Since our discussions in class and the readings assigned, it is extremely easy to see multiple similarities between Christianity and Islam that were not clear before. Coming from a very conservative Christian household, my parents rarely entertained conversations about religions other than their own and made the views of other beliefs seem scary in a sense. I was ignorant to beliefs other than my own and I was okay with that. However since my time at the United States Naval Academy, I have been exposed to so many people from backgrounds that are all over the spectrum. Through this experience, I am able to see that Christianity and Islam are more similar than most people let on.

Starting from the basics, both Christianity and Islam believe that there is only one true God. Whether you call Him Allah or God, the ideology is the same. Furthermore and most surprising to me, both religions believe that Jesus was a man of God and had a major role to play in each faith. Before knowing this, I just assumed that Jesus Christ was exclusively a Christian figure but this is in fact wrong. Also surprising is the fact that both religions believe that the Bible is a legitimate religious document and is vital to the beliefs of both Christianity and Islam. Lastly, each religions views on angels and the End of Times are extremely similar and almost interchangeable with one another. Islam and Christianity both see angels as messengers from God or Allah, revealing themselves to man in order to pass along God’s word. The End of Times are also viewed to be same for both religions, with followers of God ascending into heaven while those who were not faithful are left on Earth until their repentance.

With all of this said, I still believe that Islam and Christianity are two religions that are mutually exclusive of each other. Christianity is a religion that is completely based upon the fact that Jesus Christ was the Son of God and rose from the dead. While Islam acknowledges Jesus as a person, it does not see him being a divine entity and worthy of worship. Muslims do not believe that Jesus died on the cross and rose from the dead, thus compromising the foundation of Christianity completely. The Christians also refuse to see Muhammad, Islam’s central religious figure, as a person holding any religious merit and sees him as an illegitimate prophet. Based upon these two points, the core teachings of both religions will never align and are therefore mutually exclusive.

Word Count: 427

Dean Caravela

Modern Crusaders?

The term “crusade” carries weight to it. Those that have a knowledge on history and the events associated with The Crusades certainly feel very passionately about the term. However, the word has gained popularity in recent times. For instance, the term is used in modern times to describe things. This is the case with the article regarding the College of Holy Cross’s potential mascot name change. The term is used in the article title to describe the situation as, “Two sides to the crusade to change the Holy Cross nickname,” (Shaughnessy). In the title, “Crusade” is used as a way to document the journey of the name change, rather than the actual Crusades themselves. In reading the article, the bias the author has towards using the term in this way is instantly seen as he makes mention that he was, “a Holy Cross Crusader for four years in the 1970s. [He] was a Groton High School Crusader for four years before that. [He] made [his] bones in the newspaper field as sports editor for the Holy Cross Crusader student paper. [He] feel[s] like a Crusader for life,” (Shaughnessy). Due to his personal attachment towards being a “Crusader,” it seems fitting that he used the term as a way to describe the “endangered” mascot name as he calls it in the article. He saw his chance to create a clever title out of this term he feels so near and dear to, and took it. A bold strategy that may have paid off for him since it can indeed be a fair way to describe this dilemma. He is possibly trying to convey that the situation’s events towards change is as a whole a “crusade.” His personal anecdotes may also be in reference to the hurt this change may cause alumni like himself, and the passion they have on one side of the argument versus the other. This idea would further solidify his classification of this as a crusade. However, one that feels very passionate about the Crusades themselves may think otherwise. That person may argue that it is a sacred term based on the events and history it represents, and is not to be used in a title pun to try and draw in more viewers to their article. That argument may be true, since this case is extremely different from the actual Crusades. The College of Holy Cross is not fighting to claim Holy Lands. Lives are not being lost over this matter. It is a simple mascot banter. One who feels very passionate about the term would agree with this idea in that it is not fair to describe this simple decision making process as a crusade. A different term that could have been used “battle” or “fight.” Both of those terms have the potential to cover the ideas of this issue. Both of those words also relate to “crusade,” however do not carry the same weight as it due to historical significance.

Word Count: 500

Sources: https://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/colleges/2017/12/06/two-sides-crusade-change-holy-cross-nickname/9lmI6mQzuTKy3CFj9HUDpL/story.html

Was the First Crusade Justified?

The First Crusaders were not justified in their capture of Jerusalem after defending Constantinople. The rape and slaughter of anyone cannot be justified. The monstrosities that occurred during the crusades cannot be justified by any idea or belief. Christians believed that they had the right to take Jerusalem because they were chosen by God to protect Christians and spread Christianity. However, the Jews and Muslims of that time period believed the same thing in respect to their own religions. Everyone believed they had some divine right to a piece of land, however, if one of the religions had a divine right to the holy land then they’d be gifted the land without bloodshed. The First Crusaders were invaders seeking new fortune and power. The idea that the Crusades were more about wealth and power is supported by the fact that the individual armies did not form one uniformed army. A series of smaller, individual armies, attacking where the commander thought would be best sounds more like a mercenary conquest for wealth and fortune rather than an actual conquest to recapture the holy land. Mercenaries fight for wealth rather than to expand religious beliefs, which is similar to the Crusaders taking plunder from cities during the First Crusades. Had the Crusades really been to protect the Christian people and to defend the holy land then the Christian Franks and Byzantines would not have split against each other. However, history tells a different story in which the First Crusaders were eventually defeated because of internal conflicts. The common goals of a unified Christian army should not have failed because of internal tension, which means that the First Crusaders were not fighting for the same goals and most likely not to spread Christianity. Finally, there was a lot of rape and slaughter involved in the conquests by the rag tag Christian armies. Christians tried to take the holy land from savages who supposedly slaughtered and raped innocent Christians, but then Christian soldiers raped and slaughtered innocent people on their First Crusade. How can taking the holy land from “savages” be just if the people taking the holy land were just as “savage”? No one is justified during the Crusades, every side has some type of wronging’s that can be used against them. Neither side had a “claim” to the holy land. If every religion had its way then everyone would be happy. The First Crusaders could be found just because they were meant to protect Christians, but the just part is negligible when people are raped and slaughtered during the conquest. At Constantinople, the Crusaders were just in protecting their people, but the conquest that followed to Jerusalem was not just.

Michael Shubert 456

Searching for an article that used the term crusade in it was not only easy but quite time relevant as well. Choosing a proper article was actually a lot harder than simply finding an article within the last few years. It makes me question if the term crusade is potentially losing some of its historical relevancy, and becoming all too common in the polarized political society we live in today. I tried to find a fair source that tries to steer away from bias and I came across an article from ABC News titled “A conservative’s crusade: Loyalty to Trump defines the GOP rivalry in Mississippi’s Senate special election”. I looked up what the actual definition of crusade is and it turns out, as a verb, it is very relevant in describing campaigns.

I figured the elections were as relevant as anything going on in our country and the article centered on the idea of President Trump going on a “crusade” of his own to try and maintain a republican dominated house and senate. Specifically, this article looked at Cindy Hyde-Smith, the first female senator from Mississippi. She is expected to win the race, given that Mississippi is a majority republican state, also with help from the White House, and her supporters showing out at the polls. By campaigning in states across the country, people are calling Trumps advocacy for his republican counterparts a crusade. He is travelling and promoting candidates of his party to try and secure political dominance for the rest of his presidency. Ultimately his goal is to eliminate opposition to his reign as president. Given the definition as a verb, I think it is a fair word to use in describing Trumps actions during the time leading up to the elections.

While crusade is a fair word for this article, after learning about the real crusades in class, I think there is potentially a better word. To use a word with as much magnitude as the crusades, is a little bit of a stretch. It certainly is an attention grabber, but to describe a political campaign in the same context as a war for land and freedom, where so many people died, it seems like an over exaggeration. Considering there were tens of other articles using the word crusade in their headline, it puts into question the weight of the word itself. If used enough, it has the potential to lose its historical value, and there may come a time when people hear crusade and ignore its historical significance and recognize it solely for its political implications. While interesting and relevant to the time we live in, the article could have chosen another word and been just as effective in sending its message. (457)