Why do 90% of black people vote for Democrats?

[Ben Kenobi]

The Tudor 'ruin' managed to provide England with a world language

Again, complete and utter nonsense. The most widely read, used and published book in the English language was published by the Jacobins. So influential that most people who learned English did so USING THAT BOOK, 300 years after publication. So no.

A world literature, in Shakespeare

The First Folio wasn't published until 1623. Again, in the Jacobin period.

England was opened to Humanism and the Renaissance in Tudor times.

Not so. Again, you are wrong here. Francis Bacon only became popular in Jacobin times. It was only after Elizabeth's death that the English Renaissance really took off.

The story of English becomes more definite in the 16th Century, with more evidence available about the way language was developing, both in th etexts themselves, and in a growing number of observations dealing with the grammar, vocabulary and writing system. In this century, scholars seriously got down to talking about the English language.

Yet, the seminal publications that define the shift from middle to modern english weren't published until AFTER Elizabeth. You can argue that they reflected earlier linguistic changes, but they did not substantially change the patterns of English speech until after the accession of James VI/I.

[Imran Siddiqui]

By the way, Molly and Flubber, I think you both missed the time, a couple of weeks back, when Dr. Strangelove caught BK arguing with himself. Literally. He accidentally quoted himself, and without noticing proceeded to attack his own arguments exactly the same way he attacks everyone else's.

[Ben Kenobi]

why would an atheist be biased against catholicism as opposed to any other church. that's a ridiculous assertion.

The majority of attacks on religion by atheists are conducted against the Catholic church, simply because the Catholic church is the largest and most prominent target. They also tend to be the most opposed to modernism.

[Elok]

The most widely read, used and published book in the English language was published by the Jacobins.

The First Folio wasn't published until 1623. Again, in the Jacobin period.

Not so. Again, you are wrong here. Francis Bacon only became popular in Jacobin times. It was only after Elizabeth's death that the English Renaissance really took off.

I think you're mistaken here; the "Jacobin period" was around 1793, well after the First Folio date. It also happened in France, and involved a lot of decapitated Frenchmen who may or may not have spoken any English at all.

EDIT: Also, as for the First Folio, why the hell should that matter? It's just a collection of already-composed plays, roughly half of which were written during the reign of Elizabeth. By your logic, the sixties weren't a great creative period, since the Beatles' number-one-hits collection "One" didn't come out until the nineties or so.

[C0ckney]

The majority of attacks on religion by atheists are conducted against the Catholic church,

evidence please. this is just another bald assertion.

the reason you gave is very unconvincing. there are plenty of religious groups opposed to modernism. why would an atheist be any more biased against the cathloic church than say, sunni islam, bapists, or scientology.

[Jon Miller]

Let's be honest here, the Catholic church does have the biggest target on it (of Christian churches) and for good reason, re pedophile priests/etc.

JM

[Imran Siddiqui]

Indeed. From what I've witnessed in the US, in New Jersey and Georgia (so North and South... on the East Coast) is that the majority of attacks on religion by atheists are against fundamentalist Protestant Christians, esp Southern Baptists.

[C0ckney]

jm: i think most people are 'biased' against child abuse, but that's not the same thing as bias against the catholic church.

[Elok]

Yeah, while the RCC itself is pretty traditional, there are more reactionary churches out there--Catholicism doesn't hate evolution, for example--and many Catholics actually go against the church teachings. From my perspective, they're actually pretty lenient, tolerating groups like Catholics for Choice or whoever they are. All we've got to embarrass us is Frank Schaffer.

[Jon Miller]

jm: i think most people are 'biased' against child abuse, but that's not the same thing as bias against the catholic church.

Biases are generally not negative and are generally not without reason.

JM
(Although I think that there is a lot of good in the RC too.... )

[Flubber]

Flubber:

You ane an Oilers fan! By nature you will be biased against Roberto Luongo, just as I will be biased in favour of him. Arguing that you are neutral in a Luongo discussion makes no sense to me.

Ben -- accurate as always !!!!

I am a Montreal Canadians fan-- also I live in Calgary and cheer for the Flames now as my local team but with none of the longstanding or deepseated feelings about otgher Western teams that you would attempt to pin on me.


BUt Ben it is good to see you maintain you usual level of accuracy when making unequivocal statements LOL

[C0ckney]

imagine that there was a child abuse scandal involving government run care homes. people would condemn the abuse and criticise those in charge for their failures, especially if there was some kind of cover up. i don't think that would mean that the people making those criticisms were somehow biased against the government.

of course i'm not saying that some people aren't biased the catholic chruch, or that they don't have reasons to be so inclined, but i just don't see any reason why atheists generally would be more biased against catholics than any other religious groups.

[Ben Kenobi]

Locate Nicaea on a map. Locate Anatolia.

Uh, Nicaea is in Anatolia.

The Crusaders didnt retake Anatolia for the Byzantines.

Uh, yes they did.

A part is not the whole and never has been.

Nonsense. Retaking Anatolia in no way implies that the whole of Anatolia has been taken. Parts are sufficient.

Do read something on the Crusades- try Steven Runciman's three volume work - I have.

So have I.

In my history they start off with anti-Jewish pogroms in Europe

Quel surprise.

Strange how so much of Catholic history is filled with ethnic cleansing and anti-semitism, from the Crusades to Spain, King John's England, et cetera.

All the way up to the white Rose movement. BTW, which parts of Germany were more likely to vote for the Nazis? South or North?

Jerusalem had indeed been fought over by the Fatimids and the Seljuk Turks, and the Fatimids had only recently taken it from the Sejuk's vassals, the Ortoqids, when the Crusaders appeared. I suppose when you can't misrepresent, you attempt to obfuscate.

Where, did I ever say anything that the Fatimids did not have controld over Jerusalem? I don't recall saying anything to the contrary.

Right, that's because Marx said so. IIRC, doesn't Marx believe there is no such thing as spirituality

Really? "Religion is the opiate of the masses?" I don't even have to bother looking to argue that he believes that spirituality is bunk. Marxists are materialists. That's how the dialectic works.

Not relevant.

Why would a Marxist ascribe spiritual causes and motivation to anything? Very relevant when discussing the Crusades.

Many Crusaders were fighting for what their brethren had already captured from the Byzantines in Southern Italy, Sicily and the Balkans. Territory of their own. Some of those who had pledged to be vassals of the Byzantine emperor broke their oaths. Others happily murdered Christians who weren't Catholic, in the Balkans, Greece, in Byzantine territory and in Egypt.

So what you are arguing is because they were not religiously motivated that they targetted Non-Catholics? That doesn't sound like a good argument to me.

The point being that you hysterically portraying the Crusades as an attempt to win back 'Christian' lands is just nonsense

Hardly. That is why they were called, and that was the entire purpose of the Crusades, to retake Christian lands for Christ.

- the lands were no more 'Christian', and had not been in some cases for over 300 years.

Hence, 'retake'. So you ARE conceding that these were in fact Christian lands. Thanks Molly.

One would argue then that Constantinople isn't a Christian city either If you're referring to today's Istanbul, then the majority population would appear to be Muslim, but it is capital of a secular state.

Today, yes, but this was not always so. That's the point here. Constantinople was a Christian city.

Again, irrelevant.

Not irrelevant at all. The fact that the muslims took it over apparently makes it wrong to you that Christians would take it back.

The Byzantines had not been well-liked by their Syriac and Coptic citizens either- which if you'd read any Byzantine history, youd know.

Well they believed that Alexandria and Antioch were also Patriarchs and that they had no reason to accede to their junior. That has only changed, because of Islam.

Nope. It's relevant, because, as Runciman points out, the Sack of Jerusalem coloured all future relations beween the Franks and the Muslims and Jews.

I'm simply arguing that the relationship between the Christians and the Jews and the Muslims goes back to when the Muslims sacked Jerusalem first. Arguing that the Christians capturing Jerusalem is relevant while the Muslims doing the same makes no sense at a..

I've read what happened when the Caliph took Jerusalem. You clearly have not.

Yeah, Christians cheered on their liberators and thrived. Which is why there were majority Christians in Jerusalem when the crusaders came. Oh wait, no. Sorry. Wrong history.

Jerusalem's only approach to it's former significance prior to the destruction of the second temple was in the late Roman Empire.

The question which you keep shying away from or obscuring with irrelevant asides, is 'Is Catholicism a religion of peace ? '

Yes, it is a religion of peace.

and on past and present evidence the answer is no. The Crusaders defended Orthodox and Coptic Christians to death. Hardly a friendly act, setting them free by killing them....

As opposed to the fact that they are thriving now, under Islamic leadership? Are you arguing that their lot was worse in the 4th and 5th centuries prior to the Islamic invasion than it is now?

And today they Muslims are torching the churches that have existed in Egypt since the Fatimids. Again, irrelevant.

Not irrevelant. This isn't the first time that they've done this nor will it be the last.

Please, stop jumbling up Mediaeval and Modern history when your lack of scholarship becomes apparent.

Why are you so bound and determined to sell the lie that Muslims are tolerant to religions other than their own. They are not.

How woud I know the difference?

That England was once a free nation? Perhaps you've read history? England does not cease being England simply because the French have taken over. It wouldn't even be the first successful English invasion by France.

Besides, my ancestry is all Irish. In any case, it's irrelevant as to ownership.

And how long were the Irish subjugated under the English? Longer than 300 years. Did they stop being Irish? No.

The lands in question were once ruled by the Achaemenids, and the Seleucids, and the Ptolemies, and the Sassanids... possession for over 300 years counts for quite a lot, I'm afraid.

Only when it suits your position. In no other circumstance would you regard the Greeks as Romans. Or the Greeks as muslims, etc. Their history says otherwise, and so does England's. Or Scotland's as the case may be.

You have a selective memory.

So you concede that Islam has tried to eliminate all traces of Persian history? Thank you Molly.

Just once in a while, state a date, name a figure, give some facts.

I have, many times. You just disagree with my facts and call them irrelevant. "Oh that I disagree with, it's irrelevant!"

You're about as good a comedian as you are an 'historian'. I suggest you read any book on the development of the different churches in the Middle East and the various doctrinal controversies in Byzantine held territory. It should prove informative, since you appear clueless.

Have and have. They've actually taken their case up to Benedict and his conclusion is that they are orthodox Catholics. Hence my reference. If you want to claim knowledge and authority, then you should at least understand the references.

The whole of Egypt was then Monophysite, and it was constantly threatened by the Saracens. Heraclius was doubtless very anxious to unite all to the Catholic Church, for the country was greatly weakened by the dissensions of the heretics among themselves

Absolutely. The schism dates to Chalcedon. I teach about that schism in class. The schism is cited as a reason why those areas fell to Islam.

Boring. It was in part, a religious war- an attempt by the Habsburgs to impose Catholicism throughout their lands and the Empire.

Given as Catholicism was the religion of the empire, it would seem that it was a determination by the protestants to impose their religion on the parts of the empire that they controlled.

No figures I see. You said there were mass expulsions of English Catholics. When, where, and where did they end up ?

I gave names (Calverts), which you ignored, (dates), which you ignored. You simply cut and paste that which you don't like.

They went anywhere in the Empire that they could practice freely.

Emigration is not forced expulsion.

Oh there we go. Convenient definitions serving as the lynchpin of your argument. Yes, emigration is forced expulsion. Do you always do this Molly? Define stuff you like with one word, and stuff you don't like with another? Elizabeth executes someone, they are a traitor. Mary executes someone, they are a martyr.

And Catholics served at Yorktown If you mean the French, so what ?

I mean English Catholics, like the Calverts. I notice you've studiously avoided using their name. Funny that. You asked for names and then don't use them when I cite them.

Under Henry VII? Same as in France at the time. England was a Catholic country England was a country ruled by a Catholic monarch.

What was the percentage of Catholics under Henry VII?

I note you simply assume that if the ruler's Catholic the country is

I'm assuming that in a country where the vast majority of the Catholics are Catholic, that yes indeed, the nation is Catholic.

I'm talking about devout practising Catholics.

Oh there's that again. Convenient definitions that allow you to explain whatever you want to explain. Yes, the majority of England were baptised Catholics until Edward's reign.

If we go by this reasoning, then the Crusaders were no longer retaking Christian lands were they ? They'd be invading Muslim lands.

Hrm? Are you arguing that only Catholics are Christians? Hardly.

England did have a holy war over Faith. No it didn't. If you want an example of a Holy War, pick one of France's. England saw a couple of unsuccessful rebellions. Nothing like the same.

What was the Glorious Revolution, if not a religious war?

No, it's because I'm not a religious fanatic. The Glorious Revolution- doesn't sound much like a war, does it ? The Gordon Riots ? Not a war by anyone's definition. Sorry, it just won't run.

Communist revolution, not much of a war there either.

And their 'mass expulsion', was primarily to the Colonies/

That's what they were for...this isn't exactly novel.

When was England's St Bartholomew's Day Massacre ? Who carried it out, and under whose orders ? Who was expelled to the colonies, when and which colonies ?

July of 1537. The Pilgrimage of Grace. Henry VIII executed 216 persons, including 38 monks and 16 parish priests. Most fled to Scotland or to Flanders.

Balderdash. Did the majority have the vote before 1832, yes or no ? If no, the do be quiet.

Did ANY of them have the ability to vote in 1832? No? Why? Because they were Catholic.

Elizabeth I executed priests for no other reason than the fact that they celebrated mass. Again, I suggest you look at the reasons why. Treason is the main one. Please refer to the statute.

She defined treason as I've already cited, as any priest performing the Catholic sacraments, including the mass.

[Ben Kenobi]

I think you're mistaken here; the "Jacobin period" was around 1793, well after the First Folio date. It also happened in France, and involved a lot of decapitated Frenchmen who may or may not have spoken any English at all.

*sigh*

Jacobite period, from James VI/I's accession.

EDIT: Also, as for the First Folio, why the hell should that matter?

Because it's the seminary publication of Shakespeare's plays? Publication allows the plays to have a much wider distribution and influence on the english language. If you want to look at the overall influence of Shakespeare on language, you have to start after the main publication date. Not before, as Molly likes to do. Molly seems to be arguing that because Tyndale had influence on the KJV, that we should ascribe all the effects of the KJV to Tyndale. That makes about as much sense as arguing that the Vulgate did the same thing for the same reasons.

From what I can see there were 750 copies of the First Folio printed. It's also the only authorized text for most of the plays, meaning that prior publications weren't what Shakespeare intended to be released.

Things are different now with publication than they were back then.

It's just a collection of already-composed plays, roughly half of which were written during the reign of Elizabeth. By your logic, the sixties weren't a great creative period, since the Beatles' number-one-hits collection "One" didn't come out until the nineties or so.

Not quite right. I'm arguing the difference between the Quarrymen, and their first album. Would you really date Beatlemania to their first appearance on stage, or to their largest release? Besides, even using your argument, half the plays were from the Jacobite period anyways.

[Ben Kenobi]

evidence please. this is just another bald assertion.

Catholic church, easily. Not even an order of magnitude if we look at things worldwide.

Why? Opposition to abortion, opposition to homosexuality, opposition to contraception, opposition to divorce. The Catholics are the only ones who hold to all four and thus incur the wrath of partisans in favor of all four.

the reason you gave is very unconvincing. there are plenty of religious groups opposed to modernism.

Parts, yes, but the overall package is in Catholicism.

why would an atheist be any more biased against the cathloic church than say, sunni islam, bapists, or scientology.

Baptists? Contraception. That was easy.

Scientology? Contraception. That was easy.

Sunni Islam? Because they hate Christians just like they do. Enemy of my enemy is my friend.