Volu m e II - Purdue University Calumet

does not extend his analysis to a crusade, even after distinguishing the two terms as two separate human
actions. If a crusade is a human action, and term, that has been used in a variety of contexts, it too should
be understood to possibly have potential to express goodness. Those involved with the bloodshed in the
Crusades considered their actions life affirming, believing they were not only on a mission to protect their
capital, but also on a movement for God against evil. They were fighting against heretics; against a great
public evil. Atrocious actions were committed, and not subjected to moral analysis, but justified through a
destructive religious tradition that invoked alluring, religious as well as political language. The sensitivity
among the cultures and peoples in the Middle East from those actions is still strong today, as made clear by
the NPR interview and Bush’s destructive language use. The term crusade, because of its historical usage to
legitimatize destructive religious and political behavior, has become problematic. However, many of the
words we use to invoke images of goodness, such as ‘hero’ or ‘patriot’, can be used to express behaviors,
including religious behaviors, that are destructive, and do not express a vision of goodness.
Holy war uses violence and warfare, but Steffen argues there can be cases where it is life affirming.
A crusade, yes, can be a form of warfare, but given its other ambiguous definition, I believe we can
maintain the ideal motivations for a ‘crusade,’ but strip it of its appeal to religion for justification by using
ethics, such as the standard of goodness. The term ‘crusade,’ despite its historical usage in the context of
religion, is complex, and has the potential, upon moral analysis, to be associated with life affirming
behavior. It also has equal potential to be associated with destructive behavior. I am not trying to seem
insensitive to the memory of the Crusades, and how the term ‘crusade’ has been used destructively in
religious and political rhetoric. I am also not picking on any particular religion. We should be sensitive to
how we use certain language, especially in a religious and/or political context, and whether our words are
describing behavior that reflects goodness, or if the words are being used to invoke a life affirming image for
a destructive behavior, such as in the case of a crusade.
200