Should you wish a snapshot of the bile that the liberal mainstream media reserves for Christianity, you could do worse than read the New York Times review of the newly-released sword-and-sandal epic, “Kingdom of Heaven.” The topic is the Crusades, and events, purportedly historic, that took place in and around Jerusalem in the late 12th century.
Near the end of “Kingdom of Heaven,” a plaintive period epic from Ridley Scott about the bloody orgies of piety known as the Crusades, the camera pulls back from the tumult of battle. Perched on high, as if assuming the view of a passing bird or some divine being, the camera looks down on a medieval scene that condenses the barbarism that has consumed the previous two hours of screen time – the impaled flesh, the crushed bone, the hollow and inflamed invocations of faith.
“Kingdom of Heaven” is an ostensibly fair-minded, even-handed account of one of the least fair-minded, even-handed chapters in human history, during which European Christians descended on the Middle East for more than 200 years. (emphasis added)
Chances are, most people who read this will not have a clue that the Crusades were defensive, and undertaken after the steady expansion of Islam by the sword over four hundred years (by the late 12th century). It is fascinating to see the moral equivalence afforded both sides, at least in this review. Not having seen the movie, I can’t comment on it beyond noting that if it thus annoyed the reliably anti-Christian Times, there must be some good about it.
| technorati tag | Christianity|