New Valpo Team Name Ideas

[Just Sayin]

Sports Teams Should Keep Their Crusaders
Changing mascots based on inaccurate history is foolhardy, especially when a university does it

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/in-defense-of-the-crusader-mascot

Controversy concerning sports mascots has been raging in our culture, with the latest example coming to us from Valparaiso, Indiana. Many groups have found certain mascots offensive due to pejorative racial or ethnic epithets, and the clamor to change these mascots to something more palatable to modern sensibilities has been growing.

This campaign has taken aim not only at professional sports franchises—the National Football League's Washington Redskins, for example, changed its name last summer to the Washington Football Team—but also colleges and universities. In 2012, the University of North Dakota changed its name and mascot from the Fighting Sioux to the Fighting Hawks after an acrimonious process involving an official Nickname Committee and a period of time when the university's sports teams were simply known as "North Dakota."

The movement to change perceived offensive and derogatory mascots and nicknames includes campaigns targeted at the Christian past—most specifically, the use of the name Crusader. Under the influence of political correctness and a desire to be "tolerant" and "inclusive," some colleges and universities are changing their Crusader mascots so as not to offend Muslim, Jewish, and even secular students, alumni, and benefactors. Valparaiso University, whose Crusaders will now be called the Beacons, is reacting to claims that "groups such as the Ku Klux Klan began using the words and symbols of the Crusades."

....An argument can be made for changing mascots and nicknames based on derogatory terms for a group of people, but doing so based on inaccurate history, especially by an institution of higher learning, is foolhardy. The decision by Valparaiso University (and others) to change their generations-old nickname highlights the need for an accurate understanding of the Crusades—a need that is imperative in our modern world.

Spot on.

[vu72]

https://www.nwitimes.com/sports/college/valparaiso-university/paul-oren-history-shows-beacons-will-catch-on-as-valparaiso-mascot-while-others-cling-to/article_68951eea-5465-5b6f-a6af-75fd853ccb4d.html#tracking-source=home-top-story-1

Great article.  Interesting how the current athletes have quickly accepted the Beacons, particularly the women--both Volleyball and Soccer have posted them cheering on the new mascot name.  Perhaps--and its only a guess of course--the name Crusader was less popular with the women, or at least less relatable, as it really was a bunch of males assaulting the Holy Land.  Just a guess.

[VU2014]

Check this out. I really like this purposed logo compared to the ones the Admin put together. This is what a small Graphic Designer was able to put together quickly and it's light years better, imo.

Let the admin know your opinion! I know the Athletics Department reads this board! Make your opinions known!

https://twitter.com/brydfly/status/1426578137811496961?s=21

[usc4valpo]

The V with the chapel is awesome, better than the cheap one on the right

[JBC1824]

It's a lot better. Wouldn't mind it as a secondary logo. I still think we should just stick with the shield as the primary at this point -- which is saying something because I really don't care for the shield all that much.

I really used to like the cartoonish crusader logo that looked somewhat similar to Notre Dame's fighting Irish logo.

[swiftmutiny]

If we're going to be the Beacons, the Chapel V design concept is one I could get behind. It's a much better representation of the Beacons nickname and of the university as a whole. Well done to the designer.

[VUSERF]

This chapel/lantern logo is fantastic. I want so badly to amplify this idea and this graphic designer to the admin. But as someone not involved in social media I am not sure how to draw attention to this.

Is the email address regarding the mascot change still a way to reach out to the admin?

[JD24]

I'm all in on the chapel/lantern/V logo.

[valpo95]

https://www.nwitimes.com/sports/college/valparaiso-university/paul-oren-history-shows-beacons-will-catch-on-as-valparaiso-mascot-while-others-cling-to/article_68951eea-5465-5b6f-a6af-75fd853ccb4d.html#tracking-source=home-top-story-1

Most of the time, I greatly admire Paul Oren's writing, yet this one is off the mark. Sure, there will be some alumni and fans who are upset about the loss of the Crusader mascot, yet I don't see a  "Crusader vs. Beacons" outrage that seems to be the premise of this article.

There are two main issues: First, the University administration was incredibly ham-fisted in the removal of the Crusader mascot, including the poor message from the interim President and SBP. As I have posted elsewhere, there was no affirmation of the past - the thousands of athletes, alumni and fans who cheered for Crusader sports. This was a missed opportunity to bring the University together in affirming the positive accomplishments of our university community. Second, the response to the name Beacons seems to be a collective "meh" - the name is bland and inoffensive. Yet the new lighthouse logo is poor.

What do these have in common? The answer is that the university administration has made and continues to make unforced errors. They have tried to do things on the cheap - they didn't think through the messaging in removing the old mascot and didn't come up with a message that would help bring the university together. They apparently went in-house to a junior designer for the new lighthouse logo, then rolled it out with little testing. Unless the new logos were a slam dunk (which they clearly are not), why not just use the nice-looking and professional V-Shield logo for sports teams and introduce other possible artwork over time? 

[valpo64]

Forget your ideas...this Administration has no clue of how to get this job done.  I hope at least the Athletic Dept and Mark L will avoid the "Beacon" name and these horrible attempts at logos as much as possible.  Let's just stick with the Shield and the name "Valpo".  As far as the women's teams are concerned, if they like the new thing they can call themselves the "Beaconesses".

[valpolaw]

Valparaiso Beacons just sounds terrible in itself.  This whole thing still seems like a made up joke.  It seems like someone who wanted the worst for VU came up with the "Beacon" nickname and atrocious logos.  Someone who didn't vet anything or run it by others.  The fact that a group of people decided that was the best nickname and logos for a university just blows my mind.  The social media criticism has been endless from what I've seen and very few people like it.  Even on the survey in this forum, not a single person picked "Beacons".  The top choice here was Dunehawks and that was the one that made the most sense.  The university's administration should be ashamed of themselves for what they've done.  They ran the law school into the ground and this recent nickname/logo decision seems to be following that path as well. 

[vuny98]

I'm a bit late to the party here as I was on vacation all week.

Beacons - Really bad name
Logo - Made a bad name worse

I want to see the survey results that went out to Alumni with the final list of mascot choices. I want to see that there was some thought put into this name with some backing that it would be accepted by the fan base. I was a defender of the President getting the final say in what name is chosen, but for the very reason that if it goes bad we know who to blame. We know who to blame now.

And I remember a few weeks back hearing that the name had been chosen but were waiting to roll out until they were able to have all the logo's and graphics complete. Well that was a joke based on what we are now hearing that a Junior graphic designer won a contest.

I will still root for VALPO. I will not refer to them as the B word in the near future nor will I buy any merchandise with that logo or that name. I'm sure in time we will all go through the 5 stages of grief and  the name will be accepted and it wont be a big deal anymore. But damn-it I am in the Anger phase right now.

[mp91]

Sports Teams Should Keep Their Crusaders
Changing mascots based on inaccurate history is foolhardy, especially when a university does it

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/in-defense-of-the-crusader-mascot

Controversy concerning sports mascots has been raging in our culture, with the latest example coming to us from Valparaiso, Indiana. Many groups have found certain mascots offensive due to pejorative racial or ethnic epithets, and the clamor to change these mascots to something more palatable to modern sensibilities has been growing.

This campaign has taken aim not only at professional sports franchises—the National Football League's Washington Redskins, for example, changed its name last summer to the Washington Football Team—but also colleges and universities. In 2012, the University of North Dakota changed its name and mascot from the Fighting Sioux to the Fighting Hawks after an acrimonious process involving an official Nickname Committee and a period of time when the university's sports teams were simply known as "North Dakota."

The movement to change perceived offensive and derogatory mascots and nicknames includes campaigns targeted at the Christian past—most specifically, the use of the name Crusader. Under the influence of political correctness and a desire to be "tolerant" and "inclusive," some colleges and universities are changing their Crusader mascots so as not to offend Muslim, Jewish, and even secular students, alumni, and benefactors. Valparaiso University, whose Crusaders will now be called the Beacons, is reacting to claims that "groups such as the Ku Klux Klan began using the words and symbols of the Crusades."

....An argument can be made for changing mascots and nicknames based on derogatory terms for a group of people, but doing so based on inaccurate history, especially by an institution of higher learning, is foolhardy. The decision by Valparaiso University (and others) to change their generations-old nickname highlights the need for an accurate understanding of the Crusades—a need that is imperative in our modern world.

Spot on.

LOL. What inaccurate history? There have been thousands of books written about the Crusades. The facts are pretty well established. History is history. Facts are facts. Plain and simple. Plus, of course the Catholic Church is going to be upset about the name change. It's a piece of history they would most certainly like to forget.

To be honest, not a fan of the chapel logo. I think we can do better

[Just Sayin]

What inaccurate history?  Read the article.

[FWalum]

The challenge coin for the VU Air Force ROTC. I think this would be better than the lighthouse.

[mp91]

What inaccurate history?  Read the article.

I did read it. And, reading it made it even more laughable. Their entire analysis was based on refuting claims from one book. But, the history is out there, in many forms. You have to keep the source in mind as well. They have a clear agenda, so you have to take their sentiment with a grain of salt. Any idea that the Crusades were not religious wars is just ignoring the facts.

You can read these, which detail the events. And you will see there is nothing "inaccurate" about the Crusades in Valpo's analysis.

https://www.history.com/topics/middle-ages/crusades

https://www.britannica.com/event/Crusades

https://time.com/5696546/far-right-history-crusades/

[Just Sayin]

https://shop.catholic.com/the-real-story-of-the-crusades/

Have you heard the story about the Crusades?

You know, the one about how medieval Europe's greedy kings and intolerant popes launched bloody wars of conquest on the peaceful and enlightened Muslims?

Of course you have. Today's media, movies, and academic elites—always looking for ways to bash the Church—never tire of telling it. Even many Catholics would prefer to sweep under the rug what they assume to be a dark and embarrassing period of our history.

There's only one problem with this story: It's totally false.

In The Real Story of the Crusades, historian Steve Weidenkopf replaces the prevailing anti-Catholic narrative with a factual account of Christendom's struggle to liberate and defend the Holy Land. In the process he cuts through common lies, myths, and exaggerations, such as:

The Crusades were unprovoked attacks on a peaceful, superior culture.
The true motive behind the Crusades was not piety but avarice.
Crusading soldiers were cruel anti-Semites and racists.
Muslim terrorism is a result of—and even justified by—long memories of what the Crusaders did centuries ago.

Read his book!

The Crusades were a defensive response to Muslim (Ottoman) aggression. And this war was just.

The Real Story of the First Crusade
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/the-real-story-of-the-first-crusade

The story of how the First Crusade succeeded is filled with personal heroics, sacrifice, and miraculous interventions throughout the journey. The real story has been obscured by the sensationalism and "Hollywood history" of our time, and the story should be set straight.

Those who entered the city in that summer of 1099 endured three years of battle, starvation, and disease in order to complete their armed pilgrimage at the Holy Sepulchre of the Lord. Eighty percent of their brothers in arms who marched from Europe with them were dead, missing, or had deserted. Those few who remained succeeded in accomplishing the task given to them by Pope Urban II (r. 1088-1099) in the fall of 1095: the liberation of Jerusalem.

The warriors of the First Crusade left the comfort of their homes and loved ones at the urging of Urban II. In November 1095, Urban preached the First Crusade at a Church council at Clermont. He called upon the warriors of Christendom to liberate the Holy Sepulchre of the Lord in Jerusalem and to stop the persecution of Holy Land Christians and Muslim harassment of Christian pilgrims from the West. Urban then traveled throughout France exhorting warriors to take the cross and participate in the armed pilgrimage.

Were the Crusades Just Wars?

The Crusades were born from the violent aggression of Islam, which had conquered ancient Christian territory in the Holy Land and North Africa and established a large foothold in Europe within a century of Muhammad's death in the early seventh century.

Additional Christian territory was stolen by Islamic conquerors in the late eleventh century when the Seljuk Turks, a nomadic peoples from the Asian steppe who converted to Sunni Islam, invaded Anatolia (modern-day Turkey), a very important province of the Byzantine Empire. Emperor Romanus IV Diogenes (r. 1068-1071) gathered a mixed force of imperial troops and mercenaries in an attempt to stop the Seljuk advance, but they were defeated at the Battle of Manzikert in 1071. Their victory allowed the Seljuks to consolidate their power in Anatolia, establishing it as the Sultanate of Rum with its capital in the ancient Christian city of Nicaea, site of the first ecumenical council in 325 and within striking distance of Constantinople.

And so, in the first place, the Crusades were launched to recover these conquered Christian territories and return them to the patrimony of Christ, which is one of the criteria for a legitimate exercise of violence.


Another justification for war is self-defense and/or defense of innocents threatened with violence. The Crusades were also a response to the severe persecution of indigenous Christians living in the occupied territories, whose lives were severely restricted and who suffered constant pressure to convert to Islam. As an example, in the early eleventh century, Christians living in the Fatimid caliphate were subject to persecution during the reign of al-Hakim, who ordered them to wear identifying black turbans and a large cross in public. He also ordered the destruction of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem, originally built by Constantine and St. Helena in the fourth century.[2]

Christian pilgrims were also subjected to harassment and violence, which demanded a defensive response from Christendom. The Seljuks, who were known for their brutality, threatened pilgrims to the holy sites in Palestine. As an example, a group of 12,000 German pilgrims led by Bishop Günther of Bamberg in 1065 was massacred by the Seljuks on Good Friday, only two days' march from Jerusalem.

The invasion of Christian territory, Muslim persecution of native Christians and pilgrims, plus the threat posed to the Christian Byzantine Empire, were all legitimate reasons to engage in defensive warfare and, and Bl. Pope Urban II cited them as justification for the First Crusade. And so in 1095, at the Council of Clermont, the pope preached an armed pilgrimage to recover the lost Christian territory of the East and specifically the Holy City of Jerusalem.

Urban viewed the Crusade as a pilgrimage, the aim of which was not to conquer but to  visit the place of pilgrimage and then return home. Later popes maintained the understanding of the Crusades as just, defensive wars with the central goal of the recovery of ancient Christian territory. Heroic men and women of faith, rooted in love of Christ and neighbor, undertook the Crusades as acts of self-defense and recovery of stolen property. This is the proper understanding of these important events in Church history.

The only thing laughable is your complete ignorance of history.

[valpo64]

The problem is 99% of the public has no idea of the past history and what it even means.  A university nickname/mascot should reflect a fanciful name referring to athletic teams for the most part.  It should not reflect the thoughts and ideas of some do-gooders, arrogant scholars and poor me minority groups who get offended at any and everything.  I also think these groups know little or nothing about public relations, athletics and what effect athletics have on a university's image, popularity and familiarity.

In general, the public could care less about the chapel, being "beacons" of light in the world of religion or academics, etc.  The nickname has no connection  to the public's view or feelings toward our University.  Just look at other schools' nicknames and try to relate them to the particular school:  Concordia U (Chicago) "Cougars",  Northwestern 'Wildcats", Notre Dame "Fighting Irish"  ,  Loyola(Chicago) "Ramblers",  Rutgers "Scarlet Knights", Vanderbilt "Commodores", and the list goes on.  Oh yes, and then there are the "Beacons".

[JBC1824]

IMO....

When judging by their original stated purpose at the Council or Claremont, the crusades were indeed justified.

They were not justified in many aspects of how they were carried out and some of the associated fall out.

It is important not to judge people who lived 1,000 years ago by today's standards of behavior. But it would nonetheless be inappropriate to ignore the cruel and unjustifiably violent acts committed by many crusaders while in general terms commemorating the example of "the crusader" as something laudable, even implicitly. The legacy of crusades should be, and will forever be tainted.

However, the term "crusade" has evolved very much over the past millennium. It has come to mean more than the imperfect example set by the Christian warrior 1,000 years ago. For example, one might embark on a "crusade" for justice, truth, etc. And this evolution in the word's meaning is evidently reflected in the present day definition of the word.

By any reasonable estimation, Valpo would have been justified in retaining "The Crusaders" as the nickname, much in the same vein as College of the Holy Cross.

Holy Cross in fact cited the present day meaning of the word "crusade" when detailing the school's decision to ultimately keep its nickname, after a change was considered. The college decided to switch its logo from a knight to a shield, though.

I must really credit Holy Cross for its nuanced approach. It stood by the crusader nickname and also successfully distanced itself from any direct connotations with the crusades themselves.

It would seem they found the right balance. And compared to Valpo, there was no uproar whatsoever over these small changes amongst Holy Cross' students and alumni.

Holy Cross is also located in an extremely liberal city and state, Worcester, MA. If the college could get away with the Crusader nickname there -- and it most certainly has -- I can't see any reason why Valpo couldn't do so in IN.

The situation with Holy Cross truly could not have provided a better road map for navigating this same issue. Valpo even had the advantage over Holy Cross in that it had already been featuring the now very familiar shield/flame logo for some years.

Why Valpo did not choose to follow Holy Cross' example is a question worth asking.


On an unrelated note, the forum having added the beacon imagery at the top almost seems like an intentional troll job. It just looks so dumb lol. While I do hate the logo, it does make me laugh.

[NativeCheesehead]

There is some irony in saying we can't judge people 1,000 years ago on today's standards when many of us, myself included, construct our values and belief system based on a 2,000 year old book.

[Chitwood]

@Just Sayin –

First, whether a war is justified is largely based on your perspective (let's remember your source is the Catholic Church which is not exactly an unbiased source). Secondly, even if it was justified (and I believe that issue can be validly argued), that is irrelevant to the point.

Whether justified or not, the Crusades resulted in mass casualties of people of different religions (and Christians who did not "follow" along). That's a fact. Whether justified to start or not, the Crusades resulted in suppression of thought. That's a fact. How the battle started is irrelevant. You keep saying people are ignorant of history, but you are the one overlooking the details.

Today, everyone seems to live in an echo-chamber, where people try to bend the truth to their particular opinion. But, history is carved in stone. We know what happened. Nonetheless, history is complicated. It's not cut and dry, it's often nuanced. It's possible for something to be both justified and harmful at the same time. But, that doesn't mean we have to name a school mascot after it. Why pick a controversial name when other universities have such innocuous mascots? Why keep a name that is surrounded by negative connotations? We know a great deal of students, administrators, and alumni were aware of the problems with the name. It's perfectly fine if you disagree, but trying to rewrite history and call historical events inaccurate is a bizarre decision.

[mp91]

https://shop.catholic.com/the-real-story-of-the-crusades/

Have you heard the story about the Crusades?

You know, the one about how medieval Europe's greedy kings and intolerant popes launched bloody wars of conquest on the peaceful and enlightened Muslims?

Of course you have. Today's media, movies, and academic elites—always looking for ways to bash the Church—never tire of telling it. Even many Catholics would prefer to sweep under the rug what they assume to be a dark and embarrassing period of our history.

There's only one problem with this story: It's totally false.

In The Real Story of the Crusades, historian Steve Weidenkopf replaces the prevailing anti-Catholic narrative with a factual account of Christendom's struggle to liberate and defend the Holy Land. In the process he cuts through common lies, myths, and exaggerations, such as:

The Crusades were unprovoked attacks on a peaceful, superior culture.
The true motive behind the Crusades was not piety but avarice.
Crusading soldiers were cruel anti-Semites and racists.
Muslim terrorism is a result of—and even justified by—long memories of what the Crusaders did centuries ago.

Read his book!

The Crusades were a defensive response to Muslim (Ottoman) aggression. And this war was just.

The Real Story of the First Crusade
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/the-real-story-of-the-first-crusade

The story of how the First Crusade succeeded is filled with personal heroics, sacrifice, and miraculous interventions throughout the journey. The real story has been obscured by the sensationalism and "Hollywood history" of our time, and the story should be set straight.

Those who entered the city in that summer of 1099 endured three years of battle, starvation, and disease in order to complete their armed pilgrimage at the Holy Sepulchre of the Lord. Eighty percent of their brothers in arms who marched from Europe with them were dead, missing, or had deserted. Those few who remained succeeded in accomplishing the task given to them by Pope Urban II (r. 1088-1099) in the fall of 1095: the liberation of Jerusalem.

The warriors of the First Crusade left the comfort of their homes and loved ones at the urging of Urban II. In November 1095, Urban preached the First Crusade at a Church council at Clermont. He called upon the warriors of Christendom to liberate the Holy Sepulchre of the Lord in Jerusalem and to stop the persecution of Holy Land Christians and Muslim harassment of Christian pilgrims from the West. Urban then traveled throughout France exhorting warriors to take the cross and participate in the armed pilgrimage.

Were the Crusades Just Wars?

The Crusades were born from the violent aggression of Islam, which had conquered ancient Christian territory in the Holy Land and North Africa and established a large foothold in Europe within a century of Muhammad's death in the early seventh century.

Additional Christian territory was stolen by Islamic conquerors in the late eleventh century when the Seljuk Turks, a nomadic peoples from the Asian steppe who converted to Sunni Islam, invaded Anatolia (modern-day Turkey), a very important province of the Byzantine Empire. Emperor Romanus IV Diogenes (r. 1068-1071) gathered a mixed force of imperial troops and mercenaries in an attempt to stop the Seljuk advance, but they were defeated at the Battle of Manzikert in 1071. Their victory allowed the Seljuks to consolidate their power in Anatolia, establishing it as the Sultanate of Rum with its capital in the ancient Christian city of Nicaea, site of the first ecumenical council in 325 and within striking distance of Constantinople.

And so, in the first place, the Crusades were launched to recover these conquered Christian territories and return them to the patrimony of Christ, which is one of the criteria for a legitimate exercise of violence.


Another justification for war is self-defense and/or defense of innocents threatened with violence. The Crusades were also a response to the severe persecution of indigenous Christians living in the occupied territories, whose lives were severely restricted and who suffered constant pressure to convert to Islam. As an example, in the early eleventh century, Christians living in the Fatimid caliphate were subject to persecution during the reign of al-Hakim, who ordered them to wear identifying black turbans and a large cross in public. He also ordered the destruction of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem, originally built by Constantine and St. Helena in the fourth century.[2]

Christian pilgrims were also subjected to harassment and violence, which demanded a defensive response from Christendom. The Seljuks, who were known for their brutality, threatened pilgrims to the holy sites in Palestine. As an example, a group of 12,000 German pilgrims led by Bishop Günther of Bamberg in 1065 was massacred by the Seljuks on Good Friday, only two days' march from Jerusalem.

The invasion of Christian territory, Muslim persecution of native Christians and pilgrims, plus the threat posed to the Christian Byzantine Empire, were all legitimate reasons to engage in defensive warfare and, and Bl. Pope Urban II cited them as justification for the First Crusade. And so in 1095, at the Council of Clermont, the pope preached an armed pilgrimage to recover the lost Christian territory of the East and specifically the Holy City of Jerusalem.

Urban viewed the Crusade as a pilgrimage, the aim of which was not to conquer but to  visit the place of pilgrimage and then return home. Later popes maintained the understanding of the Crusades as just, defensive wars with the central goal of the recovery of ancient Christian territory. Heroic men and women of faith, rooted in love of Christ and neighbor, undertook the Crusades as acts of self-defense and recovery of stolen property. This is the proper understanding of these important events in Church history.

The only thing laughable is your complete ignorance of history.

"We massacred a bunch of people but it's okay because they provoked us" is quite an interesting argument to make lmao.

Also pretty funny your source is a book from "shop.Catholic.com". Because that's not a biased opinion at all.

Finally, still didn't answer my question about what is "inaccurate history" about the Crusades. Because all of the paragraphs you pasted, don't refute the whole massacre part of the  history.

[Just Sayin]

The Crusades were a response to hundreds of years of Muslim aggression in historical Christian lands. They did despicable things to innocent people including rape and murder.

So the crusades were simply an act of self defense, thus meeting the criteria of a just war as spelled out in the  Catholic Catechism  (CCC 2258-2317).  Augustine argued that there are just wars only if certain conditions are met. They were met in the Crusades.

If your child was being threatened by someone, possibly even to the point of death, would you be justified in doing whatever you had to do to defend your child, even killing the attacker, if necessary? This, in very simplified form, illustrates the concept of a just war. G. Osborne

The historical backdrop to the Crusades provides some eye-opening insight for us. Prior to 600 AD, North Africa, Egypt, Pales­tine, Syria, Asia Minor, Spain, France, Italy, and various Mediterranean islands were all Chris­t­ian lands. But trouble begins in the early 600s, as Muslim aggression, led by its founder Muhammad, began to sweep across the ancient world, beginning with the Arabian Peninsula.

By 638 Jerusalem was captured as Muslims flooded into the Holy Land, conquering the most sacred places in Christianity and forcing many Christians to either convert, flee, or endure heavy taxation, persecution, enslavement, and even death.

Crusade expert Dr. Paul Crawford writes that "By A.D. 732 ... Chris­tians had lost Egypt, Pales­tine, Syria, North Africa, Spain, most of Asia Minor, and south­ern France. Italy ... (was) under threat and the (Mediterranean) islands would come under Mus­lim rule in the next cen­tury. The Chris­t­ian com­mu­ni­ties of Ara­bia were entirely destroyed ... Those in Per­sia were under severe pres­sure. Two-thirds of the for­merly Roman Chris­t­ian world was now ruled by Mus­lims."

This wave of aggression continued, as Islamic armies launched attacks throughout the Mediterranean and Europe, even attacking Rome in 846. In 1009, things escalated yet again, as Muslim caliph/leader Al-Hakim destroyed the Holy Sepulchre and countless other sacred Holy Land sites. Christian persecution also intensified, including attacks on pilgrims journeying to the Holy Land. 1065 saw the massacre of thousands of German pilgrims (some historians estimate 12,000 killed) on Good Friday, just two days from Jerusalem.

Meanwhile, Seljuk Turks (non-Arab Muslims) were advancing into the heart of eastern Christianity as well, within striking distance of the great Byzantine Christian city of Constantinople. To add insult, Nicaea (think Nicaean Creed) became the invaders' capital, and Antioch also fell in 1084. By 1092 not one of the great Christian cities of Asia remained in Christian hands. Graham Osborne

War is ugly. Some Crusaders acted in an unsanctioned manner which was condemned by the church and later Popes apologized not for the purpose and execution of the Crusades, but for the acts of some Christians who acted in unsanctioned ways including the slaughter of some innocents.

Pope John Paul

For the Crusaders' Sack of Constantinople in 1204. To the Patriarch of Constantinople he said "Some memories are especially painful, and some events of the distant past have left deep wounds in the minds and hearts of people to this day. I am thinking of the disastrous sack of the imperial city of Constantinople, which was for so long the bastion of Christianity in the East. It is tragic that the assailants, who had set out to secure free access for Christians to the Holy Land, turned against their own brothers in the faith. The fact that they were Latin Christians fills Catholics with deep regret. How can we fail to see here the mysterium iniquitatis at work in the human heart?".

Such actions are deeply saddening, and can't be defended on any level. But the instances of Crusaders failing to act according to Christian principles do not invalidate the Crusades themselves or the noble intentions they were called under: "Greater love than this no man hath, that a man lay down his life for his friends" (Jn 15:13).Osborne

Modern Aftermath of Crusades
https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/modern-aftermath-of-the-crusades-1767

Catholic History is best understood by the careful record keepers and historians who were Catholics, not those who are biased against Catholicsm.


This is my last word on this subject.

[IrishDawg]

According to my own recorded history, I have never been wrong, and am admired by all who are not inherently evil. 

No other sources should be examined, because they are so blinded by their own bias, they clearly are not able to document events truthfully.

Honestly the Beacon nickname isn't that bad, and I don't think a mascot is necessary, but the school does need to get a handle on the logo for branding.

[mp91]

The Crusades were a response to hundreds of years of Muslim aggression in historical Christian lands. They did despicable things to innocent people including rape and murder.

So the crusades were simply an act of self defense, thus meeting the criteria of a just war as spelled out in the  Catholic Catechism  (CCC 2258-2317).  Augustine argued that there are just wars only if certain conditions are met. They were met in the Crusades.

If your child was being threatened by someone, possibly even to the point of death, would you be justified in doing whatever you had to do to defend your child, even killing the attacker, if necessary? This, in very simplified form, illustrates the concept of a just war. G. Osborne

The historical backdrop to the Crusades provides some eye-opening insight for us. Prior to 600 AD, North Africa, Egypt, Pales­tine, Syria, Asia Minor, Spain, France, Italy, and various Mediterranean islands were all Chris­t­ian lands. But trouble begins in the early 600s, as Muslim aggression, led by its founder Muhammad, began to sweep across the ancient world, beginning with the Arabian Peninsula.

By 638 Jerusalem was captured as Muslims flooded into the Holy Land, conquering the most sacred places in Christianity and forcing many Christians to either convert, flee, or endure heavy taxation, persecution, enslavement, and even death.

Crusade expert Dr. Paul Crawford writes that "By A.D. 732 ... Chris­tians had lost Egypt, Pales­tine, Syria, North Africa, Spain, most of Asia Minor, and south­ern France. Italy ... (was) under threat and the (Mediterranean) islands would come under Mus­lim rule in the next cen­tury. The Chris­t­ian com­mu­ni­ties of Ara­bia were entirely destroyed ... Those in Per­sia were under severe pres­sure. Two-thirds of the for­merly Roman Chris­t­ian world was now ruled by Mus­lims."

This wave of aggression continued, as Islamic armies launched attacks throughout the Mediterranean and Europe, even attacking Rome in 846. In 1009, things escalated yet again, as Muslim caliph/leader Al-Hakim destroyed the Holy Sepulchre and countless other sacred Holy Land sites. Christian persecution also intensified, including attacks on pilgrims journeying to the Holy Land. 1065 saw the massacre of thousands of German pilgrims (some historians estimate 12,000 killed) on Good Friday, just two days from Jerusalem.

Meanwhile, Seljuk Turks (non-Arab Muslims) were advancing into the heart of eastern Christianity as well, within striking distance of the great Byzantine Christian city of Constantinople. To add insult, Nicaea (think Nicaean Creed) became the invaders' capital, and Antioch also fell in 1084. By 1092 not one of the great Christian cities of Asia remained in Christian hands. Graham Osborne

War is ugly. Some Crusaders acted in an unsanctioned manner which was condemned by the church and later Popes apologized not for the purpose and execution of the Crusades, but for the acts of some Christians who acted in unsanctioned ways including the slaughter of some innocents.

Pope John Paul

For the Crusaders' Sack of Constantinople in 1204. To the Patriarch of Constantinople he said "Some memories are especially painful, and some events of the distant past have left deep wounds in the minds and hearts of people to this day. I am thinking of the disastrous sack of the imperial city of Constantinople, which was for so long the bastion of Christianity in the East. It is tragic that the assailants, who had set out to secure free access for Christians to the Holy Land, turned against their own brothers in the faith. The fact that they were Latin Christians fills Catholics with deep regret. How can we fail to see here the mysterium iniquitatis at work in the human heart?".

Such actions are deeply saddening, and can't be defended on any level. But the instances of Crusaders failing to act according to Christian principles do not invalidate the Crusades themselves or the noble intentions they were called under: "Greater love than this no man hath, that a man lay down his life for his friends" (Jn 15:13).Osborne

Modern Aftermath of Crusades
https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/modern-aftermath-of-the-crusades-1767

Catholic History is best understood by the careful record keepers and historians who were Catholics, not those who are biased against Catholicsm.


This is my last word on this subject.

Again, you're making sweeping generalizations based on limited facts. No one is arguing what caused the war (and you proved my point about whether a war is justified or not is based on your perspective, given the fact that you used a Catholic definition of "just wars. And, most historians are not biased against Catholics. So I'm not really sure what you're talking about in that regard). Nonetheless, what's important, and the debate regarding the Crusader moniker, is more focused on what happened during the war (not how it started, or why).

If you want to get into the history, we can. We can talk about the Crusade's massacres of Jewish people in the Rhineland. Or, how Tancred vowed to protect the innocent bystanders when Jerusalem fell and; yet, the Armed Forces broke those orders of protection and savagely killed scores of women and children. We can talk about the looting of Constantinople. These actions don't seem to be very "holy" to me. You even say yourself "war is ugly," so why would we keep a name that is synonymous with ugly actions? We know it's synonymous with the ugly because of the response from students, alumni, as well as several other universities that have taken similar actions. So, essentially, you're making our point.

But, let's move on and get back to nicknames and logos. If people haven't bothered to learn the history by now, they probably never will. Plus, after all, whether you like it or not, the Crusader name is long gone. The quicker we move on, the better.