r/moderatepolitics • u/awaythrowawaying • 2d ago

News Article US Justice Department sues UCLA alleging antisemitic educational environment

https://www.reuters.com/world/us-justice-department-sues-ucla-alleging-antisemitic-educational-environment-2026-05-26/
124 Upvotes

74% Upvoted

158 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

8

u/Mantergeistmann 2d ago

unironically arguing "Crusade just means 'taking the cross'"

That one at least has a bit of scholarly argument in support of it, but I'd imagine the vast majority of Deus Vult-Bros have never engaged with it, and certainly would not undertake any difficult or dangerous task in the name of penance themselves, "for the remission of sins".

the faithful went to war to defend Christians, to punish the attackers, and to right terrible wrongs. As Riley-Smith has written elsewhere, crusading was seen as an act of love—specifically the love of God and the love of neighbor. By pushing back Muslim aggression and restoring Eastern Christianity, the Crusaders were—at great peril to themselves—imitating the Good Samaritan. Or, as Innocent II told the Knights Templar, “You carry out in deeds the words of the gospel, ‘Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.’”

But the Crusades were not just wars. They were holy wars, and that is what made them different from what came before. They were made holy not by their target but by the Crusaders’ sacrifice. The Crusade was a pilgrimage and thereby an act of penance. When Urban II called the First Crusade in 1095, he created a model that would be followed for centuries. Crusaders who undertook that burden with right intention and after confessing their sins would receive a plenary indulgence. The indulgence was a recognition that they undertook these sacrifices for Christ, who was crucified again in the tribulations of his people.

23

u/notapersonaltrainer 1d ago edited 1d ago

Yes, today's Western Crusades curriculum basically ignores the context that the Middle East was largely Judeo-Christian and was conquered through centuries of Islamic crusades, along with swaths of Europe, before Christendom cooperated and mounted a far more limited counteroffensive. But since crusade is white-coded and jihad brown-coded, the only the crusaders are the baddies.

But that's a whole other tangent in the historical double-standards rabbit hole I didn't want to go down for brevity.

-1

u/Plastastic Social Democrat 1d ago edited 1d ago

That map is so ridiculous, you only count (some) major crusade battles and you counter with every minor skirmish in which muslims were involved.

EDIT: You might also want to ask Jews in the 11th century how 'Judeo-Christian' the Middle-East was considering the fact that there were more pogroms than you could shake a stick at.

21

u/Mantergeistmann 1d ago

It also seems to be limited to a certain number of Crusades... I believe it was the 4th Crusade that sacked Constantinople? Plus I think some various Eastern European Crusades.

10

u/Plastastic Social Democrat 1d ago

The Northern Crusades, yeah. You could also count the Hussite wars and the Albigensian Crusade.

If you really want to be fair and adhere to the same standards as the 'Muslim conquest battles' there's countless other conflicts you can include as well.