OT: Something Stupid Happened in My Country 908 Years Ago

Bloomfield · Post by **Bloomfield** » Tue Mar 18, 2003 2:52 pm

"Most beloved brethren:

Urged by necessity, I, Urban, by the permission of God chief bishop and prelate over the whole world, have come into these parts as an ambassador with a divine admonition to you, the servants of God. I hoped to find you as faithful and as zealous in the service of God as I had supposed you to be. But if there is in you any deformity or crookedness contrary to God's law, with divine help I will do my best to remove it. For God has put you as stewards over his family to minister to it. Happy indeed will you be if he finds you faithful in your stewardship. You are called shepherds; see that you do not act as hirelings. But be true shepherds, with your crooks always in your hands. Do not go to sleep, but guard on all sides the flock committed to you. For if through your carelessness or negligence a wolf carries away one of your sheep, you will surely lose the reward laid up for you with God. And after you have been bitterly scourged with remorse for your faults-, you will be fiercely overwhelmed in hell, the abode of death. For according to the gospel you are the salt of the earth [Matt. 5:13]. But if you fall short in your duty, how, it may be asked, can it be salted? O how great the need of salting! It is indeed necessary for you to correct with the salt of wisdom this foolish people which is so devoted to the pleasures of this -world, lest the Lord, when He may wish to speak to them, find them putrefied by their sins unsalted and stinking. For if He, shall find worms, that is, sins, In them, because you have been negligent in your duty, He will command them as worthless to be thrown into the abyss of unclean things. And because you cannot restore to Him His great loss, He will surely condemn you and drive you from His loving presence. But the man who applies this salt should be prudent, provident, modest, learned, peaceable, watchful, pious, just, equitable, and pure. For how can the ignorant teach others? How can the licentious make others modest>? And how can the impure make others pure? If anyone hates peace, how can he make others peaceable ? Or if anyone has soiled his hands with baseness, how can he cleanse the impurities of another? We read also that if the blind lead the blind, both will fall into the ditch [Matt. 15:14]. But first correct yourselves, in order that, free from blame , you may be able to correct those who are subject to you. If you wish to be the friends of God, gladly do the things which you know will please Him. You must especially let all matters that pertain to the church be controlled by the law of the church. And be careful that simony does not take root among you, lest both those who buy and those who sell [church offices] be beaten with the scourges of the Lord through narrow streets and driven into the place of destruction and confusion. Keep the church and the clergy in all its grades entirely free from the secular power. See that the tithes that belong to God are faithfully paid from all the produce of the land; let them not be sold or withheld. If anyone seizes a bishop let him be treated as an outlaw. If anyone seizes or robs monks, or clergymen, or nuns, or their servants, or pilgrims, or merchants, let him be anathema [that is, cursed]. Let robbers and incendiaries and all their accomplices be expelled from the church and anthematized. If a man who does not give a part of his goods as alms is punished with the damnation of hell, how should he be punished who robs another of his goods? For thus it happened to the rich man in the gospel [Luke 16:19]; he was not punished because he had stolen the goods of another, but because he had not used well the things which were his.

"You have seen for a long time the great disorder in the world caused by these crimes. It is so bad in some of your provinces, I am told, and you are so weak in the administration of justice, that one can hardly go along the road by day or night without being attacked by robbers; and whether at home or abroad one is in danger of being despoiled either by force or fraud. Therefore it is necessary to reenact the truce, as it is commonly called, which was proclaimed a long time ago by our holy fathers. I exhort and demand that you, each, try hard to have the truce kept in your diocese. And if anyone shall be led by his cupidity or arrogance to break this truce, by the authority of God and with the sanction of this council he shall be anathematized."

"Although, O sons of God, you have promised more firmly than ever to keep the peace among yourselves and to preserve the rights of the church, there remains still an important work for you to do. Freshly quickened by the divine correction, you must apply the strength of your righteousness to another matter which concerns you as well as God. For your brethren who live in the east are in urgent need of your help, and you must hasten to give them the aid which has often been promised them. For, as the most of you have heard, the Turks and Arabs have attacked them and have conquered the territory of Romania [the Greek empire] as far west as the shore of the Mediterranean and the Hellespont, which is called the Arm of St. George. They have occupied more and more of the lands of those Christians, and have overcome them in seven battles. They have killed and captured many, and have destroyed the churches and devastated the empire. If you permit them to continue thus for awhile with impurity, the faithful of God will be much more widely attacked by them. On this account I, or rather the Lord, beseech you as Christ's heralds to publish this everywhere and to persuade all people of whatever rank, foot-soldiers and knights, poor and rich, to carry aid promptly to those Christians and to destroy that vile race from the lands of our friends. I say this to those who are present, it meant also for those who are absent. Moreover, Christ commands it.

"All who die by the way, whether by land or by sea, or in battle against the pagans, shall have immediate remission of sins. This I grant them through the power of God with which I am invested. O what a disgrace if such a despised and base race, which worships demons, should conquer a people which has the faith of omnipotent God and is made glorious with the name of Christ! With what reproaches will the Lord overwhelm us if you do not aid those who, with us, profess the Christian religion! Let those who have been accustomed unjustly to wage private warfare against the faithful now go against the infidels and end with victory this war which should have been begun long ago. Let those who for a long time, have been robbers, now become knights. Let those who have been fighting against their brothers and relatives now fight in a proper way against the barbarians. Let those who have been serving as mercenaries for small pay now obtain the eternal reward. Let those who have been wearing themselves out in both body and soul now work for a double honor. Behold! on this side will be the sorrowful and poor, on that, the rich; on this side, the enemies of the Lord, on that, his friends. Let those who go not put off the journey, but rent their lands and collect money for their expenses; and as soon as winter is over and spring comes, let hem eagerly set out on the way with God as their guide."

<p align=center> * * * </p>In 1094 or 1095, Alexios I Komnenos, the Byzantine emperor, sent to the pope, Urban II, and asked for aid from the west against the Seljuq Turks, who taken nearly all of Asia Minor from him. At the council of Clermont Urban addressed a great crowd and urged all to go to the aid of the Greeks and to recover Palestine from the rule of the Muslims. The acts of the council have not been preserved, but we have four accounts of the speech of Urban which were written by men who were present and heard him. Here is the one by the chronicler Fulcher of Chartres. Note how the traditions of the peace and truce of God - aimed at bringing about peace in Christendom - ties in directly with the call for a Crusade.

Find it at The Medieval Sourcebook.

Walden · Post by **Walden** » Tue Mar 18, 2003 3:06 pm

What are you trying to imply? That there is a Crusade going on? I have not heard a bishop of any church, whether Roman or Methodist, Lutheran or Mennonite, Anglican or Church of God in Christ, calling for Crusade.

The U.S./Iraq situation is not a religious matter. Saddam Hussein is a secular leader, as is Mr. Bush.

To hold against all Christians such a matter, would be akin to holding against all secularists the deeds of Vladimir Lenin.

TelegramSam · Post by **TelegramSam** » Tue Mar 18, 2003 3:20 pm

*throws an angry chihuahua @ blü*

Bloomfield · Post by **Bloomfield** » Tue Mar 18, 2003 3:22 pm

I am not holding anything against anybody. I advocate historical awareness.

Of course I am refering to parallels here. But I am not clear in my own mind how strong and meaningful those parallels are: East/West, Muslims/Christians, Violence in the name of Peace, Conviction and Allegiance and the deadening of the conscience in the name of some higher redemption. If you didn't listen to the leaders on either side, but just looked at their actions, what would you see? How different is our view of "muslim fundamentalist terrorists" from "heathen Turks in the Holy City"? Wouldn't it be a comfort, in a way, if this war were actually fought for oil and commercial interests alone?

I don't know the answer to any of these questions, but I am thinking about them.

TelegramSam · Post by **TelegramSam** » Tue Mar 18, 2003 3:27 pm

Bloomfield wrote: Wouldn't it be a comfort, in a way, if this war were actually fought for oil and commercial interests alone?

It is, as far as the gov'ts involved are concerned. And I don't find it a comfort in the slightest...

Bloomfield · Post by **Bloomfield** » Tue Mar 18, 2003 3:37 pm

There are voices in the discussion that don't want want to look to the interests or motives of the countries, diplomats, politicians, and generals. They look to the real and the human side. It doesn't matter who drops the bomb that tears your family apart. But the discussion always gets drawn back to the levels of motives and ideas: The defender of liberty versus Daddy's son, the American Oil versus European economic interests, the idea of an international community versus actual policing of the world.

"How can you take this side or that," I hear, "don't you see that all they want is ...."

What role in our minds, in our culture does the motivation of our leaders play? Not just when they are filling their own pockets, but when they are sending our children and the other side's children to the slaughter?

TelegramSam · Post by **TelegramSam** » Tue Mar 18, 2003 4:00 pm

yes, humanity sucks, we all know it by now, why continue discussing it?

Bloo, why the hell did you post even this? This is supposed to be a whistle forum dammit! *smacks bloo with her serpent whistle*

Bloomfield · Post by **Bloomfield** » Tue Mar 18, 2003 4:33 pm

TelegramSam wrote:yes, humanity sucks, we all know it by now, why continue discussing it?

Bloo, why the hell did you post even this? This is supposed to be a whistle forum dammit! *smacks bloo with her serpent whistle*

I bet you won't be the last to smack me, either...

Why the hell did I post it? Because I can't stop thinking about the effect of all this: the debate, the French jokes, the bombs falling. And I don't mean the effect on those who lose the debate, those who are the butt of the jokes, or those whose house it is.

I keep thinking that our actions, and even our thoughts, have an effect on us. What is that effect, or harm? I feel that something is at stake here that goes to very deep levels in our society and culture and future. I can't stop thinking about that: The faces of those who fly the planes and drop the bombs, those who will rush through the streets of Bhagdad, their parents and children, their supporters and detractors at home. And the thing is, I am not so sure how much it matters whether we are "right" or "wrong" about this. Somehow it matters, I am sure. And then I am sure that the end cannot justify the means, either.

This can't be the first time such issue has come up; it isn't. I've read Urban's speech long ago, wondering what the crusades did to Europe, and I read it again today, after reading the news papers. So that's why I posted it.

DavidSchulz · Post by **DavidSchulz** » Tue Mar 18, 2003 4:47 pm

Well, I'd have to say that this is the consequence when the only place you look to find your peace and happiness is in this world and it's fallen nature.

"Oh, how great peace and quietness would he possess who should cut off all vain anxiety and place all his confidence in God."
Thomas A. Kempis

TubeDude · Post by **TubeDude** » Tue Mar 18, 2003 5:05 pm

I think Bloomfield is onto something....

Here's an idea! Let's just leave Saddam alone and ignore his crimes against humanity.

Oh, darn. That will mean we have to apologize to Slobodan Milosevic for convicting him of crimes against humanity. Doesn't he pale compared to Saddam?

LET SLO GO! LET SLO GO! (Common everyone, chant with me!) LET SLO GO! LET SLO GO....

Blackbeer · Post by **Blackbeer** » Tue Mar 18, 2003 5:39 pm

Elegantly put Bloom. No nothing has changed. We are still quite ready to let others think for us. We are still quite ready to believe that we are ultimatly not responsible for our actions. We are all still quite ready to believe that we will be forgiven or justified for our actions. It is still the easiest road. And we are still content to carry on the same nightmare.
My hat is off to ya.

Tom

Tyghress · Post by **Tyghress** » Tue Mar 18, 2003 5:44 pm

I have avoided most of the political threads, but I am so strongly opposed to the unilateral show of brute force and jingoistic posturing of Bush and his bullies that I will post once and be shut of the deal.

It is one thing to take part in a mutually agreed upon police action, and another whole matter to go into a country with a huge majority of the world's nations disagreeing with our position.

It is arrogant. It is vile. He stole an election and he is now trying to avenge a slight on his father. He said it himself. We will 'win' the conflict, but we have lost face enormously on the world stage. The morality of the USA is utterly lost.

Chuck_Clark · Post by **Chuck_Clark** » Tue Mar 18, 2003 7:38 pm

Guys, what does this serve but to tear us apart? The die is cast. All that's left now is to hope, or to pray if you're into that stuff, that it's short and not unduly bloody.

I'm sure that the President and his advisors are sincere in their plans to remake the World in a kinder, gentler, more Western image. I'm just as sure that the other side is equally convinced of their own moral superiority. Of such mutually exclusive viewpoints are war and death usually born.

But reopening the wounds here by picking at the scabs serves naught but to divide US.

I suggest we save the preaching for Church and the speechifying for whatever rally your particular faith/principle/viewpoint leads to. For myself, I'm sorry, but the intellectual games are now meaningless. In the time of brute force, I'll settle for worrying about the safety of the few I know and he millions I don't - the ones at the sharp end of the stick.

Rando7 · Post by **Rando7** » Tue Mar 18, 2003 7:40 pm

tyghress wrote: (snipped)

It is arrogant. It is vile. He stole an election and he is now trying to avenge a slight on his father. He said it himself. We will 'win' the conflict, but we have lost face enormously on the world stage. The morality of the USA is utterly lost.

You're calling an assassination attempt a "slight"? I'm thinking you weren't a big GWB fan even before this latest crisis.

dakotamouse · Post by **dakotamouse** » Tue Mar 18, 2003 9:10 pm

I subscribe to the Wall Street Journal via ebook and this was one of the articles in the opinion section today.

Mary

Tuesday, March 18, 2003 12:01 a.m. EST

Amid the fog of diplomacy these past few months, it has been easy to lose sight of American purposes in Iraq. But as President Bush reminded us last night, the imminent war to liberate the world from Saddam Hussein is both just and necessary.

The fighting that will soon commence is not in fact the start of this war. It is the beginning of the end of a war that began when Saddam invaded Kuwait on August 2, 1990. The first President Bush rallied the world to roll that invasion back but failed to seize the moment to gain a permanent victory. The Iraq war has continued ever since, with Saddam's agents attempting to assassinate the elder Mr. Bush and shoot down U.S. pilots.

In that sense this war is above all about American self-defense. Saddam may lack the means to invade the U.S., but we learned on September 11 that enemies can strike our homeland in other ways. With revenge as a motive, horrifying weapons as a means and terrorists willing to serve as his opportunity, Saddam poses a clear and present danger to Americans.

We cannot be sure that he has not already hit us. The opponents of disarming Saddam have sneered even at the possibility of a link between al Qaeda and Iraq, but that is not the kind of linkage either side would advertise. There is plenty of evidence that Iraq has harbored al Qaeda members, among other curious facts detailed by Laurie Mylroie. Mr. Bush has declared a "war on terror" and Saddam's Iraq is terrorism with an address.
We know that if nothing else Saddam and al Qaeda share the common goal of punishing the U.S. and driving us from the Mideast. In his famous 1998 fatwa endorsing the murder of Americans, "civilian and military alike," Osama bin Laden mentioned two main complaints: First, that U.S. troops were deployed on the Islamic holy land of Arabia, and second that U.S. planes continued to bomb Iraq while enforcing the U.N.'s no-fly zones.

Osama's jihad--and therefore September 11 itself--is in other words one direct consequence of the past 12 years of U.S. "containment" of Saddam. Without his continuing threat, American troops would not need to be stationed in Saudi Arabia and U.S. fighters would not still patrol the skies over Iraq. While fretting about the costs of going to Baghdad, those who favor a policy of sanctions and diplomacy have never been honest about the real costs of containment.

Yes, it would be nice if President Bush now led the same global alliance that his father enjoyed in 1991. But he made every attempt to enlist that support in the U.N., only to run up against French and Russian intransigence that was beyond any persuasion. The failure to secure Turkish support is a bigger problem and was a misstep. Why Secretary of State Powell never traveled to Ankara remains a mystery.
But in the end Mr. Bush will lead a coalition that is large enough to do the job. It includes Tony Blair's Britain, Spain, Italy, nearly all of the newly free states of Eastern Europe and Australia. Now that they believe Saddam's days are finally numbered, Iraq's neighbors are also lining up on America's side. Even the Saudis are allowing U.S. base rights after months of fence-sitting.

These countries understand that America is the only protector the world now has against monsters like Saddam. The U.N. cannot defend them in a crisis, and the French will gladly sell the ammunition to the tyrant who shoots them. As in Kosovo and Somalia and Afghanistan, if the U.S. fails to lead an effort against scourges or dictators, their tyranny will continue.

The end of the 12-year Iraq war could produce other, longer-term benefits beyond security. One is that the forces of Islamic extremism will have suffered another blow, emboldening more moderate forces to speak against them. Another is the opportunity to rebuild a self-governing Iraq that is a lesson to the rest of the Arab and Muslim world.

The mullahs of Iran, already ruling precariously, may well face a more powerful public uprising. The Saudis may conclude that they no longer need to wink at the bin Ladens of their society to stay in power. In the best case, the Arab world will begin to accept political pluralism and enter the 21st century, or at least the 20th.

Of course there are costs and dangers to removing Saddam now. The law of unintended consequences hasn't been repealed, no war ever goes precisely as planned, and some Americans and civilians will die. The justification for those deaths is that they will save more lives in the long run. Saddam's agents will no doubt unleash whatever havoc they can, perhaps even in America itself, but that should only underscore that sooner or later they would have done so anyway.
The largest risk is an imponderable: whether Americans can generate the political consensus to sustain involvement in Iraq. Toppling Saddam is a long-term undertaking, as the stories now leaking about the Administration's plans reveal. With the exception of post-World War II, the U.S. has never been good at nation-building. At least we seem to be learning from early mistakes in Afghanistan, suggesting that we may do better in Iraq.

The polls show that most Americans understand the coming burden and still favor war; after 9/11 they realize the dangers of ignoring foreign threats. About U.S. elites there are greater doubts. Our liberal pundits and politicians are fickle interventionists; many of them signed on early to topple Saddam but have lately been offering caveats and cavils as D-Day approaches. Will they run for moral cover if the going gets tough, as they did in Vietnam?

About one thing we have no doubt: the courage of the Americans who will fight in our defense. We trust that their generals will be as daring, and their President as determined, as American soldiers will be in pursuing victory.