"The Crusades" on History Channel

[DAF]

I was hoping that the History Channel's special on the Crusades might be a breath of fresh air, but I am disappointed, though not surprised that it's just another opportunity for catholic bashing.

If any of you have seen it, you might know what I mean. Especially the narrator.

They paint this picture that the popes were money hungry "scorpions" (as named in the show), who now had a ticket and a hall pass from God to rape and pillage jews and muslims, the later of which were just merrily coexisting and living in harmony with everybody.

So far it's only been from the crusaders' side. Hopefully tomorrow the otehr half portraying the muslims will be equally as "impartial."

I give it a C, and that's just because I was having a riot laughing at the blatant propaganda portrayed in this piece of toilet paper.

[Fidei Defensor]

I turned it off because it was making me angry. Blah on the History Channel.

[TheOliverOrder88]

I turned it off when we started eating children...

... ;(

[Paladin D]

If there is a way to bash the Church, they will find it. It's not a suprise they're doing so with the crusades.

Though I did like the fact they had a priest on there.

[zabbazooey]

didnt watch it

[Snarf]

Well, part one should have talked more about the Jus ad Bellum, id est the aggressions of the Muslims against the Bynzantines. However, it's hard to paint them as aggressors in the first half of the two-part series since all they COULD do was take a beating. And you have to admit, the rape of Jerusalem was disgraceful, and I'd be sickened if it had been painted any less condemning.

Part Two did talk about Muslim attrocities, and even justified fairly well Richard Coeur de Lion's slaughtering of his captives. So, having seen Part Two, I think that it would be pretty unrealistic for them to have been any less negative in light of the Christian side.

There was no real Catholic-bashing at all, and that they were concerned that there would be such concern is probably why they through in the token priest who really served no function that couldn't have been done just as well by a secular historian. Yes, it was obviously a placating move, but it did its job.

Edited November 9, 2005 by Snarf

[MC Just]

[quote name='fidei defensor' date='Nov 6 2005, 10:29 PM']I turned it off because it was making me angry.  Blah on the History Channel.
[right][snapback]780792[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


i watched it and it got me super mad..

[TheOliverOrder88]

Did anyone catch the Muslim story-telling on the second part?

It seemed like they(the Muslims) were glorifying their part of the Crusades.

Just imagine what would happen if we did that...

[Lounge Daddy]

[quote name='TheOliverOrder88' date='Nov 9 2005, 11:42 AM']Did anyone catch the Muslim story-telling on the second part?

It seemed like they(the Muslims) were glorifying their part of the Crusades.

Just imagine what would happen if we did that...
[right][snapback]783745[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
aha - true that

[ryanmeyersmusic]

it's no secret that the church has had it's severely dark spots, especially in the middle ages. that particular time in history is a blaringly obvious argument for the seperation of church and state.

[TheOliverOrder88]

[quote name='ryanmeyersmusic' date='Nov 10 2005, 03:52 AM']it's no secret that the church has had it's severely dark spots, especially in the middle ages.  that particular time in history is a blaringly obvious argument for the seperation of church and state.
[right][snapback]784698[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Or a blaring argument not to kill for God.

I thought for a second, are we (the Catholic Church) the indirect cause of terrorism.

Now I know thats not totally true, but we had some hand it...maybe.

[Ken]

"it's no secret that the church has had it's severely dark spots, especially in the middle ages. that particular time in history is a blaringly obvious argument for the seperation of church and state. "


And that not even popes are perfect. Some were downright terrifying.

Edited November 12, 2005 by Ken

[PadreSantiago]

the history channel keeps it real

[DAF]

I don't see how some of you didn't pick up on the obvious bias. The commentator referrede to the popes as scorpions, made blinding assertions that the crusades were for land and money only, that the christians just raped and pillaged because it was the cool thing to do. I mean, I know that stuff went on, and I don't think any intelligent Catholic would try to deny that the Church had it dark moment, but seriously, they took it really out of control. It certainly wasn't an objective show, that's all i have to say.

[ironman]

Well, the Crusades had their good and bad.......
If it wasn't for the Crusades though we would probably be talking about Allah right now..........

[Guest Rick777]

[quote name='fidei defensor' date='Nov 6 2005, 08:29 PM']I turned it off because it was making me angry.  Blah on the History Channel.
[right][snapback]780792[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Double Blah totally unfair

[PhillyMatt]

[quote name='Rick777' date='Nov 15 2005, 01:34 AM']Double Blah totally unfair
[right][snapback]789393[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I usually love the history channel, Mail Call etc, but I couldn't get into the Crusades for some reason. I didn't hear the scorpian comment, but it's true that some popes were just bad, thought doesn't usually go into statements that might offend Catholics or even Christians in general. It seems like the will bend over backwards not to offend any other group though....