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.”
The entire article is packed with logic and moral reasoning. Please don’t neglect it.
So has Chris Cuomo even read any books on the Crusades? It would appear not. And yet he advises you to study them. Moral confusion abounds on the Left. According to their PC morality, we can’t condemn what is happening now, but rather we should condemn what happened 1000 years ago. But what would be the value of condemning something that happened 1000 years ago if those judgments can’t also be applied to what’s happening today? If Cuomo had lived during the Crusades, would he have refrained from condemning the Crusades because of what had happened 1000 years earlier? Not by his reasoning.
Does this also mean Anti-semitism can’t be condemned because the Jews themselves conquered the land of Canaan and genocided the indigenous population down to the man? Or perhaps African-Americans can’t make a judgment about slavery because their own ancestors were themselves slavers and slave owners? By this logic, we can’t ever condemn evil at all.
The Left doesn’t make moral judgments about evil, they make moral judgments about those who make moral judgments about evil! If only I were making a feeble attempt to be clever or glib. But I’m not. During the Cold War, the Left was not necessarily pro-Communist. Rather, they were anti those who were anti-communist. When they roundly condemned Ronald Reagan for calling the USSR an “evil empire,” they weren’t coming to the defense of the Soviet Union, they were making a moral judgment about Reagan because he had made a moral judgment about evil. Welcome to intellectual and moral chaos that is secular progressive morality by PC.