 |
Click Here For Spencer Cooper Yates home |
 |
| Mr. Sherwood |
No Crusade, Mr Cooper. �The crusades rage on� a not very apt or accurate title for Mr Cooper's diatribe against current US foreign policy. The Crusades began in 1095 and for a multitude of reason it attracted many adherents to its cause. Some felt threatened by the Muslim world, others worried over the decline of the Eastern Empire and the aftermath which would result, while yet others saw it as a means of salvation. Others, again, viewed it as an opportunity for plunder, while those more noble souls trying to live up to the ideals of the Chivalric code, thought it would enhance the mystique of the knighthood. Many took up the Pope Urban�s offer of a Papal Indulgence for the remission of all their sins, if they took part. The journey from Europe to Jerusalem had increasingly become an act of penance for many years before the Crusades, mainly pilgrimages being undertaken by pious nobles. The tales of their travels, and the interesting people they met, naturally became topics of extreme interests to those who had never ventured. It would not be unlike some astronaut returning nowadays from a voyage to a distant inhabited planet, such was the remoteness of Jerusalem. In short, therefore, the Crusades attracted the saint and the sinner, the powerful and the poor, the profiteers and the penitent, as well as old and young, men and women. Whatever the motivations, one thing was lacking, a defined Christian movement against the Islamic religion. The inspiration came from those early pilgrims who journeyed to Jerusalem, and who were deeply affected by walking the very streets that Christ had trod, and seeing those distressingly emotional sites where he endured such anguish. In 1026, Richard 11, Duke of Normandy financed a pilgrimage led by Richard, Abbot of St Vanne, who led his group for six months before reaching Jerusalem on Palm Sunday, 1027. After spending Holy Week in prayer and visiting shrines, including the scene of Christ�s trial and crucifixion, the abbot�s biographer recorded that, �At length he (the abbot) came to the venerable place towards which he had so long journeyed thirsting for the sight of it. It is not for me to describe the flow of tears with which he watered the places which were the objects of his veneration; when he looked at the Pillar of Pilate in the Praetorium and went over in his mind the binding of the Saviour and the scouring; when he reflected on the spitting, the smiting, the mocking the crown of thorns; when, on the place of Calvary, he called to mind the saviour crucified, pierced with the lance, given vinegar to drink, reviled by those that passed by, crying out with a loud voice and yielding up his spirit � when he reviewed these scenes, what pain of heart, what founts of tears do you image followed the pangs of pious reflection.� These were the feelings which were engendered by pilgrimages, and which ultimately led Pope Urban 11 at the Council of Clermont in 1095 to give action to the restlessness which was by then gripping Europe. This unease arose from the knowledge that the holiest of Christian sites were not in Christian hands, and so the Crusades were born. From their beginning, the Crusades were not about extirpating Islam per se, but rather about regaining those sites which Christians venerated. The Eastern Church which had more direct contact with the Muslim world were only faint supporters of the Crusades, yet it would be thought that if it the Crusades were merely a campaign, cloaked in religious garb, to extinguish Islam, that they would have been in the vanguard. They could see at first hand the influence of Islam, and were minor competitors, yet they displayed no great affinity towards their Christian brothers in their cause. Many reasons existed for the Crusades in which both God and Mammon were served, but an overtly defined movement against Islam it was not. Jerusalem would have been the object of attention whatever non-Christian religion was in control, and not just Islam. The importance that must be seen is that it was Jerusalem, and not any anti-Muslim thought which galvanized the Crusades. It would be wrong of me to deny that atrocities occurred in the New World, all in the name of Christianity, yet as Mr Cooper noted, history is a moving phenomenon, and certain events should not therefore be isolated in a tendentious attempt to make a point. While the events to which he alludes were happening (thirteen people executed in a grotesque representation of Christ and His Apostles), it should be borne in mind that equally severe punishments were being inflicted on those Europeans who refused to subscribe to the theology of the Roman Catholic Church. In 1498, Girolamo Savonarola was burnt at the stake, and has since been regarded as the forerunner of the Protestant Reformation. Richard Bayfield was yet another who, we are told, �was taken to Smithfield and burned, his sufferings very severe for the fire was not sufficient to consume him. His left arm burned and fell from his body before the remainder was consumed, but he continued in prayer until he died. Several others suffered at the stake during this period, including Bilney, Tewkesbury, Hilton and Bainham. Patmore was condemned to perpetual imprisonment.� A correspondent of Erasmus remarked in a letter to him that "the price of wood in London was considerably advanced in consequence of the quantity used in the frequent execution of 'heretics' in Smithfield," which proves that these burnings occurred very often. It would be pointless to list the many victims of the Catholic Church who suffered similar fates during this period, but John Cooper, John Huss, Hugh Latimer, George Wishart and many more testify to Christians also suffering at the hands of so-called Christians. It be must firmly remembered that when we look at that period, we are observing an entirely different age, a time when religion was dominant, and when the Catholic Church was insistent (as it still is) that it alone held the keys to heaven. Salvation was dependent upon observing the various sacrifices and receiving grace. Those who denied the practice were regarded not merely as being wrong, but as actively working for Satan, and by so doing, not only condemned their own souls to perpetual torment, but also those of any who were persuaded by their devilish talk. Similarly, monarchs were thought to be anointed by God, the Divine Right, and were accountable, in a special way, to God for how they undertook the God given responsibilities they bore. When new lands were discovered, it meant riches, but it could also more acutely bring to the surface the expectations that kings believed God had of them. To ignore them could place their souls in jeopardy, either eternally in hell, or for an unknown period in purgatory. It was therefore the duty of �The King and Queen of Spain (to write) Columbus a letter for delivery basically announcing to the indigenous peoples that if they didn't convert to Christianity they would be annihilated� Failure to do so would have been tantamount to rebellion against God. It was their duty to save souls for Christ. In the post-modernist, relativism driven world we now inhabit, it seems, and was indeed barbarous, but we can not judge too harshly an earlier age, especially for something as vital to them as religious belief, by our own tolerant, democratic vision. They believed they were acting for the good of society as a whole, even that of the indigenous peoples of Cuba, Puerto Rico, Jamaica etc., whose souls were destined to hell as heathen, if they refused to accept the teachings of the Catholic Church. There is no ongoing crusade perceived in all this. The only connection the Crusades have with the much later attempted brutal Christianizing of Central America was the Catholic Church. Until it lost its monopoly with the Reformation, the Catholic Church believed that torture and death was a justified method for evangelisation. The Inquisition is but another example. They sanctimoniously burnt, hung, drowned, and any other means of death they could use, any who were not of their flock. Baptists, Lutherans, Presbyterians, and Anglicans all met death, as did the heathen. Mr Cooper now makes a huge jump, after arguing the continuity of the Crusades, to the Cold War, yet another manifestation of the Crusades. This time he refers to it as a geopolitical crusade for power during which time the US built up its Military Industrial complex. This was as a direct consequence of the perceived threat to the Free World by communism. The vital question is �was the threat real or was it an opportunity whereby the US could engorge itself, quite deliberately, on the world�s resources? One of the stated aims of communism was to spread internationally, and they believed the doctrine of historical inevitability would bring it about. They, too, had their own satellite states, plus influential politicians in many western countries who either acknowledged their commitment to world communism at the time, or have since been exposed. Many countries also had thriving communist parties (e.g. Italy, France, UK), and revolutionary movements elsewhere (e.g. South America, Africa), so it would seem that the Soviet Union was in earnest about its ambitions. Should the US not have regarded this as a direct threat, and taken measures to stall the apparently rapid progression of communism? Would it not have been colossally inept of them to watch communism reaching out, and do nothing to counter it? The defence of the state is the first and foremost duty of government. The US responded to a potential globalisation of communism by taking measures which eventually brought about the downfall of communism. And yes, Mr Cooper, it was the military industrial combinations which carried the day. The Soviet Union could not compete in any weapons race, and give their people the standard of living they wanted. Something had to give and it was the communist peoples who had to endure hardships in order that their government could keep pace, militarily with the US. Finally, off course, the system had to crack with the sustained pressure of citizens� expectations and US military spending pressure. The US spending power proved to be impossible to compete with. The real significance of the Cold War was the attempt by both the US and the Soviet Union to ensure that if any nuclear war was fought, then it would be on European soil. For that reason both sides built up military bases in Europe where the brunt of any attack would take place, giving time for the chief antagonists to come to their senses before they nuked each other. The people of Europe have no need to feel any more gratitude towards the US for winning the Cold War, than they did when America was belatedly forced into WW2 by the attack on Pearl Harbour. They did gain, that is undeniable, but only as a spin off. American policy has always been self- centred, as it is only right and proper that the role of any state should be to look after its own citizens first. Few states though, would have the effrontery to be quite so sanctimonious about saving the Free World. The concept of the military industrial complex is not new in US policy. After WW1, when the UK was bankrupt, the US seized the opportunity to grab Britain�s colonial markets. It achieved that in exactly the same way it defeated the Soviet Union in the Cold War, by relying on its spending power. The UK�s relationship with its colonies depended on its mastery of the seas, meaning it relied on having a sizeable Royal Navy. The US simply out-built them in shipping, until the point was reached that the UK could not afford to commission more and more ships. At this point, during the 1920s, it appeared very likely the next war would be between the US and the UK over markets. Once again, the military industrial complex had won through, and Britain was forced to sign the Washington Treaty, which ended the escalating shipping costs, but which left the US in a far stronger naval position. So the military industrial complex is not new. I would argue that it has always been American policy. They have spent themselves to victory. I believe it can be seen in the Civil War when the North was able to use its affluence and industry to defeat the South. Again, it is visible during WW2, when the US was able to manufacture more tanks in a month or so than Germany could throughout the war. The same would be true of aircraft, AA guns, and any other weapon. It was the military industrial complex which was highly instrumental in the final victory. Mr Cooper then turns his attention to the current terrorism fears, and America�s reaction, which he also sees as part of the Crusades. Frankly, I do not. I do not buy into the argument that Israel is a handy little democracy in the Middle East, surrounded by Arab states having various forms of government, none of which are democratic. The US has frequently in the past allied itself with the most odious of regimes, Chile for one, so the fact that the Arab states are not squeaky clean democracies, does not carry weight. That Israel gives it a presence in the oil rich Middle East again is debateable. It would have more influence, and protect its oil interest more, if it was to drop its support of Israel and align itself with the Arab cause. Nor would the Arabs drain the American purse as much as do the Israelis. American support for Israel has prompted terrorism. The outrage on 9/11 is directly attributable to that support, no matter how much that motivation is played down. The bombing was not an attempt to bring down the West; no matter how many times Blair and Bush say it was. America was attacked (and not France or Demark or Canada) because it is seen as opposing the Palestinian cause. It is the chief bulwark of Israeli policy, and a guarantor of the state of Israel. Where I would differ with Mr Cooper is in his analysis that it represents a Christian/Jewish alignment against Islam. It does, off course, but for purely coincidental reasons. The real conflict is between those who see the imposition of the Israeli state and the grabbing of Palestinian lands as being immoral, unjust and against all natural laws (Palestinians have lived and farmed there for generations), and the US, and to a much lesser degree, Britain, who support Israel irrespective of any moral argument. It would not matter whether the new state of Israel was Jewish or not, the injustice would be the same. If, for some equally bizarre reasoning it was suggested after WW2 that European gypsies, who had suffered much under Nazism, should be given what is now the state of Israel, and Palestinian lands had become gypsy owned overnight, the injustice would have been as severe, and reaction from Arab states would have mirrored what is now taking place. In those circumstances though, I doubt very much that the gypsy state would have enjoyed the support which Israel enjoys. But perhaps, countries like Romania or Hungary would have supported it, and they then would have had a 9/11 to deal with. In essence, I believe that the Muslim versus Christian conflict is not the real issue, so I can not agree with Mr Cooper�s theory about a continuing Crusade. The real one is justice against injustice. It just transpires for many reasons (Jewish electoral influence, a sense of US moral outrage after WW2, and not least a perverted exegesis of biblical eschatology by American theologians who believe Israel to be God�s chosen people whom He has promised will return to the Promised land, an argument very persuasive in US Christian circles), that a Christian country (US), has taken upon itself to support the cuckoo in the nest state of Israel. No, Mr Cooper, I see no ongoing Crusade, nor do I believe the military industrial complex to be a new dimension in American policy, but I do share your sentiments and frustrations over the Palestinian people. Laurence Sherwood. |