Is it a case of removing the plank from your own eye before removing the speck from your brothers - or political correctness run amok?
In a tweet Aug. 26, ABC "20/20" anchor Chris Cuomo told his 987,000 followers not to condemn Muslim violence because other religions have perpetrated violence in the past.
"To all my christian brothers and sisters, especially catholics - before u condemn muslims for violence, remember the crusades....study them," Cuomo tweeted around 9:30 am.
So does past violence justify modern violence? If so, maybe Cuomo should take his own advice and study the Crusades. Even a brief study would reveal a much more complicated situation than Cuomo's tweet suggests about who struck first.
Historians, including professor and author Bernard Lewis, have noted that the Crusades were in fact a response to jihad. "The Crusades could more accurately be described as a limited, belated and, in the last analysis, ineffectual response to the jihad - a failed attempt to recover by a Christian holy war what had been lost to a Muslim holy war," Lewis wrote in the Wall Street Journal shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
One of Cuomo's Twitter followers, magoluv69, pointed out that "by the time the Crusades began Muslim armies had conquered almost 2/3 of Christian world. Neither just." Cuomo responded that he is "not sure how pointing out Muslim wrongs erases Christian wrongs."
So pointing out Muslim wrongs doesn't erase Christian wrongs - but pointing out Christian wrongs justifies Muslim wrongs?
Author Andrew Bostom noted that the comparison of jihad to the Crusades is not be apples-to-apples anyway. "The jihad is intrinsic to the sacred Muslim texts, including the divine Qur'anic revelation itself, whereas the Crusades were circumscribed historical events subjected to (ongoing and meaningful) criticism by Christians themselves."
