Why do 90% of black people vote for Democrats?

[Elok]

The entire history of the crusades was pretty much nothing but Christians slaughtering people indiscriminately. Of course, when Saladin liberated Jerusalem, there was no slaughtering of the innocents.

I mentioned that once here. BeBro mentioned a certain Muslim named Baibars who apparently wasn't as nice as Saladin...

[kentonio]

Elizabeth executed the remaining priests.

No, she killed the native Catholic priests trying to serve the English Catholics.

No she didn't. Provide proof or STFU.

That's why she had rebellions from the Catholic North. She wasn't moderate at all. Look at what she actually did.

Jesus christ you're dim. The rebellions in the north were led by catholics trying to overthrow Elizabeth and put Mary on the throne. Elizabeth was a moderate not just because she felt that way personally but because at the time England was in a very dicey situation with a powerful Rome wanting Catholicism restored and a lot of Catholic nations very close by who already had lots of reasons to hate England. If Elizabeth had launched a mad reign of anti-catholic terror it would almost certianly have cost her her crown.

After she killed all the priests, some came from abroad and had to conceal their actions. If they did not, they were executed too.

For someone who claims to be a historian, your knowledge of history is simply appalling. Many missionary priests were certainly executed, for trying to restore catholicism and raise rebellion in a protestant country. Do you actually understand the depths of religious division in this period or are you just babbling again?

[Ben Kenobi]

No she didn't. Provide proof or STFU.

http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/martyr02.htm

Yes she did.

Jesus christ you're dim. The rebellions in the north were led by catholics trying to overthrow Elizabeth and put Mary on the throne.

Uh, Mary was already dead by then.

Elizabeth was a moderate not just because she felt that way personally but because at the time England was in a very dicey situation with a powerful Rome wanting Catholicism restored and a lot of Catholic nations very close by who already had lots of reasons to hate England. If Elizabeth had launched a mad reign of anti-catholic terror it would almost certianly have cost her her crown.

Why? Her support came from radical protestants. Executing Catholic recusants strengthened rather than weakened her hand.

For someone who claims to be a historian, your knowledge of history is simply appalling. Many missionary priests were certainly executed, for trying to restore catholicism and raise rebellion in a protestant country. Do you actually understand the depths of religious division in this period or are you just babbling again?

Uh, England was a Catholic country that had many Catholics who were recusants, who refused to convert and died for their faith during Elizabeth's reign. The reason they went back is because the priests who used to serve them were dead, killed by Elizabeth.

[Al B. Sure!]

Baybars was active some 70 years after Saladin. By then, the Islamic states had been under constant siege by Crusaders for two centuries and had become apparently radicalized by a siege mentality.

It should be noted that Baybars' campaigns did mark the end of the crusades. Ben talks about supposed executions of Christians that spurred the Crusades but it was Baybars' ruthlessness and proclivity for executing Christians that caused the Christian world to give up on the idea of taking Jerusalem.

[Ben Kenobi]

Suppose my wife gets mad at me and locks me out of the house. Fuming, I go off and hire a rather shady "locksmith" to get me back in. He opens the door, but then proceeds to rape my wife and steal all our stuff. Who is most at fault here?

After you refused to pay him what you promised him? You.

[Al B. Sure!]

After you refused to pay him what you promised him? You.

Isn't Ben's sense of morality amazing?

[Ben Kenobi]

Isn't Ben's sense of morality amazing?

Don't hire criminals to work for you and then refuse to pay them.

[Al B. Sure!]

That doesn't change that the criminal is the one who committed the crimes of rape and theft.

[kentonio]

http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/martyr02.htm

Yes she did.

Ok, quoting from the link you just provided..

In 1970, the Vatican selected 40 martyrs, men and women, lay and religious, to represent the full group of perhaps 300 known to have died for their faith and allegiance to the Church between 1535 and 1679.

So 300 people in 144 years, and you think that proves that Elizabeth who reigned for 45 years killed every priest in England?

Uh, Mary was already dead by then.

Oh my goodness you've really outdone yourself this time. You're a 'historian' and you don't know the difference between Mary I and Mary Stuart?

Why? Her support came from radical protestants. Executing Catholic recusants strengthened rather than weakened her hand.

No her support didn't come from 'radical protestants' it came from the more moderate protestants. The radical protestants were the puritans who she disliked and oppressed. As for it 'strengthening her hand' it would have done nothing but caused greater pushes in England and Scotland for rebellion with the added threat of incursion by Spain or France.

Uh, England was a Catholic country that had many Catholics who were recusants, who refused to convert and died for their faith during Elizabeth's reign. The reason they went back is because the priests who used to serve them were dead, killed by Elizabeth.

Lots of Catholics died for their faith around that time. Lots of protestants also died for their faith around that time. England and Europe were a seething cauldron of religious division and hatred which boiled over frequently. Trying to claim that one of the more moderate monarchs of the period was some zealot however is simply retarded. Especially when she was immediately preceded by a catholic Queen who really did go crazy with the mass burnings and killings.

[Al B. Sure!]

What I find interesting is that Elizabeth is well-known for having been pretty moderate with respect to treatment of Catholics out of political expediency, but a hard-line against Catholics would have been expected given the external threat of Spain which galvanized domestic Catholic turmoil.

[kentonio]

What I find interesting is that Elizabeth is well-known for having been pretty moderate with respect to treatment of Catholics out of political expediency, but a hard-line against Catholics would have been expected given the external threat of Spain which galvanized domestic Catholic turmoil.

She played it beautifully all things considered. Being moderate towards the catholics reduced their zeal for overthrowing her.

[Ben Kenobi]

That doesn't change that the criminal is the one who committed the crimes of rape and theft.

True, but the reason that they did that to your family, is because you hired them. You'd be held responsible by the court for hiring the person in the first place.

[Guynemer]

After you refused to pay him what you promised him? You.

Oh holy ****ing ****.

I just... I... wow, dude. Just ****ing wow. I honestly have no idea where to begin.

[kentonio]

True, but the reason that they did that to your family, is because you hired them. You'd be held responsible by the court for hiring the person in the first place.

Except you wouldn't and thats just stupid. Nice to see you've stopped making things up about history and moved onto making things up about law instead.

[Ben Kenobi]

So 300 people in 144 years, and you think that proves that Elizabeth who reigned for 45 years killed every priest in England?

Elizabeth was responsible for her share of them. She killed more than the so called 'bloody Mary'. If her policy was 'moderate', than so was Mary Tudor.

Oh my goodness you've really outdone yourself this time. You're a 'historian' and you don't know the difference between Mary I and Mary Stuart?

You said Mary. You did not say Mary, Queen of Scots.

No her support didn't come from 'radical protestants'

Yes, her support came from radical protestants after Edward died.

The radical protestants were the puritans who she disliked and oppressed.

How many protestants did she execute in her reign?

As for it 'strengthening her hand' it would have done nothing but caused greater pushes in England and Scotland for rebellion with the added threat of incursion by Spain or France.

Which is what happened, isn't it? She killed Mary Queen of Scots, and the Armada invaded. Seems to me a pretty good way to understand her reign is oppressive to Catholics, for which Spain intervened.

Lots of Catholics died for their faith around that time. Lots of protestants also died for their faith around that time.

Again, she was far from moderate.

England and Europe were a seething cauldron of religious division and hatred which boiled over frequently. Trying to claim that one of the more moderate monarchs of the period was some zealot however is simply retarded.

You're the one claiming her execution of Catholics was moderate but her execution of protestants was 'oppressive'. Doesn't work that way, sorry. She was simply oppressive.

Especially when she was immediately preceded by a catholic Queen who really did go crazy with the mass burnings and killings.

Who killed far fewer than Elizabeth killed. The Tudor period is probably the darkest period of English history. The result destroyed England, and she recovered during the reign of the Stuarts.