The word “crusade” much like the word “tyrant” has come around in the modern age to mean something different than what it did in history. Many writers and journalists compare anti-Trump movements and wars on terrorism to crusades. I believe that this use of the word is unfair. The word’s initial meaning was nothing more than a name for the expeditions made by Europeans in order to reclaim the Holy Lands from the Muslims. Now, when we hear the word crusade, we think of it as a strong movement to change something or to fight a certain oppression that people are experiencing. Although the Europeans did feel extremely strong in their values to reclaim the Holy Lands, the use of the word in a modern context takes away from the true meaning. The crusades were a series of very intense battles, with loads of gore and violence. Using the word to describe things such as political movements seems relatively extreme.
In an article written by Selwyn Duke in The New American, the soldiers fighting ISIS are compared to the crusaders. I believe that this is an inaccurate comparison. The reason for fighting ISIS has nothing to do with religious beliefs or values. Also, the goal of the United States military is not to reclaim any land. It is a fight to squander the values that are associated with terrorism. Although some people believe the ongoing fight between various militaries around the world and ISIS is a religious expedition, the main reason for the fighting is to stop terrorism, and does not have anything to do with a religious grudge, essentially. This is quite different from the actual crusaders, as their goal was to reclaim the land from Muslims. Although there are parallels in the actual fighting, the reasons do not justify the battle against ISIS as being a crusade. I believe that a more fitting word to describe the battle against ISIS would be something like “the just war”.
Disregarding the article by Duke, I believe that straying away from using crusade to describe peaceful movements would be beneficial in providing a more accurate meaning to the word and not taking away from the meaning. Just like the word tyrant, crusade has come to mean something different. Both of these words should be used conservatively by modern media in order to not take away from the meaning that is actually intended.
WC: 403
https://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/europe/item/20163-modern-crusaders-fighting-isis
The West in the Pre-Modern World 
Some may argue that the term ‘crusade’ can only be used to describe the religious wars of the Christians to upset Muslim rule during the Medieval period. I believe, however, that as language evolves throughout the centuries, words can take on new or expanded definitions. The word implies a feeling of strong devotion to a cause, and gives the impression that the cause is not trivial. That being said, if one did label a trivial cause as a ‘crusade,’ I believe the value of the word would be undermined. Although you state that the current war on terror is not similar to the crusades because it has nothing to do with religion, the crusades were not always about religion. I believe many fought not for love and devotion to God, but in order to guarantee the forgiveness of their sins and thus secure a spot in God’s eternal kingdom. Others fought to gain riches, or even just hoped for a new plot of land on which to start a new life. In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus instructs his followers when slapped to “turn the other cheek” (Matthew 5:38-42). It is thus debatable as to whether the Christians should have desired vengeance against the Muslims. Although history recalls the crusades as holy wars, there was much more going on beneath the surface than simply the Popes’ benevolent reasons for the crusades. For all these reasons, did the term “crusade” ever truly label a true holy war?
-Matt Malone
word count: 246
LikeLike