The Crusades were horrible. No doubt about it. All the more horrible because we, as Christians, should have known better. Our master and prophet called us to turn towards peace, at all costs. But it should not be removed from its historic place. The crusades were a grave over-compensatory response to the jihad of Muslim invasion, which, despite the propaganda, was not quite as welcomed and peaceful as many Muslim leaders would like to now portray. Yes, Christians in the Middle East didn't like the way they were treated by their rulers, in Rome and Constantine- and the same was doubly true of the Jews. But the Muslim Conquest was welcomed “with open arms” only when those conquered peoples realized you live longer if you do that. Yes, Muslims treated their minority peoples – dhimmi – much better than the so-called Christian rulers. But both pale in comparison to modern human rights standards of equality- and sadly the dhimmi mentality and treatment continues in many Middle Eastern countries to this day. All that said, when the Muslims conquered by the sword (with conversion rarely by the sword excepting in India, and more often through prejudicial economic policies), they were merely following their prophet's (pbuh) words and actions. Not so when we did the same and worse- we decided to do the exact opposite of our prophet.

Lastly, and related to the above, the other group that could rightly object to the use of Crusaders as a school mascot are all of the Orthodox churches and schools in America- for the Orthodox Christians were the target of more than one Crusade. It wasn't “the Christians” attacking- it was Western Christians attacking anyone who got in their way. The Crusades were never more than nominally about religion. They were about money and greed and land and oppression- and mostly about hate.

And that's what I remember when I see an image of a Crusader mascot.

The Crusades were horrible. No doubt about it. All the more horrible because we, as Christians, should have known better. Our master and prophet called us to turn towards peace, at all costs. But it should not be removed from its historic place. The crusades were a grave over-compensatory response to the jihad of Muslim invasion, which, despite the propaganda, was not quite as welcomed and peaceful as many Muslim leaders would like to now portray. Yes, Christians in the Middle East didn't like the way they were treated by their rulers, in Rome and Constantine- and the same was doubly true of the Jews. But the Muslim Conquest was welcomed “with open arms” only when those conquered peoples realized you live longer if you do that. Yes, Muslims treated their minority peoples – dhimmi – much better than the so-called Christian rulers. But both pale in comparison to modern human rights standards of equality- and sadly the dhimmi mentality and treatment continues in many Middle Eastern countries to this day. All that said, when the Muslims conquered by the sword (with conversion rarely by the sword excepting in India, and more often through prejudicial economic policies), they were merely following their prophet's (pbuh) words and actions. Not so when we did the same and worse- we decided to do the exact opposite of our prophet.

Lastly, and related to the above, the other group that could rightly object to the use of Crusaders as a school mascot are all of the Orthodox churches and schools in America- for the Orthodox Christians were the target of more than one Crusade. It wasn't “the Christians” attacking- it was Western Christians attacking anyone who got in their way. The Crusades were never more than nominally about religion. They were about money and greed and land and oppression- and mostly about hate.

And that's what I remember when I see an image of a Crusader mascot.

The Crusades were horrible. No doubt about it. All the more horrible because we, as Christians, should have known better. Our master and prophet called us to turn towards peace, at all costs. But it should not be removed from its historic place. The crusades were a grave over-compensatory response to the jihad of Muslim invasion, which, despite the propaganda, was not quite as welcomed and peaceful as many Muslim leaders would like to now portray. Yes, Christians in the Middle East didn't like the way they were treated by their rulers, in Rome and Constantine- and the same was doubly true of the Jews. But the Muslim Conquest was welcomed “with open arms” only when those conquered peoples realized you live longer if you do that. Yes, Muslims treated their minority peoples – dhimmi – much better than the so-called Christian rulers. But both pale in comparison to modern human rights standards of equality- and sadly the dhimmi mentality and treatment continues in many Middle Eastern countries to this day. All that said, when the Muslims conquered by the sword (with conversion rarely by the sword excepting in India, and more often through prejudicial economic policies), they were merely following their prophet's (pbuh) words and actions. Not so when we did the same and worse- we decided to do the exact opposite of our prophet.

Lastly, and related to the above, the other group that could rightly object to the use of Crusaders as a school mascot are all of the Orthodox churches and schools in America- for the Orthodox Christians were the target of more than one Crusade. It wasn't “the Christians” attacking- it was Western Christians attacking anyone who got in their way. The Crusades were never more than nominally about religion. They were about money and greed and land and oppression- and mostly about hate.

And that's what I remember when I see an image of a Crusader mascot.

The Crusades were horrible. No doubt about it. All the more horrible because we, as Christians, should have known better. Our master and prophet called us to turn towards peace, at all costs. But it should not be removed from its historic place. The crusades were a grave over-compensatory response to the jihad of Muslim invasion, which, despite the propaganda, was not quite as welcomed and peaceful as many Muslim leaders would like to now portray. Yes, Christians in the Middle East didn't like the way they were treated by their rulers, in Rome and Constantine- and the same was doubly true of the Jews. But the Muslim Conquest was welcomed “with open arms” only when those conquered peoples realized you live longer if you do that. Yes, Muslims treated their minority peoples – dhimmi – much better than the so-called Christian rulers. But both pale in comparison to modern human rights standards of equality- and sadly the dhimmi mentality and treatment continues in many Middle Eastern countries to this day. All that said, when the Muslims conquered by the sword (with conversion rarely by the sword excepting in India, and more often through prejudicial economic policies), they were merely following their prophet's (pbuh) words and actions. Not so when we did the same and worse- we decided to do the exact opposite of our prophet.

Lastly, and related to the above, the other group that could rightly object to the use of Crusaders as a school mascot are all of the Orthodox churches and schools in America- for the Orthodox Christians were the target of more than one Crusade. It wasn't “the Christians” attacking- it was Western Christians attacking anyone who got in their way. The Crusades were never more than nominally about religion. They were about money and greed and land and oppression- and mostly about hate.

And that's what I remember when I see an image of a Crusader mascot.

To name a mascot after this blot is beyond me.

Many folks believe that it is just a faith-based Christian service organization.

But, it is actually a church denomination and has its own church buildings where its actual members worship.

In more recent times, Metro Christian Academy in Tulsa has as its mascot, the Patriot and the school's logo is a shield with a cross on it. It is connected with the “no musical instruments in the worship service” Church of Christ.

But, the school has a band that plays at home football games and I know that because I used to live a little over a block from the school.

So is most battle language when it comes to talking about our faith. “Culture War” is another one (though Davidson coined the term, Christians keep using it). Since most people don't know that a lot of battle language in the New Testament refers to spiritual battles, we're better off leaving all war talk off the table in today's perceived religiously war-torn world.

And, while we are at it, we can talk about how many mascots in Christian schools use verses out of context, like “Eagles” (Isa 40:31… as if the verse promises victories or strength in organized athletic competitions!)….

Well said , I know many for instances of people who take political stands that show so much vitrolic images of people they disagree with yet when people harshly return their poltical fire they see it as being persecuted for the name of Christ. I think Christians often do this with issues of social cultural debates . Well said squeaky , you have been quite well spoken of late .

This post was mentioned on Twitter by CHRISTIAN_TWEAT: Christians Must Find a More Christ-like Symbol than ‘Crusaders …: I’m no expert on interfaith reconci.. http://bit.ly/8aVBgY…