That armed Christians who "liberate" the holy places from the infidels, guilty of impeding the flow of pilgrims and local Christians to harass.
am far from our mentality, I agree. But we can look with a little 'benevolent people lived 8-9 centuries ago? We can assume that their mentality was different from ours? Some do not like "context", but it seems to me unfair.
If we wanted to give an opinion, as I say, absolutely, what could we say? Of course all the violence must be rejected that there were unnecessary, such as those at of the First Crusade. But what if it was essentially a self-defense, then the verdict should be cautious, and carefully utilize research.
One might ask why the violence is not the subject of colonial prejudices so suspicious. If the value is money, then an armed intervention (for many) is tolerable. If the value is spiritual, then (for them) no. Strange.
0 comments:
Post a Comment