Cross Vs. Crescent: Or, Stupid is as Stupid Does

Cross V. Crescent The name, Roland, popped into my mind a week ago and has not left me for more than a few minutes, since. The trigger was rather benign; it was the name of a waiter in a French restaurant, far from the central heroic character in the Chanson de Geste, "Song of Roland," which we all should have read in our youth about the French hero, Roland. However, there are a few points that we may have forgotten in the ensuing decades. The epic is credited to the enigmatic figure, Turoldus, similar to Homer, in the sense that no one knows if he wrote, narrated or simply copied out the "Chanson de Roland.” The underlying theme revolves around treason and revenge, and is as much about Charlemagne as it is about Roland (in the epic, the beloved and trusted nephew of Charlemagne). Charlemagne, although not the founder of the Carolingian Dynasty (that credit goes to his grandfather, Charles Martel, "Charles the Hammer") - stands out as the most prominent character of medieval French and European history. Charlemagne (c.739-814) was reputed to have been born in Aix-la-Chapelle, modern Aachen, and was, subsequently, buried there. Not until the creation of the European Union, has Europe been as politically united as it was during his reign. He was the conqueror and unifier of most of Europe: crowned the first "Holy Roman Emperor" on Christmas Day, 800. He stood over six feet tall, had five legitimate wives, however, he left only one legitimate son, Louis the Pious. Even today, he seems larger than life. To the French he was Achilles, Odysseus and Agamemnon, wrapped up into one, and the Chanson de Roland, is only one of many Heroic Carolingian Chansons. About Roland, we know very little. There is a one line reference in the Codex Emiliense of a Roland, Duke of the Marches of Brittany, which attests to a Roland Legend about the time of the writing of the Chanson that bears his name. There is no indication anywhere of a blood connection to Charlemagne. And, that's not the only problem with the Epic: the history is all wrong. The story, incorrectly, depicts Charlemagne as a Christian hero fighting the Saracen infidel. The historical truth is that Charlemagne was asked to come to Spain by a Muslim king to help him fight off a Muslim contender. The Chanson was written sometime after the First Crusade, c.1095-99, but the historic battle, immortalized in the Chanson, actually took place on August 15, 778. The villains of the Chanson who slaughtered Roland and the rest of Charlemagne's rear guard at the Gate of Spain, "Roncevaux," were in reality Basque brigands who saw their moment of opportunity by snatching the lightly guarded baggage train, and not the Saracens (Muslims). Here, the author took poetic and historical license and skewed the facts to conform with France's contemporary enemy 300 years later. The world was a little different in those days. People couldn't just google their facts. Still, today, we find people who can access the truth if they wanted, but prefer to forego their intellect for the pleasure (I think that's what it is) of simply hating. It's an oft repeated human interposition: emotion over intellect. When we look around, we find that people haven't changed much over the 5000+ years of recorded history. Okay Perez, what's your point? I was afraid that I would have to come to this. The Chanson de Roland is an epic tale about a private war, set within a national war and the national war, again, within the World War of Cross v. Crescent. That was a thousand years ago. Now, I don't want to push the point of troubled and unresolved history repeating itself, but aren't there some modern parallels, here? If we take George W.'s statement at the beginning of March 2003, that he held a very private hatred for the, then Iraqi, President, So Damn Insane (I think it had a little to do with So Damn trying to kill Papa George), we have had the private war. The Iraq War is the national war, and, The War on Terrorism: the continuing World War between the Cross and the Crescent. Am I the only person on the planet that feels that something is very wrong, somewhere? Ever since 1991, when I began to speak out on what I thought was a dangerous trend vis-à-vis our relations with the Muslim world, through three successive, presidential administrations, I have felt like the lone voice in the wilderness or, better stated in the Chanson: "Dieu! Que le son du cor est triste au fond des bois!" As I see the problem, there are two possible solutions: the first, unreasonable to me, but not to many, is to sterilize the world of the Muslim menace: to annihilate Islam once and for all, never mind that it's unthinkable, it's stupid. Even, to continue affairs, in this way for another thousand years is impractical and unrealistic. The other possible solution is to introduce the Koran and Islamic culture to students at an early age; thus depriving them of the ignorance that has plagued their progenitors. Not a bad idea, n’est-ce pas? The problem is that too many folks in the West believe that if our children study Islam, they might become infected with it. God forbid, they might even think it superior to our Christian/Judaic culture. I heard of a case not too far back about some freshman students in either Virginia or North Carolina sued their college because the core curriculum required that they study Islamic Culture and religion and, I think they won their case. Those brilliant lights are destined to be the political leaders of tomorrow…God forbid! I've tried to look at the basic rules of Islam to see what makes it such an insidious religion and with all respect this is what I have found. 1. To be honest and modest in all dealings and behaviors. (That finishes me at the jump). 2. To be unquestionably loyal to the Islamic community. (Well, I can be loyal, but I always need to ask the questions: Why? And, do I really have to?) 3. To abstain from pork and alcohol at all times. (I see real problems, here. I can stop eating pig, but what about all those poor people who would lose their jobs in the Wine and Spirits industry? Thought that I was going to say something else?) 4. To wash and pray facing Mecca five times a day. (Gee, would I have to really do that? The washing part, I think I can do, however, sometimes I don't even know which way is the Bronx). 5. To contribute to the support of the poor and needy. (Really? All of them? Can't they just all go to work, by Jove?). 6. To fast during daylight hours for one month each year. (Again, I'm finished. Question: can you cheat a little?) 7. To make a pilgrimage to Mecca and visit the Ka'ba at least once in a lifetime. (Okay, that's really it. I'm really out of this deal. I'm a Senior Citizen, and so far I've managed not to visit Disneyland and Disney World, forget the Washington Monument. I'm just not the traveling type. You've read the Koran, and have found it littered with anti-Jewish rantings? Listen, I've lived in, or visited 49 States; in those States in every school, college, university, occupation and social gathering, I have heard anti-Semitic rantings and ravings. Recently, it has become more fashionable to disparage the Semitic cousins of the Jews, the Arabs. So, who are the true hypocrites? I never, except for once, ever heard an anti-Puerto Rican epithet... to my face... while I was still in the room, that is. No one has ever said that we are not all in need of some spiritual healing; this applies to Arab as well as non-Arab. The solution, as I see it, begins with the factor of one: ourselves. The most perplexing thing, to me, however, is that I haven't seen one word in the Koran about oil. So, please someone take the time and explain to me: What exactly does Islam have to do with OIL? Szia, From Budapest -END IT-