds of years after that ... many caliphates occurring during or around the Crusades


It’s silly to think of any Empire during this time as anything other than one that is offensive trying to expand its power — that includes the Ottomans, the loosely collected Holy Roman Empire, the Mongols, etc

All wanted world domination
Last edited by Zarniwoop on Tue Mar 20, 2018 11:03 am, edited 1 time in total.
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 5920
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 280 times
Been thanked: 274 times

Re: Holy Cross Knights is offensive?

Postby PanteraCanes » Tue Mar 20, 2018 11:01 am

The Outsider wrote:
Zarniwoop wrote:Every crusade was different with different motivations. Some were more “righteous” then others. Heck in the 4th crusade Christians basically just fought other Christians when they sacked Constantinople (basically the capital of Eastern Orthodix Christianity)


It's Istanbul, not Constantinople.



Why did they change it? Can you say?
User avatar
PanteraCanes
 
Posts: 1055
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:48 pm
Has thanked: 82 times
Been thanked: 40 times

Re: Holy Cross Knights is offensive?

Postby Zarniwoop » Tue Mar 20, 2018 11:03 am

People just liked it better that way.

Can you take me back to Constantinople?
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 5920
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 280 times
Been thanked: 274 times

Re: Holy Cross Knights is offensive?

Postby DreadNaught » Tue Mar 20, 2018 11:23 am

Ken Carson wrote:
DreadNaught wrote:It was war. I never claimed it was a defensive action.

I’m just confused by your line of questioning then. The Crusades were invasions and nation building.

Western Europe fought plenty of defensive battles against Muslim kingdoms in Southern Europe (Spain, Southern France, Sicily, etc), but those battles/wars predate the Crusades by 200-300 years or more. Which is why I mentioned that you lauding Christians for saving you from being Muslims was misdirected and should ave been aimed at those guys.

Quick history. The Battle of Tours was in 732. Madrid was recaptured in the 9th century. Jerusalem fell in the 7th century. The First Crusade, under the pretense of retaking Jerusalem fo Christian pilgrims, launched in 1096. It took Christians 500 years to plan how to get it back? Or thin veil for some Western Europeans to go win some lands in the Middle East during the height of feudalism?


I'm not pretending terrible things didn't happen, my point is that it was WAR. The muslims were not some peaceful group of people minding there own business. The Crusaders were able to take back their lands as well as expand their empire, which is exactly what the other side was trying to do.

The larger point is that all happened 1000 years ago. It shouldn't be ignored, nor should we dissociate ourselves from it by succumbing to PC dogma, which IS EXACTLY what happened here.

In the grand scheme of things changing a mascot is not a big deal. But the ideology that drives this action is a concern. Where does it end? Why isn't Catholicism equally offensive for the same exact reasons a "Knight" apparently is?
Image
User avatar
DreadNaught
 
Posts: 12629
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 9:18 am
Has thanked: 523 times
Been thanked: 542 times

Re: Holy Cross Knights is offensive?

Postby DreadNaught » Tue Mar 20, 2018 11:24 am

Zarniwoop wrote:People just liked it better that way.

Can you take me back to Constantinople?

No, you can't go back to Constantinople
Been a long time gone, Oh Constantinople
Image
User avatar
DreadNaught
 
Posts: 12629
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 9:18 am
Has thanked: 523 times
Been thanked: 542 times

Re: Holy Cross Knights is offensive?

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Tue Mar 20, 2018 11:30 am

DreadNaught wrote:In the grand scheme of things changing a mascot is not a big deal.

Right

But the ideology that drives this action is a concern.

Nobody else seems all that concerned

Where does it end?

When people run out of things to bitch about

Why isn't Catholicism equally offensive for the same exact reasons a "Knight" apparently is?

Rhetorical nonsense. Nobody is going after Catholics here.
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 13129
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Location: Crestucky
Has thanked: 141 times
Been thanked: 626 times

Re: Holy Cross Knights is offensive?

Postby Zarniwoop » Tue Mar 20, 2018 11:31 am

DreadNaught wrote:
Ken Carson wrote:I’m just confused by your line of questioning then. The Crusades were invasions and nation building.

Western Europe fought plenty of defensive battles against Muslim kingdoms in Southern Europe (Spain, Southern France, Sicily, etc), but those battles/wars predate the Crusades by 200-300 years or more. Which is why I mentioned that you lauding Christians for saving you from being Muslims was misdirected and should ave been aimed at those guys.

Quick history. The Battle of Tours was in 732. Madrid was recaptured in the 9th century. Jerusalem fell in the 7th century. The First Crusade, under the pretense of retaking Jerusalem fo Christian pilgrims, launched in 1096. It took Christians 500 years to plan how to get it back? Or thin veil for some Western Europeans to go win some lands in the Middle East during the height of feudalism?


I'm not pretending terrible things didn't happen, my point is that it was WAR. The muslims were not some peaceful group of people minding there own business. The Crusaders were able to take back their lands as well as expand their empire, which is exactly what the other side was trying to do.

The larger point is that all happened 1000 years ago. It shouldn't be ignored, nor should we dissociate ourselves from it by succumbing to PC dogma, which IS EXACTLY what happened here.

In the grand scheme of things changing a mascot is not a big deal. But the ideology that drives this action is a concern. Where does it end? Why isn't Catholicism equally offensive for the same exact reasons a "Knight" apparently is?


It ends when Society gets some common sense....that is to say, it won't be ending anytime soon.
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 5920
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 280 times
Been thanked: 274 times

Next

post

Return to Politics and Religion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Noles1724, Rocker, Zarniwoop and 9 guests