Mosque Funding

[vikesfankevin1986]

Atheists

LOL - theres no such thing as an atheist. Its not possible, a belief in nothing is still a belief, and atheism mean "no belief". Cant be human and not have SOME kind of belief.

Semantics? Sure probably.

Hey it's not a word I created...do a google search...talking to "atheist" and my Eastern Orthodoxy professor, atheist claim they know there is NO God. That's a pretty bold term. Now I don't want to get banned so I am not going to say more and I am ending this but feel free to PM about religious topics if you want.

[Cold_Zero]

I just don't get this stuff. Our country was clearly founded based on christian principles. How is this not a Christian nation? Because we tolerate other religions?

The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

It's like they formed this country based on Christian values but then threw in the clause about how we will be accepting and everything.

The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.

The problem is, we are not accepting. People are not accepting Muslims in America. Christians and Jews used to live in peace in Muslim nations. That doesn't make those Muslim nations not Muslim.

There is a difference between the country being ‘accepting’ of other religions by allowing the free exercise and the country being ‘accepting’ of the legitimacy of what a religion preaches or believes. Please don’t confuse the two.

While in certain places (specifically in Iraq and other countries) and certain times (early in Islam’s history) Muslims, Jews and Christians did ‘lived in peace.’ I would point out historically, there is a reason why the early centers of Christianity (Constantinople, Alexandria, Jerusalem and Antioch) are now located in countries with very minor Christian communities. These were the cradle of Christianity in the ancient times. It is foolish to think that during and after the 9th Century that everyone lived in peace and harmony.

Stop fooling yourself America...This is and always has been a "Christian" nation. Just accept it and make it official. (Once again I am Agnostic, so I really don't want it to be. I just want people to stop pretending.)

I think this is a really baaaad idea.

[AppleBonker]

This country doesnt have a National Religion, though I think that I could make a case that we follow a secular civil religion in this country, that people confuse for Christianity

Sure, we may have been founded on roughly one groups' religious ideals, but I don't know that we should claim to follow them today. As a population, I think we are far less religious than we were even 15 years ago (based on my own experiences with religion and number of people attending ceremonies then versus now). Some of that may be explained through much greater levels of higher education. This is an interesting read. Before anyone starts the argument, I am of the same belief as that professor.

I'm not saying that believing in God makes you dumber. My hypothesis is that people with a low intelligence are more easily drawn toward religions, which give answers that are certain, while people with a high intelligence are more skeptical

Like everything else about the founding documents, I am personally not too concerned with the ideals that guided their drafting. I am more concerned about how they are interpreted to fit today's needs. Throw the religion argument out for a second and look only at technology. There are so many new things in the world that couldn't have even been imagined a hundred years ago that we need to adapt those laws to. Everything is fluid, so the interpretation must be as well. Because of this, I have a hard time dwelling on exactly what the founding fathers believed (when it comes to religion/technology/etc) and focus on the core focus they had (freedom, IMO).

When was the last time Mormons killed thousands of New Yorkers?

When was the last time Muslims killed thousands of Chicagoans? If we look at only ONE specific instance, it completely changes the interpretation. If we look at yours ("Muslims" killed thousands of New Yorkers), Muslims must all be bad. We look at mine (Muslims have NEVER killed thousands of Chicagoans), all Muslims surely are good. I'm baffled as to how one person can honestly spew so much stupid. Are you real?

[Cold_Zero]

Did you know Christians killed Muslims in the Crusades?

Tired argument. Care to backup that statement and quantify the number of Muslims killed in the Crusades?

[stebo0728]

Did you know Christians killed Muslims in the Crusades?

Tired argument. Care to backup that statement and quantify the number of Muslims killed in the Crusades?

But .. but .. I watched Kingdom of Heaven ... surely that was a documentary ... right?

[AppleBonker]

There is a difference between the country being ‘accepting’ of other religions by allowing the free exercise and the country being ‘accepting’ of the legitimacy of what a religion preaches or believes. Please don’t confuse the two.

While in certain places (specifically in Iraq and other countries) and certain times (early in Islam’s history) did Muslims, Jews and Christians ‘lived in peace.’ I would point out historically, there is a reason why the early centers of Christianity (Constantinople, Alexandria, Jerusalem and Antioch) are now located in countries with very minor Christian communities. These were the cradle of Christianity in the ancient times. It is foolish to think that during and after the 9th Century that everyone lived in peace and harmony.

This is a wonderful point. My own personal biggest issue with ANY religion is that the vast majority of its followers believe that it is the correct religion. How can anyone know this? Religions will NEVER be accepting of each other for this reason. But polls back up this thought process. I'm not sure where I saw it, but I do remember seeing the results of a poll that showed a strong correlation between how religious a person was and how much they felt that one religion was "more correct" (for lack of a better description) than others. That idea goes against most things I stand for. My religion is just that, mine. I don't expect you to believe the same as me. However, I do expect that you NOT try to force me into your beliefs. That is where religion always goes wrong. That alone is why there are rules in place on these boards restricting religious talk. Because everyone knows they are right and anyone who disagrees must be wrong. Personally, I'll let you practice anything you want in peace (so long as it's not threatening the health of me, my family and friends - IE no random human sacrifices etc). I just want everyone to offer that same courtesy to the rest of the world.

[stebo0728]

Wait wait I have to call you out on this one. Just because someone makes a claim that all terrorists are muslim (and except for only a very small handful of irish examples this is a true claim) that does not mean that they are claiming that all muslims are terrorists. That is a gross logically fallacy. Thats like saying that all oranges are a fruit therefore all fruits are an orange, it doesnt work.

I know this. I am just getting sick of wingFeathers ignorant coments. It appears he believes all Muslims are terrorlst.

Ok good to know ... but we cant all be illogical here, 1 token tard is enough.

[vikesfankevin1986]

[

While in certain places (specifically in Iraq and other countries) and certain times (early in Islam’s history) did Muslims, Jews and Christians ‘lived in peace.’ I would point out historically, there is a reason why the early centers of Christianity (Constantinople, Alexandria, Jerusalem and Antioch) are now located in countries with very minor Christian communities. These were the cradle of Christianity in the ancient times. It is foolish to think that during and after the 9th Century that everyone lived in peace and harmony.

Actually it is not foolish. I have taken a class on the Crusades and read a number of books on them. During the first Crusade (around 1100) Christians and Jews lived peacefully in Muslim land. Muslims did not bother them because they were considered "people of the book." During the first Crusade, crusaders slaughtered thousands of Christians by making the mistake of thinking they were Muslims because they lived in a city headed by Muslims. When the Crusades started the Muslims did not even have the term jihad. To them it was 2 groups of people fighting over land. Religion had nothing to do with it until Christians made it part of it. Actually thoughout the Crusades Muslims and Christians in the Near East got a long. It was more of a money thing. They didn't care if it was a Muslim incharge or a Christian, just so they could oversee their community and collect their money. Obviously after the Crusades this wasn't the case.
And now that I think about it, Christians were still able to live in the Ottoman Empire and even had their own type of government without in Empire. Constantinople was actually allowed to remain a Patriarch and conduct their normal business. This did become a very corrupt system though because Archbishops would pay off the Muslims.
The Crusades are my thing...I was teaching my World Religions professor about them and gave him a few books to read. I will take anyone on in this topic

[stebo0728]

There is a difference between the country being ‘accepting’ of other religions by allowing the free exercise and the country being ‘accepting’ of the legitimacy of what a religion preaches or believes. Please don’t confuse the two.

While in certain places (specifically in Iraq and other countries) and certain times (early in Islam’s history) did Muslims, Jews and Christians ‘lived in peace.’ I would point out historically, there is a reason why the early centers of Christianity (Constantinople, Alexandria, Jerusalem and Antioch) are now located in countries with very minor Christian communities. These were the cradle of Christianity in the ancient times. It is foolish to think that during and after the 9th Century that everyone lived in peace and harmony.

This is a wonderful point. My own personal biggest issue with ANY religion is that the vast majority of its followers believe that it is the correct religion. How can anyone know this? Religions will NEVER be accepting of each other for this reason. But polls back up this thought process. I'm not sure where I saw it, but I do remember seeing the results of a poll that showed a strong correlation between how religious a person was and how much they felt that one religion was "more correct" (for lack of a better description) than others. That idea goes against most things I stand for. My religion is just that, mine. I don't expect you to believe the same as me. However, I do expect that you NOT try to force me into your beliefs. That is where religion always goes wrong. That alone is why there are rules in place on these boards restricting religious talk. Because everyone knows they are right and anyone who disagrees must be wrong. Personally, I'll let you practice anything you want in peace (so long as it's not threatening the health of me, my family and friends - IE no random human sacrifices etc). I just want everyone to offer that same courtesy to the rest of the world.

Good argument .. I think one religion that didnt exist, at least not with any presence, in the days of our founding, was secular humanism. Our founding fathers got blind sided by it, and its consumed our nation, our educational system, and ultimately our governance.

[vikesfankevin1986]

Did you know Christians killed Muslims in the Crusades?

Tired argument. Care to backup that statement and quantify the number of Muslims killed in the Crusades?

If you are not joking here you are an idiot. Heres some back up...read my past post. To think no Christians killed any Muslims is insane. Let me guess the Holocaust didn't happen either right? I'm not going to do the research for such a stupid question but let me tell you how...First you need to figure out the size of the armies on each side. The problem is you won't even find this because no one knows. We guess on the sizes of armies and use the few documents and letters written to make a guess. The Christian Army was discribed as "massive" and "the most formidable army ever assembled" by Dr Michael Lower. A little about him...
University of Minnesota scholar Dr. Michael Lower received his doctorate in 1999 from the University of Cambridge where he studied with the influential crusades scholar Jonathan Riley-Smith. In addition to the crusades, his broader interests in the middle ages include violence against minorities, the individuals relationship to organized religion, and cross cultural contact between Christians, Muslims, and Jews. And is author of The Baron's Crusade: A Call to Arms and Its Consequences.
Now go read 3 other books about the Crusades and compare the battles, who won, who lost, how bad, ect. Take into consideration that if a city resist it was common pratice to slaughter and pillage the city. So try and get a rough estimate of how many died in battle and how many were slaughtered in cities and how many starved to death while Crusaders seiged a city. (60,000 in Egypt died like this alone.)
Once you figure that out, you will have a rough estimate.

[Cold_Zero]

Actually it is not foolish. I have taken a class on the Crusades and read a number of books on them. During the first Crusade (around 1100) Christians and Jews lived peacefully in Muslim land. Muslims did not bother them because they were considered "people of the book." During the first Crusade, crusaders slaughtered thousands of Christians by making the mistake of thinking they were Muslims because they lived in a city headed by Muslims. When the Crusades started the Muslims did not even have the term jihad. To them it was 2 groups of people fighting over land. Religion had nothing to do with it until Christians made it part of it. Actually thoughout the Crusades Muslims and Christians in the Near East got a long. It was more of a money thing. They didn't care if it was a Muslim incharge or a Christian, just so they could oversee their community and collect their money. Obviously after the Crusades this wasn't the case.
And now that I think about it, Christians were still able to live in the Ottoman Empire and even had their own type of government without in Empire. Constantinople was actually allowed to remain a Patriarch and conduct their normal business. This did become a very corrupt system though because Archbishops would pay off the Muslims.
The Crusades are my thing...I was teaching my World Religions professor about them and gave him a few books to read. I will take anyone on in this topic

And the expert neglects to point out that the Christian Crusaders from the West sack Constantinople. A Christian Constantinople, right?.
But hey, when a schismatic Pope coronated a new Emperor in 800 AD, did he forget that both them were subjects of Irene of Athens? Why do I bring this up? I think it speaks to the character of said ‘christian’ crusaders.

Dude, the crusades were a regional war. Sure armies came out of Europe, but it’s extent was pretty small. You do realize that Christianity spread and established itself through Africa, the Middle East and through Asia before Europe and well before you beloved little crusades? That, my sir, is what I was talking about with my comments. Let me ask you. Why are there so small number of believers in the Churches of the East and in North Africa? So were Charles Martel, Vlad Tepes, and Price Lazar all crusaders? Are they found in your books?

[Cold_Zero]

If you are not joking here you are an idiot. Heres some back up...read my past post.

I merely wanted you to quantify the numbers because people throw it out there off the cuff and dont give it any thought. To be honest it is a tired argument and most people that use the excuse know very about little the Crusades and think it easily dismisses any opposition. If this was not your intent, then I apologize.

But can you QUANTIFY the numbers for me please? I sit eagerly waiting for a quote from one of your books.

And of course the Holocaust occurred. Don’t be silly.

I would point out everyone that the original topic of this discussion was the funding of this Mosque. Not sure how we got on this tangent, surely I am a party to it, and would implore everyone to get back on topic so Stebo's thread doesnt get closed.

[wingFeather]

See what an open mind and logic can do for you?

My mind is open, and I am extremely logical. Thanks.

[wingFeather]

I'm baffled as to how one person can honestly spew so much stupid. Are you real?

We are both stupid and real, brother.

[vikesfankevin1986]

And the expert neglects to point out that the Christian Crusaders from the West sack Constantinople. A Christian Constantinople, right?.
But hey, when a schismatic Pope coronated a new Emperor in 800 AD, did he forget that both them were subjects of Irene of Athens? Why do I bring this up? I think it speaks to the character of said ‘christian’ crusaders.

Dude, the crusades were a regional war. Sure armies came out of Europe, but it’s extent was pretty small. You do realize that Christianity spread and established itself through Africa, the Middle East and through Asia before Europe and well before you beloved little crusades? That, my sir, is what I was talking about with my comments. Let me ask you. Why are there so small number of believers in the Churches of the East and in North Africa?

Actually the biggest topic we talked about was the sack of Constantinople, how it happened and who was responsible. I didn't say they didn't kill Christians, and I actually have stressed the point they did. I use 'Christian' crusaders because people say 'Muslim' terrorlst. Neither of them were good people. I also stressed the point that this war DID NOT start as a religious war. I was like any other war.
I'm a History and Religious studies major...you are not enlightning me. I know where civilizations started and where Judaism started and where it spread, along with Christianity.
Are you asking why are there so few believers of the Church of the East in America and in North Africa?
I don't know about them specificly but I am going to guess it is similar to the reason we don't have many Eastern Orthodox churches in America. To make it simple...They don't agree with the Catholic Church or the Protestant churches. The fact that America is mostly Protestant and Cathoic, would be the reason you do not see as many here. Now if America was settled by them, it would be a different story. Am I wrong?

[vikesfankevin1986]

If you are not joking here you are an idiot. Heres some back up...read my past post.

I merely wanted you to quantify the numbers because people throw it out there off the cuff and dont give it any thought. To be honest it is a tired argument and most people that use the excuse know very about little the Crusades and think it easily dismisses any opposition. If this was not your intent, then I apologize.

But can you QUANTIFY the numbers for me please? I sit eagerly waiting for a quote from one of your books.

And of course the Holocaust occurred. Don’t be silly.

I would point out everyone that the original topic of this discussion was the funding of this Mosque. Not sure how we got on this tangent, surely I am a party to it, and would implore everyone to get back on topic so Stebo's thread doesnt get closed.

No, that was not my intent. Looks like we just had a misunderstanding.
Just for you though, I will grab one of the books and see if I can get you a few numbers ok? How many numbers do you want, Honestly. Remember I have other things I could be doing. What numbers do you want? Army size, predicted death tolls, how many starved in cities? Give me something because I could write an entire paper over that question.

[AppleBonker]

I would point out everyone that the original topic of this discussion was the funding of this Mosque. Not sure how we got on this tangent, surely I am a party to it, and would implore everyone to get back on topic so Stebo's thread doesnt get closed.

Agreed, but I read the original post as the conservative side (generally speaking) afraid that terrorlst money was funding the building of this mosque. But IBC (we're going to rock that nickname) pointed out Pelosi's questioning of the funding for the anti-mosque movement. So I'm not really sure what the main point at hand was. But what I don't get is the wackos on the far right end of the spectrum are mad at what the wackos on the left want to investigate, and the wackos on the left are mad at what the wackos on the right are looking in to. How does neither side recognize the hilarity here and not step back and pause for a second. The ideal solution is somewhere in the middle. Why is that so difficult for people to come to?

[stebo0728]

Well as the OP, my point was that Im not convinced that either investigation is necessary, but am a bit more "taken aback" by the investigation called for by the Reaker of the House.

Let me also say, separation of church and state is a critical part of our make up, not because it protects government from religious intervention, but the contrary, it protects religion from government intervention. Example: Episcopals only exist because of a tight relation between church and state. Catholicism would not grant a divorce to Henry (VIII i think it was, but not positive) and he really wanted the divorce, hence a perversion of Catholicism was created to endorse the divorce, and it was labeled Episcopal. If America were to directly endorse any religioin, it would inevitably begin to sculpt said religion to suit its needs at the time. Our founding fathers never imagined that judeo christianity would one day be the minority here, and their intention was not to keep the chrurch out of the government, but to keep the government out of the church. Of course it is a 2 way street, and thats most likely best was well. Sure it may lead to things like gay marriage and condoned abortion, but it also prevents things like Spanish Inquisitions and Heresy beheadings in town square. Which of those 2 are the lesser of 2 evils? Id surely not wanna get my head lopped off cause I think its ok to drink every now and then ...

[heliochrome85]

im just going to chime in to say that a.) As CZ has said, the Crusades were regional wars. Per usual, I defer to him on all matters of theology and Orthodoxy. He's a big ol' huggable bear of knowledge

b.) this thread took a turn akin to a weekend with Tara Reid.

and 3.) Pelosi's notion of investigating those who oppose the mosque is just as ridiculous as the people requesting investigation of the mosque. When we give up the freedom of protest, thats when you know we've got a serious problem. That applies to both sides of the argument.

[vikesfankevin1986]

im just going to chime in to say that a.) As CZ has said, the Crusades were regional wars. Per usual, I defer to him on all matters of theology and Orthodoxy. He's a big ol' huggable bear of knowledge

b.) this thread took a turn akin to a weekend with Tara Reid.

and 3.) Pelosi's notion of investigating those who oppose the mosque is just as ridiculous as the people requesting investigation of the mosque. When we give up the freedom of protest, thats when you know we've got a serious problem. That applies to both sides of the argument.

I know this...I just want people to respect the fact that I know what I'm talking about when it comes to the Crusades. I think I have more then proved my point and if I have not PM me and I will prove it.
The reason I used it as an example is people say stuff like...When was the last time Mormons killed thousands of New Yorkers?
Correct me if I am wrong but does that not imply that he thinks all Muslims kill thousands of New Yorkers? They call the Crusades a "religious war" and it was fought by "Christians." Why can I not use the Crusades but it is ok for someone to use 9/11 as an example of Muslims? Neither represent the faith...at least in the Crusades the "call to Crusade" was made by the Pope. The call to be terrorlst was made by no Muslim leader that I can think of. If you are going to say that all Muslims are terrorlst I am going to use the Crusades as an example of some Christian extremist. If you bring a better argument to the table than "Muslims killed Americans," I might bring a better argument.

[heliochrome85]

im all for people learning more about history. hell, thats how i got the degree in it. i honestly cant say whether you are right or wrong in a point by point analysis, but i applaud your interest. maybe ill take another look after i get some food in me

[vikesfankevin1986]

im all for people learning more about history. hell, thats how i got the degree in it. i honestly cant say whether you are right or wrong in a point by point analysis, but i applaud your interest. maybe ill take another look after i get some food in me

All I want to say is I took "History of the Crusades" from a very good professor with credentials at the University of Minnesota and got a A- in the class. It was a 3000 level class which means it isn't just a general class. I read The New Concise History of the Crusades by Thomas Madden, The Crusades a Reader by S.J, Allen and Emilie Amt, Joinville and Villehardouin Chronicles of the Crusades translated and intro by Caroline Smith and The Baron's Crusade: A Call to Arms and Its Consequences by Dr. Michael Lower.
On top of the normal stuff you talk about in college classes we watched a documentary on it and watch the movie Kingdom of Heaven.
I did well in the class because I enjoyed it and I loved learning about it. I really absorbed the material. Being agnostic I found it very facinating for the Christianity aspect in additon to the historical aspect.
I will admit when I am wrong or if I don't know the answer but I think this is a topic I know, from both the Christian side and the Muslim side.

edit: also what part of History did you focus on? PM me if you want.

[heliochrome85]

im all for people learning more about history. hell, thats how i got the degree in it. i honestly cant say whether you are right or wrong in a point by point analysis, but i applaud your interest. maybe ill take another look after i get some food in me

All I want to say is I took "History of the Crusades" from a very good professor with credentials at the University of Minnesota and got a A- in the class. It was a 3000 level class which means it isn't just a general class. I read The New Concise History of the Crusades by Thomas Madden, The Crusades a Reader by S.J, Allen and Emilie Amt, Joinville and Villehardouin Chronicles of the Crusades translated and intro by Caroline Smith and The Baron's Crusade: A Call to Arms and Its Consequences by Dr. Michael Lower.
On top of the normal stuff you talk about in college classes we watched a documentary on it and watch the movie Kingdom of Heaven.
I did well in the class because I enjoyed it and I loved learning about it. I really absorbed the material. Being agnostic I found it very facinating for the Christianity aspect in additon to the historical aspect.
I will admit when I am wrong or if I don't know the answer but I think this is a topic I know, from both the Christian side and the Muslim side.

edit: also what part of History did you focus on? PM me if you want.

pm sent.

[wingFeather]

A long time ago, politicians acting as Christian religious leaders encouraged killing. Never before & after. Contrast this to the ever present tension in Muslim countries & among their followers. I know the Qur'an teaches peace and love, but why have so many drifted from it's message for so long? And no, I don't think "all" Muslims are terrorists. Very few groups are 100% anything. Never said they were, just not understanding the hate.

[vikesfankevin1986]

A long time ago, politicians acting as Christian religious leaders encouraged killing. Never before & after. Contrast this to the ever present tension in Muslim countries & among their followers. I know the Qur'an teaches peace and love, but why have so many drifted from it's message for so long? And no, I don't think "all" Muslims are terrorists. Very few groups are 100% anything. Never said they were, just not understanding the hate.

They have drifted from it for the same reasons we have...society...everything in this country evolves around sex and money. Read my TV thread in the General Chat. That is everything wrong with America. It is our society, just like it is in the middle east. They are taught women are less than human and America is bad, just as we are taught sex and money is above everything else.

[heliochrome85]

A long time ago, politicians acting as Christian religious leaders encouraged killing. Never before & after. Contrast this to the ever present tension in Muslim countries & among their followers. I know the Qur'an teaches peace and love, but why have so many drifted from it's message for so long? And no, I don't think "all" Muslims are terrorists. Very few groups are 100% anything. Never said they were, just not understanding the hate.

some would say that politicians are still encouraging killing...
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2009/05/31/tiller

[n00b240]

Wow, decent thread on some good history here. I didnt take any courses, but this type of history were a bit of an obsession in my college days. VikesFan is right on the money on every point. Also good reads would be books on the various councils such as Nicea, Constantinople, Ephesus, and Chalcedon. You could even take it back to St. Mark and his Church of Alexandria. I think they set things up to understand what the crusades were for.

Didnt realize this whole topic is different from the original post.

In terms of mosque funding, I feel like for what they have planned 100 million doesnt look like its enough. Then again, the PR may have gone wrong; but now, I bet there would be some very wealthy people willing to contribute.

[heliochrome85]

Wow, decent thread on some good history here. I didnt take any courses, but this type of history were a bit of an obsession in my college days. VikesFan is right on the money on every point. Also good reads would be books on the various councils such as Nicea, Constantinople, Ephesus, and Chalcedon. You could even take it back to St. Mark and his Church of Alexandria. I think they set things up to understand what the crusades were for.

Didnt realize this whole topic is different from the original post.

In terms of mosque funding, I feel like for what they have planned 100 million doesnt look like its enough. Then again, the PR may have gone wrong; but now, I bet there would be some very wealthy people willing to contribute.

if any of you guys ever get the chance to go, Syria is a wonderful place for medieval battlements used in the Crusades. Ive been to the grave of Saladin. Its not nearly as impressive as you'd think, given his role in the Muslim army. Damascus has the original city walls, as well as the 7 gates. In addition, the city's Citadel is still standing and is a sight to see. Beyond Damascus, there is a massive Citadel in Aleppo that is also still standing...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citadel_of_Aleppo

Ill be going again in April. Its one thing to read about these places, its an entirely different thing to actually go. Heres hoping someday I can actually make it to Jerusalem...

[vikesfankevin1986]

Wow, decent thread on some good history here. I didnt take any courses, but this type of history were a bit of an obsession in my college days. VikesFan is right on the money on every point. Also good reads would be books on the various councils such as Nicea, Constantinople, Ephesus, and Chalcedon. You could even take it back to St. Mark and his Church of Alexandria. I think they set things up to understand what the crusades were for.

Didnt realize this whole topic is different from the original post.

In terms of mosque funding, I feel like for what they have planned 100 million doesnt look like its enough. Then again, the PR may have gone wrong; but now, I bet there would be some very wealthy people willing to contribute.

A lot of those were actually covered in my Eastern Orthodoxy class. I don't think they do a ton for the crusades but they really help understand the differences between the churches (Catholic and Orthodox.) It also helps you see how Protestantism come about. When you look at things such as the council of Nicea, you see that the differences between the churches are so minor, but also very important. This is not just a religious debate but a very important part of history. Understanding the Council of Nicea and the split between the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church is the reason Russia and Eastern Europe developed the way they did. It also helps explain the Crusades in a more minor sense.
If more people are interested in this topic, Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans
Diplomacy, Theology, and the Politics of Interwar Ecumenism by Bryn Geffert is an amazing book. It really helped me understand the issues between the churches and governments.

At heliochrome85...That sounds exciting. I would love to see the grave of Saladin. I would imagine that it is not that spectacular because he was not a hero to the Muslims. Most Muslims did not or do not know who he is. He was made famous by Europeans. The reason for this was his honor and humanity. He respected Christians and showed them mercy. He was generally on good terms with the Christians, other than in battle. Because of this, he was not only seen as an amazing military general but a hero to Christians. He was admired more by Christians than Muslims and personally I admire the man. He shows what Islam is really about.

[IBCoupe]

...politicians acting as Christian religious leaders encouraged killing.

Holy crap, Wing struck gold! You're really close to getting to the right answer: none of this this is about religion. Not 9/11, not Iraq, not Afghanistan.

Yes, religious rhetoric is involved and religiously-phrased justification is offered, but you don't read a book and go crazy from it. This is all the result of real motivations drawn from real situations. You can still accept this and disagree with their excuse.