How good is Montsegur on a scale 1-10?

  • Total voters


Enterprise-class aircraft carrier
Staff member
I was reading the Commentary on Montségur again today, and I was looking at the last paragraph you put in, Maverick, and I disagree with you about it. The song to me is not talking about a "Clansman" style quest for freedom. It's about religious hypocrisy. That the Pope talks about enlightenment and the Gentle Christ, but orders his knights to butcher a sect for taking advantage of the God-given (in the Bible anyway) right to make a choice.

These people aren't like William Wallace's Scots in any way. The Scots fought a war against oppression against an age-old enemy. The line "To stand with the Cathars to die and be free" doesn't talk about that to me, it could just as easily be completed "be free from the Catholic religious faux pas".

I'll give you an argument loose cannon [img src=\"style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/biggrin.gif\" style=\"vertical-align:middle\" emoid=\":D\" border=\"0\" alt=\"biggrin.gif\" /] It is easy to judge and criticize institutions, but you have to remember that a creed is usually closed to interpretation. If you are a Christian you believe in Christ and in ONE god. If you don't believe in saints then you are most likely Lutheran, If there is a lot of joy at your service then you're baptist. The splits are for a reason. However, back in the Middle Ages, they were more strict. I don't like people going off criticezing the crusades as a "mistake" or hypocricy on behalf of the church. The crusades were a response to 400 years of muslim invasion. If someone came into your house and raped your wife, beat you up and told you what to do, wouldn't you kick their ass? Sure they were a horrible thing but they it was certainly not a mistake. Vietnam was a mistake, the war with iraq is a mistake, not the crusades.
This sect the song talks about was destroyed for the same reason the Mormons are not considered Christian, they believed in two gods, and Christianity is monotheistic, no two ways about that.

Sure...I can take this up with relish.

The Crusades was religious hypocrisy. The reason for this is because it was started by a man named Pope Gregory 1st (I believe, I'm not looking stuff up right now.). Pope Gregory summoned Christian forces to the attack on the Holy Land by giving the following line (summorized):

"Jesus didn't say don't kill. He said don't kill Christians!"

Altering religion to serve a political purpose is certainly hypocritical. Secondly. The Muslims were certainly invading. However, the call to arms send out by the Catholics suggested that the Muslims butchered every non-Muslim that fell into their hands. Modern historical discoveries tell us THIS IS NOT TRUE. The Muslims were very tolerant of the many Christian and Judean cultures that resided in the Holy Land.

The reason the Crusades started is because the Emperor of the Byzantines (his name escapes me) offered the Pope a lot of money for his aid. Thus the Catholic Church put it out that Islam is a scourge of mankind. The wars between the Byzantines and the Muslims were not religiously based until the Crusades. In fact, the Muslims expanded through mostly pagan areas until the Byzantines invaded them! Only Spain was invaded for no reason, and this was by a different sect of Islam than the ones fighting the Crusades.

When the Crusaders reached the Holy Land, they became that which they were supposedly fighting. The Muslim forces would hole up in various castle fortifications. The Christians would butcher the many people outside the castles. It should be noted that these people resided in lands that were Byzantine until very recently. Thus, the Crusaders killed more Christians and Jews than Muslims. Some estimates suggest that only 25% of the people killed in the various Crusades by the Crusaders were Muslim. Thus, they violated even their own misguided Commandment.

Despite their best efforts, Byzantium fell to the Muslims and the Ottoman Empire was established. This empire HATED Christianity because of the two hundred plus years of solid attacks. Under the lead of Suliman the Magnificant, this Empire would spread as far north as Vienna and as far west as Tunisia, striking at Malta along the way. Suliman's forces committed the first atrocities against the Christians outside of the Moors that we today know of. Not in the 1000s.

Dealing with the Cathars.

No, they weren't Christian. No one ever said they were. They're an Abrahamic faith, however (they use the Old Testament as a Holy Book). Just as Islam is. However, attacking a sect because it's different is against the teachings of the Bible. God gave man free will so that he may be found by men in their own path. Not to mention that once again, the Cathars did NOT attack the Catholics. They were exterminated because they were different. And that does mean hypocrisy.


Both points well made, and well taken. However, you are judging them upon a modern standard. "Hindsight is always 20/20" -mustaine. These new discoveries should be taken in stride. I don't think the Muslims walked into a nation and they were gladly taken in by the natives. That they were "pagan" countries doesn't make them the good guys. First the christians were seen as saviors and the muslims as murderers, now the tables have turned. The truth is both of them weren't the best of people. Power currupts, absolute power currupts absolutely. People will cave in eventually be it a powerful CEO or the Pope, you're human and it will get to you. But that is no excuse to brand an entire people as hypocrites or wrong doers. You think the soldiers in Iraq are evil for following Bush's orders? No, they are doing their job, they are soldiers. Bush is the idiot. in this case the Pope was. As for modern religious hypocrisy The catholics are still making headlines for their "priest problem", the muslims have Osama to worry about and the Jews demand sympathy yet don't dish it out. Christians in Isreal (particularly jerusalem) can't ring bells to call to mass and can't even go to church because being a jewish state they go to work on Sunday. That is why I insist over and over, extremes are not healthy and should never be taken up as the norm or judge an entire period by the fanatism and hypocricy of a few. As for the Popes during the crusades: the first, 1095-1101;
* the second, headed by Louis VII, 1145-47;
* the third, conducted by Philip Augustus and Richard Coeur-de-Lion, 1188-92;
* the fourth, during which Constantinople was taken, 1204;
* the fifth, which included the conquest of Damietta, 1217;
* the sixth, in which Frederick II took part (1228-29); also Thibaud de Champagne and Richard of Cornwall (1239);
* the seventh, led by St. Louis, 1249-52;
* the eighth, also under St. Louis, 1270.--Catholic Encyclopedia.

Thanks for the list of Popes...usually I look this stuff up but last night I was too tired. I don't disagree with any of your points (except perhaps that the Christians were only seen as saviours by the people supporting them, rather than the people they were supposedly saving). Honestly, the only people I ever intended to call hypocrites were the Pope and his Cardinals. The people were uneducated and to a certain extent, brainwashed (similiar to the population of the United States, eh?). I never blamed them for surging after their faith.

I know what you mean, I felt like looking up so many things up as I read your comment, but there is no time. And yes the population of the U.S is mostly uneducated zealots. On the up side this country is finding out that it is getting harder to keep up the charade.

here is some info on the weird mentioning of the templars in the song:

[a href=\'\' target=\'_blank\'][/a]

[!--QuoteBegin-Onhell+Sep 27 2003, 09:27 PM--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(Onhell @ Sep 27 2003, 09:27 PM)[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--] The crusades were a response to 400 years of muslim invasion. If someone came into your house and raped your wife, beat you up and told you what to do, wouldn't you kick their ass? Sure they were a horrible thing but they it was certainly not a mistake. Vietnam was a mistake, the war with iraq is a mistake, not the crusades. [/quote]
So subjective, so fanatic... Please don't "converge" realities as yo think they would fit you.

It is lately the easiest thing to call muslim as soldiers of hatred attacking fanatically without reason or just for futile interests.

As a muslim, (and a muslim who never do religious practices due to freedom I have as a laic citizen of Turkey), I don't recall being offended in my whole lifetime as this thread of yours.

If you feel sorry for invasions, for unjust killings, planned murders, opressions, I want to hear your opinions about Palestinian people, who were thrown out of their lands by Israel and who are not HOMELESS! There is no real Palestin right now! they existed on those lands since the times as back as history dates! but some became Christians, some Jew, some Muslim... And look what's right now! children dying in their father's arms, tanks strolling in streets and terrorising civilians and most recently: being enclosed by a cement wall built by Israel government! (do you remember any walls which became a shame in world history? I know many)

When did NATO interfered with Bosnia Herzegovinia? They waited until thousands of Muslims to be slaughtered in mass by Serbians! (my hands don't stop shaking when writing this, do you happen to have a bosnian friend? Or bosnian roots? Due to our Ottoman history, you cannot imagine how many different culture are living together right now in Turkey) Did you hear the stories they witnessed, from first person objective?

do you know a people called checens? Do you know from what they are suffering from?

Ah no.. We are blinded by Israel-funded Hollywood productions which shows only Jewish Genocide, poor innocent people, oh how they suffered! Yes they suffered, you cannot guess how much tears I shed when I saw deportation museums (deportation: Transfer of Jew people by trains from France to Nazi concentration camps in massin inhuman conditions) and how much I cried afterwards. It's unimaginable, one of the most evil thing happened in history. But that does not justify what they are doing now!!!!! As people who suffered genocide they should have been the first people to know how it is unholy and inhuman to kill someone, your neighbor, your kin.

We are blinded that US saves the world, Nato is the assurance of our freedom, UN is powerful and keeps the peace. Bah! When there's no oil, I saw none of them when there's a problem. When there's oil, I see them attacking innocent people... We keep saying US citizen are ignorant and Bush is a fool, but still don't see what's happening, don't react, don't investigate, don't LEARN. We BELIEVE. As religions wants people to do.

The post above belongs to me but I forgot to log in.

BTW, I am always ready to discuss the fault Muslims, Turks or Ottomans did in history (as far as my knowledge permits). (please note Ottomans and Turks are different notions)

As they were human, they did unjust, shameful things too. Both against forigners, and against their own citizens/believers.

I wish none of them had happened. But we must accept and take lessons from past events, so that we dont repeat same mistakes, cause same pains.

To the guest:

Sirrah, I'd like to defend Onhell are taking his comments out of context, in my belief. Onhell was referring to the historical soldiers of Islam, not todays Muslim population. Reality at the time of the Crusades is not reality now.

The injustices suffered by followers of Mohammed in recent years is just as appalling as the Holocaust. Indeed, one can draw comparisons between Ariel Sharon's policies in Israel and Adolf Hitler's Nuremburg Laws of 1935. I would like to think that our NATO alliance is perhaps not as indifferent as it may seem, however. It should be remembered that many nations have participated in peace keeping in Cyprus, the Middle East, Rwanda, and other nations. Although it is a shame that we waited so long to intervene in the former Yugoslavia, NATO DID intervene.

Genocide is something that has plagued humanity for millenia. Atrocities have been committed in the genocidal terms since the beginning of recorded history. One may include the butchering of the Helvetii and Boii tribes by Julius Caesar in 57-56 BC as an early example. In more recent history both Christians and Muslims have committed genocide attempts, for instance the attempt to raze Malta by Dragut and Mustapha in 1565 AD, as well as events in the Crusades and after.

I am a student of revisionist history. I believe that we must evaluate the events of history from as much of a non-bias standpoint as possible. To claim that the Christians or the Muslims were or are evil forces is erroneous on so many levels. Both sides have their zealots.

It is true that today's popular culture focusses more on the Holocaust than any of the other genocide-related tragedys of the 20th Century. This is because, however, that the Holocaust is simply the largest genocide in history. Indeed, all the genocide attempts of the 20th Century combined cannot match the Holocaust. Six million Jewish people were put to death, as well as five million gypsies, homosexuals, political prisoners, disabled people, and Russian prisoners of war. The Final Solution claimed 11 million lives.

Recently popular culture has attempted to bring other genocide attempts to light. Behind Enemy Lines is a good movie about uncovering genocide in the former Yugoslavia. It is my hope that we learn all of our history about this.

Regarding Palestine: A peaceful solution will be made, not behind the guns of Israel or the bombs of Hamas, but in the arms of the peace loving. A warning to the Israelies: remember Israel's freedom was "won" through terrorism against the British. Be ye hypocrites? One should never forget their own history.

Regarding the United Nations: Unilateral action is going to force the UN the way of the League of Nations. The Security Council needs to be revamped to remove the veto and the permanent members. As well, sanctions need to be taken against any country that violates the UN charter. Even the USA can't survive under sanctions.

Ahem. To the original point. Our discussion was from a purely historical standpoint. There can be no doubt that many people in Anatolia were slain defending against the Islamic peoples; there can be no doubt the Christians committed similar if not more atrocities.

I'd like to thank LooseCannon for explaining the matter far better than I could ever do. The entire commentary on this subject has been restricted to that time period. Hence when I speak of crusades, I speak of the Christian crusades, NOT Osama Bin Laden's supposed Jihad on the Western World. All the conflicts mentioned are a tragedy and it is sad how the world has decided to act upon it (either with indifference or further violence). I also never meant to say that they were right, but that it is UNDERSTANDABLE. Unlike Vietnam and the current war in Iraq were the reasons are muddy and ambiguos. So my apologize if I did offend you or any Arab, but like LooseCannon mentioned, you took them out of context.

Forgive my spelling I'm in a hurry to get to class.

[!--QuoteBegin-Onhell+Oct 22 2003, 05:52 PM--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(Onhell @ Oct 22 2003, 05:52 PM)[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--] So my apologize if I did offend you or any Arab, [/quote]
Ok, I see you are limiting what are you saying in a past time period.

BTW, Turks are not Arabs. (and really hate to be taken as arabs just because they are muslims) Arabs are not the only Muslims. It's like calling Chinese to all far east nations [!--emo&:lol:--][img src=\'style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/lol[1].gif\' border=\'0\' style=\'vertical-align:middle\' alt=\'lol[1].gif\' /][!--endemo--]

Did you know that most Muslim population are not living in Arabian peninsula but on Far east? Malasia, Indonesia some people of China and India, Afghanistan, Iran (you'll be surprised, Iranians are Persians, and don't like arabs) etc etc... None of them are arab. There is not arab-Islam connection (as arabs sometimes tend to claim) similar to is a Jew-Israel relation.

Sorry for this off topic remarks, but I am explaining all those things just because I see people don't know much about Islam, Turks etc all those things, nevertheless have opinions (which are not solid)

Turks are a distinct race too. They come from Middle Asia.

History books will state that after doing a war with Arabs, in a land called Talas (where, I don't know and don't want to learn) Turks were defeated, but liked Arabs' religion, that it was very suitable for them, so they converted to Islam. Can you believe that bullshit?

How can you convert to your enemies' religion who defeated you, just because "it suits you"? It is stated in some other books that many massacres happened, blood shed. so... Islam says to expand this religion, not by the sword, but by wit, by conviction. Look at what happens....

That's Montsegur (the song) is about. Pope, or armies of religions behave as cruel as dictators or monarchs did, in the name of something holy. Unbearable..

PS: BTW the jihad the freak called "USA"me Bin Laden claim to start is no more than a bullshit. Because he simply can't! Jihad can only be declared by prophet or halife (something equivalent of Pope, but halife's does not wxist today, as modern Turkey put an end to the existance of this instutition in 1925, as it was an obstacle in the way of a laic-secular life)

And guess what happened at last official jihad. Last ottoman emperor was halife at the same time. When entering WWI, he declared war against England France etc. But instead of following him, Arab nations backstabbed Ottoman Empire and worked with United Kingdom and gained their freedom by killing fighting other muslims (which Islam forbids).

You make good points, eddiesson, especially about the clarification of the various Muslim peoples. Indonesia is the 4th largest nation in the world, I believe, in population, and it is predominantly Muslim, if memory serves (apologies if it does not). From what I have read, the Turks come from somewhere east of the Caspian Sea and were possibly pushed down towards the Arabs by barbarians to the north.

I doubt as well that the Turks simply converted to Islam because it suited them. If it suited them it was to appease those who defeated them. Anyway, as we now know the Turks moved into the area of Anatolia and settled there, eventually a Turk became Sultan of the Ottoman Empire.

The declaration of jihad on the Allies in World War One is a very interesting event. There can be no doubt that this declaration was political, rather than religious. This partially explains the Arab dislike. A second important reason would be the mistreatment of the Arabs for years under Ottoman rule. The third would be the presence of a catalyst: T.E. Lawrence, Lawrence of Arabia (whom I would love to see a Maiden song about).

Very interesting note indeed. Thanks for the clarifications. Also, Jihad doesn't mean holy war, it means STRUGGLE. It has been twisted and manipulated (like many things in religion). Anywho, that's it for me.

P.S I don't call all Asian people Chinese but I do call them oriental. [!--emo&:lol:--][img src=\'style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/lol[1].gif\' border=\'0\' style=\'vertical-align:middle\' alt=\'lol[1].gif\' /][!--endemo--]

[!--QuoteBegin-Onhell+Sep 27 2003, 09:27 PM--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(Onhell @ Sep 27 2003, 09:27 PM)[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--] I'll give you an argument loose cannon  [!--emo&:D--][img src=\'style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/biggrin.gif\' border=\'0\' style=\'vertical-align:middle\' alt=\'biggrin.gif\' /][!--endemo--]    It is easy to judge and criticize institutions, but you have to remember that a creed is usually closed to interpretation. If you are a Christian you believe in Christ and in ONE god. If you don't believe in saints then you are most likely Lutheran, If there is a lot of joy at your service then you're baptist. The splits are for a reason. However, back in the Middle Ages, they were more strict. I don't like people going off criticezing the crusades as a "mistake" or hypocricy on behalf of the church. The crusades were a response to 400 years of muslim invasion. If someone came into your house and raped your wife, beat you up and told you what to do, wouldn't you kick their ass? Sure they were a horrible thing but they it was certainly not a mistake. Vietnam was a mistake, the war with iraq is a mistake, not the crusades. 
      This sect the song talks about was destroyed for the same reason the Mormons are not considered Christian, they believed in two gods, and Christianity is monotheistic, no two ways about that.  [/quote]
On hell i think you better study your history,, muslims never invaded the west, the first to invade was the crusaders, in the 10 th or 11 th century, the christian were led to slaughter the muslims by the "smart jews" ( who also crucified Jesus too.) who had already planned trade from middle east to europe,, Not untill the 12 th century did the muslims begin invading europe,, by then the jews had organised two crusades already. Now u tell me,, if someone enters ur home,, wouldnt u retaliate,, Look who r the invaders even today,, Eva know anything about a promised land,, a temple, temple of Solomon. The christians are used by the jews, so that the jews can get their promise land, Jerusalem, at any cost,, and dont tell me that jews care for the christians.

And with the montsequir lyrics,, maybe you should read into the knights templists, learn about Hiram Abif, the Arc of covenant, and the Holy grail,, if you are a true christian visit this site and check it out: [a href=\'\' target=\'_blank\'][/a] ... The world is sleeping... (Why doesnt the Christian world care about the crucifiction of christ, like who committed it ( it s obvious who)., why they done it,, ( b coz they didnt accept christianity), and doesnt this show how much powers these people had back then, enough powers to crucify Jesus Christ, Let me ask u, who led the crusaders, was it the church, or the jews? The jews Instigate the world , make others fight for their wars.) and remember when we re talking about the middle ages, we re talking about an era where people we re not very smart to work things out, and they did anything in the name of faith. Also remember the extreme jews took the bible and changed it, supposively they changed it so people can understand better, but the real reason was, so they can update every year or decade, so they can create a market and control the christian world, as we can see thats still happening today,

Learn who was the first invaders On hell, the crusaders or the muslims, and dont make things up on a forum, coz its misleading.

There was once this empire. We called it the Roman Empire. Anyway, after a period of time half of this empire fell. The other half was centred on a city we today call Istanbul. Back then, it was called Constantinople. This half of the Empire changed it's name to...the Byzantine Empire.

The Byzantine Empire existed from the fall of Rome until the Byzantine Empire was destroyed in Constantinople by the Muslim forces coming out of Arabia. Now, there seems to be some sort of confusion as to whom attacked whom. I'm sure I don't know if the Byzantines or the Muslims started the war. I'm sure no one knows, because war is often like that.

We must remember, however, that the area we today call the Middle East was until then Western. It had been made western by a man who's name is found on the back of your copy of Somewhere in Time: Alexander the Great. The Romans conquered the Middle East and held it down; the Middle East transferred to the Byzantines after the fall of Rome.

It is verifyable historical FACT that the Byzantine Empire lost territory to the Muslims. It is also FACT that the Emperor of the Byzantines requested help from that crazy man we call Pope.

The Crusades were in RESPONSE to this letter. This letter was in RESPONSE to the loss of territory to the Muslims. This is FACT. This is what happened.

Thus in response, we have the Crusades.

The Jewish community of Europe had pretty much nothing to do with these lovely little wars. That community was spread very well, thanks to the Romans, and mostly concentrated in Eastern Europe. Policy making in the premier empire of the time, the Holy Roman Empire, was assuredly controlled by the Catholics.

I read that webpage you linked to. I personally believe that religion is not the glass through which we should view history. The texts of religion are too obscure, too open to interpretation to try and interpret the events of the past through them. We can pretty much twist the Bible (Or the Qu'ran, (hope I spelled that right) or the Torah, or the teachings of Buddha, or whatever texts they use in Shintoism) to say whatever we want.

Anyway, after filtering out what is irrelevant on the page I think that most of what is there is poorly constructed, and without basis on fact. This is my personal analysis, as an honours student of history. I don't believe in the "Illuminati" or in ultimate control of the world by a secret society, or anything like that. My reasons are pretty simple. 1. If they do exist they probably already control the world, so why worry about it? 2. If someone controlled the world they would hopefully do a better job of it (or at least do it smoother), so I think we are still masters of our own fates.

I am trying to respond to all your points here, Mr. Guest, but I am finding it more than difficult, due to the erratic and contradictive nature of your posts.

I'll be honest. My knowledge of the Knights Templar is limited, and I do not feel comfortable researching them online. The Internet is not a source one can trust to give the facts. I usually don't trust books, either. I like to find a few primary sources if possible, and a few interpretations before I decide what I think is right. (This might seem presumptuous, but in reality, it is how one examines history.)

Confusing the Jews and the Cathars? That's absolutely nonsense. The two had nothing to do with each other. Judeaism believes that the Messiah has not yet come. The Cathars did believe that Christ was the Messiah. They simply had a different interpretation of the nature of God.

Finally. I never said that the Muslims ALWAYS attacked. But the reason the Crusades began was because the war between the Byzantines and the Muslims was being won by the Muslims. The hatred left after the Crusades is the root of the European-Muslim hatreds that exist in areas to this very day. Not that the USA's treatment of the Muslim world helps any.

Good day to you.

Well Put Eddieson....

As a Palestinian we have suffered, but thats life ... many relatives have had land confiscated for Isrealis army bases and hangars but hey they survive we will never have our land back even when it was divided by Abraham back in the early bible days 2 lands judea and New judea.... going on by history Judea (isreal) new Judea ( Palestine) and tell me what was the capital of Judea Jerusalem this extends and now the yanks Isrealis want jerusalem as the capital for isreal hmmmm ..... Palestine was a country is a country but the Isrealis want a country to themselves kinda reminicent of Hitler one race the aryan hmmm i wonder were the Jews get thier inspiration

as Christain not a Muslim but hey back in the Crusades if read books were the Templars killed anything in sight Muslims Christains they treated all within the walls of Jerusalem the same kill on sight... were as the Muslims didnt mind Christains as neighbours who is the holiest of the the two during the occupations ???

I wouldnt condemn who occupied Jerusalem at the time i think Jerusalem flourished more under the rule of turks than the English all artifacts were kept but when the English came so did the pilage rape and murder.

Montseger was a christian sect very fanatical that isolated themselves in a castle they believed in some very disturbed beliefs.

Also going back to the Crusades well three in total the first was an absolute joke the pillaged any lands they came across, from England to Jerusalem ohh and Byzantime fell top the English around that time and what happened to all inhabitants dead a

Crusade ??? or massacre ??? regardless of religion. Religion teaches love, peace, faith hope,was this what the Crusades were inspired by the Pope yes but at that time how many Popes were there i think by memory 2 and a third staking claims somewhere in France (not too sure about the place).

Loose Cannon some very brave pionts there but back in the old days Middle east was never called Western or even to the time of Alexander the great.. If by terms it was mainly Persia wich was one massive empire which extended to the boundaries of Egypt. Middle East History is the most difficult to learn my friend and by the hard the hardest to keep time of..

It has been conquered by many and still the Palestinians reside were in Palestine, New Judea capital Jerusalem... the holiest ground for the three religions Muslim, Jewish and Christianity and if you have been there and measured how far each of the three are apart you will find it is not more than 75m apart from each..

The Middle East was westernized (to a certain extent) by Alexander the Great and the Roman Legions that followed his footsteps. Certainly Alexander's conquest allowed for the preservation of the history of that region.

Yes, it is difficult to learn.

As for the Cathars...they weren't fanatics. Most were peaceful. They were different. Read the Commentary!

Hello everyone, sorry to resurrect a dormant subject, but I was listening to this song today and i found a few things in it i hadn't noticed before. First, when Bruce sings "...burn at the stake for their soul's liberty..." That is inaccurate. The inquisition burned 'heretics' and 'witches' at the stake to give them a small preview of the burning fires of hell they would suffer for all eternity, not as some sort of sacrifice to cleanse their soul. Also...the line "Religion still burning inside" This puzzled me for some time until it clicked (at least to me). This line is sung before "on gates, on the walls, of Montsegur, Blood on the stones of the citidel". So I think it should be heard/read: "Religion still burning inside on the walls, on the gates...." Because I believe that that statement is refering to the feeling one might get when visiting Montesgur. The violence, the suffering and sheer magnitude of the event still resonates inside the walls of the citidel and the blood on the stones is as vivid as any reminder can get. So...just a thought