The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Edasurc: ‘Crusade’ Spelled Backwards

Posted on | December 25, 2011 | 28 Comments

by Smitty

Earlier, this blog noted the plight of the Egyptian Christians. Memeorandum points to The New York Times (twice today) with atrocious news:

A series of apparently coordinated bombings struck three churches during Christmas services across Nigeria on Sunday, killing more than a dozen people and solidifying a recent escalation in violence by a radical Muslim sect.
At least five bombings were reported, including three at churches and one at a state security building. The worst appeared to be at a packed Catholic church just outside the capital, Abuja, where a bomb tore through the building and killed at least 16 people as they left a morning mass.

Now, the Islamic extremists wage jihad, and refer to Western countries as ‘Crusaders’. That baffles Americans, because we:

  • are not religiously motivated to intercede militarily in the Middle East,
  • are in fact dedicated to a division of sacred from profane in pretty much everything, i.e. haven’t got a ‘Christendom’ to saddle up and deploy on a crusade,
  • would likely have significantly different tactics in use in the hypothetical case of a Crusade,
  • are disconnected by eight hundred years and an ocean from the historical Crusades.

And yet, looking at the news, one is tempted to connect the dots, with Christian blood, in such a way as to wonder aloud if the ummah isn’t engaged in something akin to a ‘crusade’ against Christians. Let us not call it jihad, though. That term is copyrighted by some Imam, who will immediately contend you are misusing it. Edasurc, ‘crusade’ backwards, besides turning up some World of Warcraft character hits on Google, does not appear to have any previous usage. Therefore, let us define that to mean the (occasionally violent, even murderous) animosity toward Christianity on display in various Muslim countries toward unarmed Christians.

It was strange to be in Kabul, and go to the military chapel of a Sunday, sing hymns, and hear excellent preaching, and to recall that, outside the walls of New Kabul Compound, one could be forced to pay the ultimate price for that.

A fellow Baptist like Ron Paul might balk at U.S. involvement in supporting people in foreign countries who are being butchered. But, as with these Nigerians in today’s outrage, the Copts in Egypt, or the Jews in Europe in the last century, we have a gnawing question: what is the body count at which one triggers that possible Burke line:

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.

There really is no formula to compute the crossover point. It’s a matter of context and leadership. Nevertheless, I should expect our serious GOP candidates to offer some kind of policy. On the playground of world religions, there is exactly one bully. Whoever thinks that bully can be appeased is a fool, and needs to have their foolishness escorted away from levers of power. Whether calling that bullying ‘Edasurc’ helps elevate the problem in the public debate, I have no idea. But the body count from Edasurc keeps rising.


28 Responses to “Edasurc: ‘Crusade’ Spelled Backwards”

  1. M. Thompson
    December 25th, 2011 @ 5:07 pm

    That is but a chance we ought to take.  Freedom to choose your faith must be a pillar for our beliefs around the world.

  2. Lisa Graas
    December 25th, 2011 @ 5:28 pm

    I used to debate in apologetics forums quite a lot. One of the favorite claims of the protestants in those forums was that the Catholic Church was murderous because of the Crusades. I find it very interesting to see so many protestants looking now at the Crusades a bit differently in the aftermath of 9/11. 

    We have a right to self-defense. We feel a kinship with Christians in other countries and so it is natural that Christians  here would want to go to their defense as they are being slaughtered by Islamists.  Having said that, your point about not having a “Christendom” to “saddle up” is a very important one. There will be no formal “Crusade”.  Still, America is a Christian country, and we do feel kinship with other Christians and all those who have a Christian sense of what authentic freedom is. It’s not appropriate at all for the Left to use the term “Crusade” in regard to our desire that all the world be free of the kind of madness wreaked upon minorities by Islamists.

  3. EBL
    December 25th, 2011 @ 5:28 pm

    Ron Paul is good on spending, but he has less sense than a cow when it comes to foreign policy.  Hell, he has less sense than a donkey when it comes to that topic, and that is saying a lot. 

  4. smitty
    December 25th, 2011 @ 5:35 pm

    While I didn’t fret excessively about it, I was trying to choose my words so as to reflect the bare temporal/geographic facts of American disconnection with the Crusades, without picking at any doctrinal points that mark more recent divisions in Christianity.

    Also, the unit of analysis in Christianity is not the country. I am tempted to agree that “America is a Christian country, and we do feel kinship with other Christians and all those who have a Christian sense of what authentic freedom is.” except that the ‘we’ here is not so much “We The People”.

    Also, the people who use the term “Crusaders” the most are the jihadis not the political left. I don’t think that these degenerate, Postmodern freaks on the Left can muster enough stamina to think of themselves as Crusaders, even for a Halloween costume.

    December 25th, 2011 @ 5:40 pm

    The libertarian (and likely the founder’s) answer is to welcome these Copts and Catholics to our country and add their culture and distinctiveness to our own.

  6. Walt Junewick
    December 25th, 2011 @ 5:48 pm

    I don’t expect a lot from our self-appointed intelligentsia and our political masters, at this point.  But wonder what would happen if the Vatican were to call for the raising of an army beholden to no nation or state, for the protection of all from Islamic predation?  Hey, I’m too old to fight and I put the old rosary beads away for good nearly fifty years ago — but I’d send a pretty good check.

  7. EBL
    December 25th, 2011 @ 5:59 pm

    We can also drive these Jihadi nuts by saying things like this:

     .·:*¨¨*:·.MERRY.·:*¨?¨*:·.CHRISTMAS.·:*¨¨*:·.(¯`’•.¸(¯`’•.¸HAPPY ? HANUKKAH ¸.•’´¯)¸.•’´¯)

    h/t to TexBob at Ace for this typed message.  I copied it because it is just that good. 

  8. Dana
    December 25th, 2011 @ 7:06 pm

    But, but, but, I don’t understand!  We wicked Christianist Western Crusaders didn’t invade Uganda, we didn’t send troops to Uganda, we pretty much leave them alone, other than to buy their oil.  For them to be doing this, why, it’s almost as though they aren’t doing it in reaction to us, but for their own reasons; it’s like it might not actually be George Bush’s fault.

    How can that be?

  9. Dana
    December 25th, 2011 @ 7:09 pm

    I’m a Mass-every-Sunday Catholic, but I can tell you this much: the Vatican, under Pope Benedict XVI and, previously, under Pope John Paul II, wouldn’t be interested in fighting with anything other than words of conciliation. 

  10. EBL
    December 25th, 2011 @ 7:19 pm
  11. SDN
    December 25th, 2011 @ 7:20 pm

    I suspect that would have been the Founders answer; after all, they had an open frontier to settle and an economy largely dependent on muscle power.

    Ron Paul (and libertarians in general) are stupid enough to believe that situation still applies.

  12. Pathfinder's wife
    December 25th, 2011 @ 7:32 pm

    And how smart would it be for us to wage war on the entirety of Islam with no other country (maybe Israel? maybe not as they might be leery of joining a crusade to save Christians) to fight with us?

    That would be even if we could do so — it is doubtful that every American would support it (not all of them are Christian), and if we did not have legislators; generals; media, academic and business leaders who were not sympathetic to Islam (we do, and it has a lot to do with money).

    It would still be preferrable to give the Christians sanctuary in our country (and we cannot even do that because too many people in power, both sides, are on the Islamic jock).

  13. Pathfinder's wife
    December 25th, 2011 @ 7:37 pm

    Perhaps this has a lot to do with the Catholics sitting in the pews.

    I’m a relapsed one…how many attending Mass would really be gung ho to do such a thing?
    If then, so…why would the Vatican issue a call for crusade that nobody would likely obey?  The implications would go beyond that, and what’s he going to do? Excommunicate everyone?

  14. republicanmother
    December 25th, 2011 @ 7:39 pm

    It’s the current foreign policy that is causing massive destabilization for Christians in already oppressed nations. 

    I used to support foreign intervention until I saw how many of my brothers and sisters in Christ were being slaughtered. The Chaldean Christians in Iraq have been almost all driven out. This Arab Spring business, that I read former undersectary of State Anne-Marie Slaughter brag about being effective, always seems to leave dead Christians in its wake.

  15. Anonymous
    December 25th, 2011 @ 7:45 pm
  16. Anonymous
    December 25th, 2011 @ 8:42 pm

    Well we could use the word they used for ‘DeBaathification’
    Itijihad, which means ‘cleansing’ although the connotation is some what stronger, because it’s the same expression that
    was used by the Turks

  17. Dave
    December 25th, 2011 @ 8:44 pm

    So don’t leave us hanging.  You asked the question and it demands an answer.  How many Christians need to die in foreign countries before the USA is obligated to respond?

    I know Ron Paul’s answer.  What’s yours?

  18. smitty
    December 25th, 2011 @ 8:52 pm

    Fair enough. As I mentioned on the Egyptian post earlier today, we should at very least be offering political refugee status for as many Christians in Egypt and Nigeria who want to come here, as a persecuted minority.
    I’d fall short of calling for any military intervention without having a lot more information. It makes precious little sense to go kinetic without stuff like a Declaration of War, much less very clear goals.

  19. Dave
    December 25th, 2011 @ 9:00 pm

    That’s a fair answer and I have no issues with it.

    I was troubled by the original post, because it sounded like you were calling for an implicit, if not explicit modern crusade in support of persecuted minorities.

    I would note that persecuted minorities were the motive for the original and most successful Western crusades.

    Not that I have a problem with that! 
     If Christendom, or what’s left of it was able to gin up enough public support to recolonize the caliphates, that would be a good thing for civilization.  And a repeat of 18th and 19th century colonization efforts, which did much to advance Western Civ.

    However, I fear that any crusade or near- pseudo- or quasi- crusade would fail to get the support necessary to make it stick.  Only a resulting squandering of blood and treasure to gain nothing at all.  In other words, the last decade all over again.

  20. Adjoran
    December 26th, 2011 @ 5:38 am

    So far the “Arab Spring” hailed by Obama and the left has led to islamist surges to power in Egypt, Tunisia, and Morocco.  Libya seems likely to follow suit, and Syria remains in doubt.

    Unfortunately, the idea that we make exceptions for Christians being persecuted by islamists in terms of immigration and asylum is a non-starter, and not just because every leftist in the Nomenklatura hates Christians and would block such largesse.  If we open the doors the all the truly oppressed in the world, we’d have a billion at the door clamoring for entry.  Ron Paul would have approved until he changed his “principles” a few years ago.

    Besides, wasn’t this essentially Rome’s reaction to the encroachment of the barbarian hordes?  “Come on home, we’ll be safe here.”  It doesn’t work in the longer term.

    We can ignore the barbarians at our own eventual peril.  Dithering around in the face of a threat has never really worked, though, has it?

  21. ThePaganTemple
    December 26th, 2011 @ 6:51 am

    Other than on Pro-Life issues, the Vatican is firmly left-of-center, certainly when it comes to issues of “world peace”. And when I say left-of-center, I mean waaayyy left of center.

  22. ThePaganTemple
    December 26th, 2011 @ 6:56 am

    Bullshit! Just in case you spent your time in ancient history classes snoozing, Chaldeans used to be the majority population of Iraq. The ancient Babylonians were Chaldeans. Another large segment of the population of Mesopotamia were the Assyrians.

    One Arab invasion later and the Chaldeans and Assyrians come to comprise roughly one percent each of the population. How in the hell is that the fault of the “current foreign policy”?

    By the way the Arabs also wiped out the descendants of the ancient Egyptians, or at least reduced them to the point Egypt is now “the world’s largest ARAB  country”.

    Why? Because they’re Muslims. That’s what they do.

  23. ThePaganTemple
    December 26th, 2011 @ 7:14 am

    Actually the Left uses the term “crusades” quite a lot, but its always the negative connotation of the term.

  24. Pathfinder's wife
    December 26th, 2011 @ 9:12 am

    Unfortunately it isn’t quite that simple.

    One one hand, no, you have to meet a threat (where Ron Paul gets it wrong), on the other, it probably would bewise to remember (and this is a hard one for many to accept) that the oppressed folks are also the barbarians at the gate and are just as much of a problem — don’t go getting into fights in order to rescue them, and don’t open your doors up to all and sundry.

    The ones who manage to get here and aren’t a drain on our society should be welcome to stay — it’s what we are about.  We should not be fighting for them, and we shouldn’t be turning our country into a refugee came for them.
    Goes for any group — yeah, it’s a nasty way to look at things, but the world is a nasty place, and unless you, person behind the computer, are willing to personally sacrifice and all that, maybe be a little less gung ho to ask other people to do it for you.

  25. ThePaganTemple
    December 26th, 2011 @ 9:48 am

    Frankly I think we should close our doors to all and sundry until such time as we get the influence of our own traitorous leftist population under some kind of manageable control, and that’s going to take a while, if ever.

  26. republicanmother
    December 26th, 2011 @ 3:11 pm

    The Christian population of Iraq was 3% before 2003 and now a lot of them are dead or have fled the country. That’s the only point I was making here.

    It would seem the more gung-ho Muslims take advantage of the chaos to bring about their Sharia order. We see it happening all over the Middle East. 

    The Arab Spring business was a put-on. How do I know? The Undersecretary of State, Anne-Marie Slaughter said so. 

  27. Pathfinder's wife
    December 27th, 2011 @ 10:12 am

    Well, I limit myself to saying not everyone simply because I do have emotional attachments to people so horribly oppressed as the Copts and Chaldeans.  It is very wrong, evil even, what is happening to them.  Also, it’s part of our heritage to at least allow immigrants in (legal ones by the way) and both groups would hardly be the worst we’ve opened the door to (we just can no longer afford to allow it at floodgate proportions).

    However, I don’t think the job of America is to go and fight for them, nor give them all sanctuary.  The job of America is to protect and serve Americans (if we provide an example to the rest of the world, then that is also good and part of our “job”).  Our founders made that very clear, and the later in the day it gets, the wiser they appear.

  28. Muslims Bomb Nigerian Church Christmas Morning | Is the End soon?
    December 28th, 2011 @ 3:52 am

    […] Edasurc: ‘Crusade’ Spelled Backwards ( […]