Crusades_Myth and Realityin on e se ns e it 's tr ue : Sa la di n se t ou t to co nq ue r Je ru sa le m in 11 87
bec aus e Cru sa der sund er the com ma nd of Rey nal d of Cha ti llo n wer e tak-
in ga pag e fro m the Pro phe t Muh amm ad' s boo k and rai din g car ava ns, inth is
ca se , Mu sl im ca ra va ns , Th e Ch ri st ia n ru le rs of Je ru sa le m or de re d
Ra yn al d to st op be ca us e th ey kn ew th at hi s ac ti on s en da ng er ed th eve ry
survival of their kingdom. 'Yet he persisted; finally, Saladin, who had
Just Like Today: The moral double standard
Bill Clintonsuggested that thesackof Jerusalern in 1099 was the ultimatecause of the September 11 attacks.
Yet the Muslims ' sack ofConstantinoplein 1453 does not burn inanyone's memory.
No presidenthaspointed to it as the root cause of any modern-day terrorist
acts. Indeed, it isless well known today than another sack of
Constantinopl e: theoneperpetratedby misguided Crusaders in 1204,
This is one illustration of the strange, unacknowledged moral double
standard that PC types use when evaluating behavior by Westerners and non-
Westerners: Any number of massacres and atrocities can be forgiven non-
Western, non-white, non-Christi an people, but misdeeds by Christian (or
even post-Christian} Westerners remain seared in the worlds collective--
memory. The Abu Ghraib prison scandals received horrified attention world-
wide in 2004 and 2005, often from thesamepeople who glossed over or
ignored worse evils of Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, and Hamas. It's a
tacitadmission of a fact that the PC establishment stoutly denies in every
other case; Christianity does teach a higher moral standard than Islam and
more is expected not only of observant Christians, but of those who have
imbibed these high principles by living in the societies molded by them.