Why do 90% of black people vote for Democrats?

[Heraclitus]

What I find interesting is that White Americans are leaning so strongly Republican on recent figures. This really is a important trend. I'm willing to bet 1 to 5 odds that in 2020 US Whites will be voting 70%+ Republican unless the party fragments.

[molly bloom]

Right, as if it didn't serve the desires of the Protestant UK to divide Catholic Ireland to preserve an outpost of Protestants. But sure, they did it to protect the Irish Catholics.

I'm not saying they did it to 'protect' Irish Catholics, but really, when you obviously know so little about the end of the war in Ireland, Partition and the Irish Civil War, why do you go on about it ?

They've assimilated a considerable protestant minority in the Pale already. They would be adding a considerable number of Catholics. You seem to think that Northern Ireland is all protestant, when that's never been the case.

I clearly don't think that, don't be stupid, and don't put words in my mouth. I said you haven't addressed whether or not the government of Eire wants a sizable Protestant minority in its territory. As for assimilation- you mean the Irish citizens and their ancestors who belonged to the Anglican Church in Ireland and others. As they already lived in what was to become Eire, they were hardly a new minority.

Which would no longer be necessary in the event that they were to join Eire. That's the best thing that could happen to Northern Ireland is to lose the subsidies, and be connected to the rest of the Irish Economy

You've already said that the cost of the new population would be paid for out of itself. I've just pointed out that Northern Ireland's taxation does not now cover its running costs. As well as being ignorant of Northern Ireland's economy, you seem clueless about Eire's.

Par for the course.

They've declined by a third.

Proof please.

Of course not, because you don't consider what the Orange Order does as terrorism.

I see you've resorted to out and out lies now. Where have I said or suggested that ? I don't support extremists of any religion.

Ergo, your opinion on this issue has zero merit.

Only if you choose to misrepresent me, which you do. Your opinions on Ireland, Partition and the economy of the two states have zero merit, because they're based on wishful thinking and a keen disregard for facts.

Again, we've not seen terrorism elsewhere in Ireland where there is a Catholic majority, even in areas with significant protestant minorities, such as in the pale.

Nobody refers to the 'Pale' anymore. Again, you'd be wrong.

sh, Liam 13 October 1970, (35) nfNIRI
Status: Saor Eire (SE), Killed by: Saor Eire (SE)
Died in premature bomb explosion on railway embankment at the rear of McKee Irish Army base, off Blackhorse Avenue, Dublin.

she, John 17 May 1974, (27) nfNIRI
Status: Civilian (Civ), Killed by: Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF)
Killed when car bomb exploded Talbot Street, Dublin.

http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/search.htm

Having a Catholic majority or an increase in Catholic births doesn't prevent terrorism.

It's only in Northern Ireland, where you have a significant Catholic minority ruled by the UK, that you see violence.

Actually Catholic terrorists and their supporters have been active throughout Western Europe and in North America.

Looking from the outside in, it would seem to me that while Catholics as a majority tolerate and assimilate protestants, the converse is not true.

Looking from this side of the Atlantic, it looks to me as though you're clueless, and rely on lies and fantasy.

[molly bloom]

The most popular books ever in the English language were published at his behest. To argue that Elizabeth gave England her language is to forget that the bible is not the Queens, but King James.

The most popular book would be the Authorized Version. King James was following the example of Henry VIII who was the first English monarch to decree and authorized translation of the Bible into the vernacular.

There were at least six translations into English of part or all of the Bible during Tudor times, the most famous being Coverdale's and Tyndale's.

When the Hampton Court Conference was ordered to make : 'one uniforme translation' they were tasked to base this on the previous English versions, translating anew, but comparing work wit the other vernacular bibles.

Tyndale's translation of the Pentateuch and the New Testament underpins the Authorized Version:

22 Ys it laufull for vs to geve Cesar tribute or no?
23 He perceaved their craftynes and sayde vnto them: why tept ye me?
24 Shewe me a peny. Whose ymage and superscripcio hath it? They answered and sayde: Cesars.
25 And he sayde vnto them: Geve then vnto Cesar that which belongeth vnto Cesar: and to God that which pertayneth to God.

Luke, 20: 22-25

http://wesley.nnu.edu/fileadmin/imported_site/tyndale/luk.txt

Authorized Version:

22: Is it lawful for us to give tribute unto Caesar, or no?
23: But he perceived their craftiness, and said unto them, Why tempt ye me?
24: Shew me a penny. Whose image and superscription hath it? They answered and said, Caesar's.
25: And he said unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which be Caesar's, and unto God the things which be God's.

http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=KjvLuke.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=20&division=div1

The Authorized Version has a vocabulary of about 8 000 words. Shakespeare, about 30 000. H eof course began his career in Elizabeth's reign. Another major contributor to the English language was Cranmer's 'Book Of Common Prayer'- in use at daily services, and on the important occasions in people's lives- births, deaths, marriages.

Cranmer was of course another product of Tudor times.

As opposed to the Tudors who dissolved the monasteries,

Compensating some monks and nuns, and freeing up a large number of people for gainful employment, thus helping lower wages and aid the economy.

executed their own citizens

As did every other European state at the time. Hardly remarkable.

killed the priests,

Some priests were executed for treason or heresy. Easier after the Papal Bull 'released' them from their duty to their sovereign. Edward Tudor's reign saw only two such deaths. Mary (the Catholic) Tudor's saw 280.

raped the nunneries

How does one 'rape' a nunnery ? Please give examples of Tudor rapes of nunneries.

England was far stronger prior to the Tudors than after.

This is an opinio, unsupported by fact. Henry VII built the first dry dock for the English navy. Henry VIII expanded the naval bases and built new fortifications around the country :

http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/daysout/properties/st-mawes-castle/

The population increased and the economy grew under the Tudors- the world became smaller, thanks to Chancellor, Cabot, Willoughby and Frobisher.

She even had an empire in France, but it was under the Tudors that Calais itself was lost

Most of the empire in France was lost during the reign of Henry VI of Lancaster. Guines and Calais were lost during the reign of Mary Tudor, as a by-product of her marriage to Philip of Spain.

Under the other Tudors, trade with Russia and India was established, Spain, Scotland and France defeated. Guisnes and Calais don't constitute an empire in anyone's book.

So I'm just not seeing why we celebrate the reign of a dynasty where England declined.

Because it didn't.

Under James, Scotland and England were united and the foundations of the Empire began that would lay across the entire world.

The union of Scotland and England was not political, but personal; under his son, they were rapidly disunited. He lost his kingdoms and his head. His son, James II, kept his head but lost his throne. Not a resounding story of success. The foundations of empire (from a military point of view) owe more to the Commonwealth- Cromwell's forces seized Jamaica, and defeated the Spanish and Dutch in Europe.

[Ben Kenobi]

The most popular book would be the Authorized Version.

Again, the work was undertaken by King James, and it was his version that became the most popular. If the other, earlier versions had been as noteworthy, they would not have been superceded by the King James version.

If you want to get into the second most popular, then you'll be looking at Challoner, not Tyndale.

Compensating some monks and nuns

Uh, no. He didn't compensate them a dime. It was pure theft. The land and buildings went to the Crown and helped fund Henry's extravagances.

and freeing up a large number of people for gainful employment, thus helping lower wages and aid the economy.

The lands were more productive under the monks than under Henry. All the dissolution did, was finance the Crown and impoverish the people. Great for the Tudors, a terrible deal for England.

As did every other European state at the time. Hardly remarkable.

Then why is Mary remarkable but Elizabeth is not?

Some priests were executed for treason or heresy.

According to Elizabeth, celebrating a Catholic mass constituted treason.

Easier after the Papal Bull 'released' them from their duty to their sovereign.

Elizabeth did that, not the Pope. As soon as she started persecuting Catholic priests for celebrating Mass, she immediately crossed the line. Render unto Caesar? The priests have a religious duty and obligation to their charges to provide for them the celebration of mass. A priest cannot cease to do so while remaining a priest.

Edward Tudor's reign saw only two such deaths. Mary (the Catholic) Tudor's saw 280.

And Elizabeth saw upwards of 300, we don't even know them all because she didn't bother to keep accurate count. She didn't care how many Catholics were executed, provided they were Catholic.

raped the nunneries How does one 'rape' a nunnery ? Please give examples of Tudor rapes of nunneries.

Uh, you seize the nuns and take them out of the nunnery and then you rape them. I take it that english isn't your first language?

Henry VII built the first dry dock for the English navy. Henry VIII expanded the naval bases and built new fortifications around the country :

Compare Tudor England with Plantagenet England and with Jacobite England. The only time that England was not an empire was in Tudor times. and prior to that, in the times of the Saxons. Tudor England was very weak.

The population increased and the economy grew under the Tudors- the world became smaller, thanks to Chancellor, Cabot, Willoughby and Frobisher.

And England under the Plantagenets was England + France, and probably the largest world power. She would go on the be the world power once the Tudors were gone. Again, Tudor England was just about the weakest point in English history since the Confessor.

Most of the empire in France was lost during the reign of Henry VI of Lancaster. Guines and Calais were lost during the reign of Mary Tudor, as a by-product of her marriage to Philip of Spain.

It was lost because Henry VIII spent every dime his father collected on extravagancies that his father had husbanded. Back then England's glory days were in the past. It took the Jacobites to change this and form an Empire spanning the world. Imagine if Elizabeth had married? We'd be speaking French.

Because it didn't.

No, because people today aren't taught about the Angevin Empire.

The union of Scotland and England was not political, but personal; under his son, they were rapidly disunited. He lost his kingdoms and his head. His son, James II, kept his head but lost his throne. Not a resounding story of success. The foundations of empire (from a military point of view) owe more to the Commonwealth- Cromwell's forces seized Jamaica, and defeated the Spanish and Dutch in Europe.

All starts with James VI and I. There was no one else. Had Charles not been executed the blight of the interregnum would have been averted.

It's an interesting world view that you have, Molly, where you celebrate the tyrants and ignore the best rulers.

[molly bloom]

Yes, they took the Christian lands that had fallen to the Turks.

They didn't retake Anatolia for the Byzantines. They invaded lands in the Middle East that had been part of Sunni Islam or Fatimid Shi'ite Islam for quite some time- over 300 years in some cases. In any case, the Crusaders weren't truly fighting for Orthodox or Coptic or Jacobite Christianity.

Or perhaps we should forget about the fact that Alexandria and Antioch and Jerusalem were all once nearly as prominent as Rome

And at one time they were ruled by the Achaemenids. The Alexander of Macedon, his successors, then the Sassanids, Byzantines, etc. Having a population part Christian does not make you a Christian city. It certainly didn't make them belong to Western Christianity or the French, or Germans.

Indeed. What was the population of Jerusalem when the Muslims first sacked it?

Irrelevant. Either Catholicism is a religion of peace, or it isn't. Slaughtering Jews is hardly a peaceful act. The Fatimid governor didn't kill the Christian population of Jerusalem- he let them go. The Fatimids had good relations with their religious minorities, and had proposed an anti-Turk alliance- which was refused by the Crusaders.

And you show your ignorance of antiquity. Yes, the lands were Christian, and the Christians have every right to stand up and defend themselves. But I suppose the Copts do not exist in your history.

No I don't. You assume that because the lands were once ruled over three hundred years before by a Christian power that they should be taken from their new rulers by force. As I've shown (through my greater knowledge of the area's history) the lands in question had been a battleground between the Zoroastrian Sassanid Empire and the Orthodox Byzantine Empire before Islam conquered them. In fact, Jerusalem and Antioch had only recently changed hands before the Muslim conquest in the 7th Century.

When the Crusaders eventually reached Egypt proper, they also indiscriminately killed Coptic Christians. Who had already demonstrated in previous centuries their lack of fondness for Byzantine rule ( the Copts being Monophysite schismatics).

If it was a religious war, then why did Catholic France intervene in favor of the Protestants?

You don't know much about it, do you ? It was partly a religious war, but Cardinal Richelieu preferred to support France and not the Pope or his fellow Catholic Habsburgs, for his own reasons.

Again, you lie

I'm sorry, that's your area of expertise.

Many priests were executed and many who chose to practice Catholicism were banished from England.

Execution of priests for treason has what to do with recusancy ? The conflict with some English Catholics was a process, it didn't happen all at once. Give figures for those banished from Emgland for their Catholicism.

The Huguenots who left France after the Revocation numbered almost a quarter of a million. They contributed greatly to the British and Dutch economies, and were also warmly welcomed by Brandenburg- which left its former alliance with France. Of course the same thing happened with the Spanish expulsion of the Marranos and Moriscoes. Catholic monarchs, eh?

As did Henry's

Hogwash.

And England's loss was France's gain.

Huguenots and Sephardic Jews financed William of Orange's voyage to England. France lost its ally James II thanks to William. Who also went on to lead an alliance against France. Huguenots featured prominently in the new English army, at the Boyne and at Oudenarde.

Idiot.

And England's loss also the gain of Spain.

Almost too stupid for words. Heard of the repeated bankruptcies of the Crown of Spain ? What happened to the Spanish economy ? Spanish goods went from being carried by Spanish vessels to being carried by Dutch and English ships.

The difference is that Catholic France did not try to persecute the majority of their population as the Tudors did

Given you haven't stated what part of England's population was devoutly Catholic under the Tudors, I don't see how you can assert this. Catholic France certainly did have Holy Wars over faith. England didn't. England didn;t have a St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre. Nor did it have a mass expulsion comparable to Spain's loss of Jews or Moriscoes, or France's of Huguenots.

It's persecution simply because of their creed.

They didn't have the vote when most people didn't have the vote. I refer you to the Reform Act, 1832.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/PR1832.htm

They were expelled, en masse, and the priests were executed.

People were not expelled en masse. You have to prove this, not simply repeat it. Priests were executed- for treason.

Already cited, and the persecution of English Catholics did not begin with her. Nor was her persecution started after the Papal Bull. The Papal Bull spells out her persecution of Catholics prior to it's issuance. Again, you lie.

I notice you don't refer to any specific examples or dates. The Bull released Catholics from their allegiance to their monarch; ergo, they were now easily assumed to be traitors. You make no distinction between the Queen and her counsellors, nor do you refer to her attempts to ameliorate Parliament's attitude towards Catholics.

That's because you're ignorant and a bigot.

[Ben Kenobi]

I'm not saying they did it to 'protect' Irish Catholics

Having trouble keeping the lies straight? You just said that the division was done to protect Irish Catholics. Balderdash. It was done to preserve the protestant parts of Ulster, which is why the division is purely sectarian and will vanish along with the sectarianism. It has no basis in economic or geogaphical fact.

I clearly don't think that, don't be stupid, and don't put words in my mouth.

The fact of the matter is that they would be bringing in more Catholics than protestants. Even if they were reluctant to increase the total number of protestants, they would still gain the benefit of having more Catholics.

I said you haven't addressed whether or not the government of Eire wants a sizable Protestant minority in its territory.

Again, you can't keep the lies straight. You said that Eire does not want them. Full stop.

As for assimilation- you mean the Irish citizens and their ancestors who belonged to the Anglican Church in Ireland and others. As they already lived in what was to become Eire, they were hardly a new minority.

Assimilated in this case means that those areas have became significantly more Catholic over the years. So, given the model of the pale, I fail to see why the same would not happen over time with a united Ulster. The only point to the Church of Ireland was to a United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Now that the latter no longer exists there's not much need for the former.

You've already said that the cost of the new population would be paid for out of itself.

Indeed, adopting Eire taxation policies would be beneficial to Ulster. I don't see why they would perpetuate subsidies that really have no point in a united Ireland. There's no need to own a backwards outpost in Ireland anymore. Yes, you are right that they don't cover the running costs, which is why you slash the costs and bring them in line with the rest of Ireland. Or do you believe that nothing of value is produced in Ulster? It has the potential to be the most prosperous part of Ireland with competent administration.

They've declined by a third. Proof please.

In the same source you've already cited.

The 1961 Census states that Presbyterians comprised 29 percent of the population of Northern Ireland. As of 2001, they comprised 20.7 percent of the population. Do you not read your own sources? As I said, declined by a third.

I see you've resorted to out and out lies now. Where have I said or suggested that ? I don't support extremists of any religion.

That's the first you've said that. One could be forgiven looking at your previous posts from assuming that the Orange Order doesn't even exist. Look, yes, the Catholics are responsible, but they are not the only ones responsible for the troubles. There is a long history in Ireland of antagonism, and the Irish have cause for their skepticism to English policies intended to wipe them out.

Your opinions on Ireland, Partition and the economy of the two states have zero merit, because they're based on wishful thinking and a keen disregard for facts.

Given that you aren't even aware of what your own sources are saying, that's rather rich. At least one of us is reading them.

Nobody refers to the 'Pale' anymore. Again, you'd be wrong.

What would you call the areas with substantial Protestant settlement around the time of Cromwell? Oh right, the Pale. Why might it not be referred to? Because it's been assimilated into Ireland as a whole. Just as we won't really understand 'Northern Ireland'.

Having a Catholic majority or an increase in Catholic births doesn't prevent terrorism.

So why then is the bulk of the terrorism in Catholic minority areas? Could it be that they protestants are responsible for much of it and are trying to keep them down? That tends to be the English policy towards Catholics as a whole, does it not? Last I checked a Catholic could not even inherit the throne. Despite the fact that the original House was in fact Catholic. That would be like the Russians requiring Catholic kings. At least the Russians value their origins.

Actually Catholic terrorists and their supporters have been active throughout Western Europe and in North America.

For certain values of active. I'd wager that they are the third most active in the British Isles by creed. Want to guess number one and number two?

[Ben Kenobi]

They didn't retake Anatolia for the Byzantines.

Yes, they did retake parts of Anatolia for the Byzantines. First Crusade started at Nicaea. I guess in your history they got of the boat and that German dude drowned and the English dude kicked butt with the French dude? 3rd Crusade.

They invaded lands in the Middle East that had been part of Sunni Islam or Fatimid Shi'ite Islam for quite some time

Nicaea was ruled for 300 years by the Fatimids? What kind of history do they teach over there?

In any case, the Crusaders weren't truly fighting for Orthodox or Coptic or Jacobite Christianity.

Right, that's because Marx said so. IIRC, doesn't Marx believe there is no such thing as spirituality? That would kind of put a damper on the Crusades. Gosh, I'm going to sail halfway across the world, leaving my family behind, driving myself penniless, fighting the saracens only to die in a pisspot in a unmarked desert grave. Money, dear boy!

Or perhaps we should forget about the fact that Alexandria and Antioch and Jerusalem were all once nearly as prominent as Rome And at one time they were ruled by the Achaemenids.

Really? Let's ask the Persians what they think of Islam. Gosh, Zoroasterianism is just *thriving*. Good thing there's no longer any Shah anymore eh. Praise Carter!

Having a population part Christian does not make you a Christian city.

One would argue then that Constantinople isn't a Christian city either. Look, facts are facts. Back then those cities were extremely significant, because they were the locations of Christian Patriarchates. Less so known today, but that is simply because it isn't taught anymore. Which is why they were targets for Crusades. How else are you going to explain Damietta? Questing for Oil?

It certainly didn't make them belong to Western Christianity or the French, or Germans.

True. But we have Islam to thank for that. Christianity is no less Eastern, but it is unfortunate that the Muslims still are bound and determined to eradicate those who have stayed. They won't succeed, but they'll certainly try.

Indeed. What was the population of Jerusalem when the Muslims first sacked it? Irrelevant.

Maybe to you. Apparently it's only relevant when Christians retake it.

Either Catholicism is a religion of peace, or it isn't. Slaughtering Jews is hardly a peaceful act.

Neither is slaughtering Christians. I don't see why Christians shouldn't stand up for their brothers and sisters who are being attacked, and yes, that includes Jews in Israel. But apparently your love for them only goes so far.

The Fatimid governor didn't kill the Christian population of Jerusalem- he let them go. The Fatimids had good relations with their religious minorities, and had proposed an anti-Turk alliance- which was refused by the Crusaders.

And today they Muslims are torching the churches that have existed in Egypt since the Fatimids. Thank God for those tolerant Muslims eh? My gosh. I would have hardly expected you to be arguing that it's the Muslims we should be looking up to as a model for how to treat religious minorities. Maybe we should go ask those Persians again!

You assume that because the lands were once ruled over three hundred years before by a Christian power that they should be taken from their new rulers by force.

So if Napoleon succeeded you'd call yourself a proud Frenchman? Or am I allowed to argue that France is France and England is England, based on history that goes far further than the Napoleonic wars? Which is it?

As I've shown (through my greater knowledge of the area's history) the lands in question had been a battleground between the Zoroastrian Sassanid Empire and the Orthodox Byzantine Empire before Islam conquered them. In fact, Jerusalem and Antioch had only recently changed hands before the Muslim conquest in the 7th Century.

Which is why you are holding up Islam as the model for religious tolerance, given what they did to the Persians? You have a selective memory.

Anything positive about Christianity, never happened. A muslim helps a child? Wow, big news! Have to make sure people know about *that*.

When the Crusaders eventually reached Egypt proper, they also indiscriminately killed Coptic Christians. Who had already demonstrated in previous centuries their lack of fondness for Byzantine rule ( the Copts being Monophysite schismatics).

Except that they are actually in accordance with what the Church teaches. Might want to catch up with ol' Papa Benedict. He's a step ahead of you. Man, even 84 year old dudes are passing you by...

You don't know much about it, do you ? It was partly a religious war, but Cardinal Richelieu preferred to support France and not the Pope or his fellow Catholic Habsburgs, for his own reasons.

So, it WASN"T a religious war. Thanks Molly! Glad to see that your narrative is wrong, as usual.

Execution of priests for treason has what to do with recusancy ? The conflict with some English Catholics was a process, it didn't happen all at once. Give figures for those banished from Emgland for their Catholicism.

You're looking at the colonies of Nova Scotia, (New Foundland), significant numbers of folks in Manitoba, some in Ontario.

Then you're looking at George Calvart, and his bunch.

Not to mention the Catholics in Australia and New Zealand, as well as on the continent, in Savoy and in France. So, yeah. I'll see what I can find. I'm interested in the question myself, putting a total number on those who left England to settle elsewhere.

Idiot.

And Catholics served at Yorktown.

Given you haven't stated what part of England's population was devoutly Catholic under the Tudors

Under Henry VII? Same as in France at the time. England was a Catholic country, just like France (which is why they had problems), during the Babylonian captivity when the Papacy was in

I don't see how you can assert this. Catholic France certainly did have Holy Wars over faith. England didn't.

England did have a holy war over Faith. You just don't regard it as a 'holy war'. That's the problem. They, had, in fact, several wars over religion. The last of which was the Glorious Revolution. Very much a religious war. Everything from Henry VII to George I was a Holy War, over the Catholic question, in one form or another. Even the Gordion riots were a part of this.

The reason you don't get this is because you don't see things from the Catholic perspective.

England didn;t have a St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre. Nor did it have a mass expulsion comparable to Spain's loss of Jews or Moriscoes, or France's of Huguenots.

Yes, they did have St. Bartholomew's Day massacre. And their 'mass expulsion', was primarily to the Colonies. That was kind of the whole point of them.

They didn't have the vote when most people didn't have the vote. I refer you to the Reform Act, 1832.

Balderdash. Emancipation was passed because they could be arrested simply for practicing their faith and asserting they were Catholic as late as 1832. BY the laws on the book, not to mention the Test act which prohibited many industries to Catholics.

And yes, they were expelled, en masse.

I notice you don't refer to any specific examples or dates. The Bull released Catholics from their allegiance to their monarch

I cited the damn Bull, which refers to Elizabeth having executed Priests. Ergo, it was written after she had done so. This is not hard, Molly. Are you really trying to assert that the Bull drove the persecution and not the other way around?

Elizabeth I executed priests for no other reason than the fact that they celebrated mass. End stop. Hence the bull, releasing, not just the priests, but all the faithful in England from their duties to their sovereign.

That's because you're ignorant and a bigot.

No, I happen to be a historian who refuses to whitewash Elizabeth's history.

[molly bloom]

Again, the work was undertaken by King James, and it was his version that became the most popular. If the other, earlier versions had been as noteworthy, they would not have been superceded by the King James version.

If you want to get into the second most popular, then you'll be looking at Challoner, not Tyndale.

Again, you appear to be having some cognitive difficulties. Look at what I wrote:

The Tudor 'ruin' managed to provide England with a world language, not a an off-shore European one. A world literature, in Shakespeare, Elizabethan drama, the Bible (based in many aspects upon work by Miles Coverdale and William Tyndale)

I'm not talking about which particular book is the best seller. I'm talking about a new vocabulary, new phrases, for new ideas and experiences. England was opened to Humanism and the Renaissance in Tudor times:

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.

Ch.11, Early Modern English from 'The English Language' by David Crystal

The Authorized Version, from a linguistic point of view, has a smaller vocabulary than Shakespeare, and preserves older words and phrases, that by the 1620s were already dying out or to be found only in isolated areas. Hardly surprising, given that Tyndale's New Testament predated the Authorized by almost a century.

[molly bloom]

Having trouble keeping the lies straight?

If in doubt, rely on invective. You've already accused me on no evidence at all of ignoring or treating Protestant terrorism differently from Catholic terrorism. I distrust and dislike all religious fanatics.

You just said that the division was done to protect Irish Catholics

Then quote what I said. The Republicans in the South were faced with an unenviable choice- endure more bloodshed and warfare, or get the best deal possible. The best deal was the Partition, which did save Irish Catholics in the South from a longer war with the British.

The fact of the matter is that they would be bringing in more Catholics than protestants.

Again, you can't keep the lies straight. You said that Eire does not want them. Full stop

Indeed, adopting Eire taxation policies would be beneficial to Ulster.

Give us some figures, not an opinion. I've already shown (the Economist article) that Northern Ireland costs more to run that it provides in revenue. You have yet to show, with figures, how Eire would provide for its new population. Because you don't have any figures.

Show me where ? Otherwise, you are again bearing false witness. One of us is a liar, and it isn't me.

Again, you first misrepresented me, and you continually fail to address what the Irish government wants and how it would all be paid for. Facts, not broad assumptions and opinions please.

That's the first you've said that

I don't support female genital mutilation either, or first degree murder, or the death penalty. To point out that Catholics have committed acts of terror and mass murder when you are disingenuously calling it a religion of peace, it is not necessary to go through every other religious denomination's chequered history. It is either a religion of peace or it isn't. As I've said, 'and so do they' is neither justification nor excuse.

Look, yes, the Catholics are responsible, but they are not the only ones responsible for the troubles.

The issue is not responsibility for the Troubles, the issue is, are Catholics violent ? Do they kill ? Do they plant bombs which kill indiscriminately ? Do they torture, and carry out punishment beatings and kneecappings ? If the answer to all these is yes, which it is, then as adherents of a supposed 'religion' of peace, they're failing.

At least one of us is reading them.

You haven't posted any figures or sources for your opinions on Ireland. How could I read yours ? It's all just vague waflle and fantasy.

What would you call the areas with substantial Protestant settlement around the time of Cromwell? Oh right, the Pale.

Mediaeval times and later, you twit. The first mention of the Pale in Ireland is in 1446. Your lack of knowledge is all too apparent. There was also a Pale in Calais. It refers to the area under direct rule from England. And as I've said, nobody refers to it anymore.

So why then is the bulk of the terrorism in Catholic minority areas?

Please how us your evidence for this.

Last I checked a Catholic could not even inherit the throne. Despite the fact that the original House was in fact Catholic

Yes, because there were so many other options available. I bet they were even Caucasian.

I'd wager that they are the third most active in the British Isles by creed. Want to guess number one and number two?

Not interested in your wagers and guesswork. Some more facts, dates and figures would be useful, because so far you're pitiably short in them, and long on rhetoric and windbaggery.

[MikeH]

If you are arguing with Ben, you should assume all of the following:

1. that he wont read what you say
2. that he wont understand what you said (see point 1)
3. that he wont argue against what you actually said, just an army of strawmen (see point 2)
4. that he wont have facts to back up his points
5. that he wont understand any facts you provide (see points 1, 2 and 3)
6. that he wont understand or follow any basic logical argument
7. that he wont provide any logical argument
8. that he will lie

He's demonstrated again and again. So it really is pointless to discuss anything with him.

[molly bloom]

QUOTE=Ben Kenobi;6037334]Yes, they did retake parts of Anatolia for the Byzantines. [/QUOTE]

Locate Nicaea on a map. Locate Anatolia. The Crusaders didnt retake Anatolia for the Byzantines. A part is not the whole and never has been. Do read something on the Crusades- try Steven Runciman's three volume work - I have.

I guess in your history they got of the boat and that German dude drowned and the English dude kicked butt with the French dude? 3rd Crusade.

I'm entirely uninterested in your guesses and misrepresentations. In my history they start off with anti-Jewish pogroms in Europe (after the initial preaching of course). 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.

Nicaea was ruled for 300 years by the Fatimids? What kind of history do they teach over there?

I didn't say that. And what I said can't be interpreted that way, by anyone with a degree of knowledge or common sense. Which I'm coming to see excludes you. 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.

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

Not relevant. 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.

Really? Let's ask the Persians what they think of Islam.

Oh dear. Someone's missing his medication. The point being that you hysterically portraying the Crusades as an attempt to win back 'Christian' lands is just nonsense- the lands were no more 'Christian', and had not been in some cases for over 300 years.

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.

True. But we have Islam to thank for that.

Again, irrelevant. The Crusaders were not retaking lands that had belonged to the Christian West. The Byzantines had not been well-liked by their Syriac and Coptic citizens either- which if you'd read any Byzantine history, youd know.

Apparently it's only relevant when Christians retake it.

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

Neither is slaughtering Christians. I don't see why Christians shouldn't stand up for their brothers and sisters who are being attacked, and yes, that includes Jews in Israel. But apparently your love for them only goes so far

My love is irrelevant. The question which you keep shying away from or obscuring with irrelevant asides, is 'Is Catholicism 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....

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

Again, irrelevant. The Fatimids in Egypt sponsored feast on Christian holy days, they subsidised the head of the Jewish community and paid fees for new synagogues. They also wanted an anti-Turkish alliance. Please, stop jumbling up Mediaeval and Modern history when your lack of scholarship becomes apparent.

So if Napoleon succeeded you'd call yourself a proud Frenchman?

How woud I know the difference ? Besides, my ancestry is all Irish. In any case, it's irrelevant as to ownership. 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.

Which is why you are holding up Islam as the model for religious tolerance, given what they did to the Persians? You have a selective memory.

No, I have rather a good memory, and a better idea of Islamic and Iranian history than you. I'm not holding up Islam as a model for religious tolerance, simply stating facts. Which as ever, you seem incapable of doing, relying rather on stale rhetoric, misrepresentation and accusation.

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

Except that they are actually in accordance with what the Church teaches. Might want to catch up with ol' Papa Benedict. He's a step ahead of you. Man, even 84 year old dudes are passing you by...

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.

A source you should trust:

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,

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10502a.htm

So, it WASN"T a religious war. Thanks Molly! Glad to see that your narrative is wrong, as usual.

Boring. It was in part, a religious war- an attempt by the Habsburgs to impose Catholicism throughout their lands and the Empire. As I've said, you seem not to know too much about the Thirty Years' War. Perhaps you should read something before commenting. That goes for much of your other posts too, especially with reagrd to English history.

You're looking at the colonies of Nova Scotia, (New Foundland), significant numbers of folks in Manitoba, some in Ontario.

No figures I see. You said there were mass expulsions of English Catholics. When, where, and where did they end up ? I can supply dates, names and locations for expelled French Huguenots. You can't do the same, because Catholics in England were not expelled en masse.

I'm interested in the question myself, putting a total number on those who left England to settle elsewhere

Emigration is not forced expulsion. Mass expulsion in Elizabethan times of English Catholics, facts, figures, dates. Put up or shut up.

And Catholics served at Yorktown

If you mean the French, so what ?

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

England was a country ruled by a Catholic monarch. There were still in fact Lollards in Henry VII's time, and besides, I note you simply assume that if the ruler's Catholic the country is- I'm talking about devout practising Catholics. If we go by this reasoning, then the Crusaders were no longer retaking Christian lands were they ? They'd be invading Muslim lands.

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.

The reason you don't get this is because you don't see things from the Catholic perspective.

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.

Yes, they did have St. Bartholomew's Day massacre. And their 'mass expulsion', was primarily to the Colonies

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 ?

If you can't provide names, dates, locations, then please, stop lying.

Balderdash.

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

And yes, they were expelled, en masse

Proof. Names, dates, locations. Oh that sounds familiar. I know, it's because you seem not to understand what evidence is.

I cited the damn Bull

So did I. It preceded the Recusancy Act, and came just after a rebellion by English Catholic lords.

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.

No, I happen to be a historian

You're sadly mistaken.

[Kidlicious]

If you are arguing with Ben, you should assume all of the following:

1. that he wont read what you say
2. that he wont understand what you said (see point 1)
3. that he wont argue against what you actually said, just an army of strawmen (see point 2)
4. that he wont have facts to back up his points
5. that he wont understand any facts you provide (see points 1, 2 and 3)
6. that he wont understand or follow any basic logical argument
7. that he wont provide any logical argument
8. that he will lie

He's demonstrated again and again. So it really is pointless to discuss anything with him.

Except if it weren't for Ben we might not know how much Molly Bloom knows.

[Tupac Shakur]

The extent of Molly's knowledge...

http://www.google.com/

[Hauldren Collider]

Sounds about right. Still puts him above average, though.

[Kidlicious]

You're both idiots.