Pope sends direct message to Ben

[N35t0r]

Yes, but you treasure democracy as something newly won. Give it a couple of generations. I pay my taxes not out of belief in the social contract, but in the knowledge that not doing so will lead to fines, arrest, imprisonment, or worse. Same as almost every other law-abiding citizen on earth.

No, totally, I agree with this. My point is that even the worse democracies (as long as they are functioning democracies, not the farce that Cuba has, for example) are more legitimate (in that the government's power comes directly from the citizen's agreement) than a ruler who got there through sheer force.

Throughout history, there have been monarchs who ruled humanely and with broad popular support. There have also been ruthless, thuggish democracies--think Athens around the time of the Peloponnesian war. In the end, all rule and law is backed by the threat of force. Which is not to deny that democracy is generally vastly superior...

Yeah, and even here most of the coups were done with significant popular support, and they toppled very weak governments. I still think that the weak democratic governments were more legitimate than the juntas.

I was making fun of BK's belief that some branch of the kings of england, through blood ties, was somehow more legitimate than the other.

[N35t0r]

Which means exactly what to jolly old england?

You tell me, you brought them up.

True the monarchy has had problems, but surely you can see that it's far, far superior to what Argentina has experienced.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA, no. You yourself, up there, was complanig about all the catholic executions/prosecution, then Mary did her share on the protestants. Add to that succession and civil wars, and wars with other nations on the only grounds such as 'You're my cousin thrice removed, so I think all your lands should be mine. Here's a bunch of my peasants to slaughter yours.'

The point being that criticizing England when Argentina's system is so terrible makes no sense to me. England is a beacon of Democracy in comparison. Even under the Tudors.

So because my democracy has a relatively high degree of corruption (which ultimately is the fault of the voters), I can't say I prefer it to a system where the people in power got there through violence? And I can't laugh at the concept of one hereditary dictatorship being somehow more legitimate than the next?

[molly bloom]

Yet she executed many prominent Catholics including Mary Queen of Scots. She had no justification for killing Mary,

Unbelievable. So all of the evidence against Mary, that written in her own hand, her collusion with Norfolk, the plots with France, with Spain, the Ridolfi Plot, the Babington Plot, none of that counts as 'justification' . Let's be clear- Mary Stuart was a guest who plotted the removal of the monarch whose realm she lived in. She conspired with hostile foreign powers and with ambitious Catholic or crypto-Catholic aristocrats to have Elizabeth dethroned, imprisoned or murdered. The only wonder is that she lasted so long...

as we see in her elevation of her son, James VI/I to the throne of England.

Elizabeth did not elevate James to the throne of England. She was dead when he was crowned. He succeeded by virtue of his descent through Mary Stuart and Lord Darnley.

You are a fool.

And was she involved

I'm sorry, but 'she' who ? As again, when you get a bit distressed, your grasp of English lets you down.

So Elizabeth had the Catholic Mary Queen of Scots executed on false pretences.

Not at all. It's not like this is arcane historical knowledge vouchsafed only to bonkers Catholic converts like you. Elizabeth persisted in her belief that hereditary privilege outweighed religious concerns- not bad for someone you seem to think of as a high priestess- and this is why Mary Stuart lived for a s long as she did.

It's not merciful when you execute someone innocent, Molly.

Prove Mary Stuart's innocence.

You mean the same plots that the Parliament which approved of the execution of Catholics saw everywhere?

You're confusing Parliament with the Privy Council, and also exaggerating. Shock.

Either the plots were really terribly done

They were, but Elizabeth also had a formidable spymaster in Walsingham, who had a netwrok of informers and double agents, from London to Madrid.

Not vague at all.

'Many' is vague.

Many Dissenters and Catholics left because the colonies had official religious toleration.

Which colonies ? Masschusetts did not 'tolerate' Catholics. Which colonies in the Americas tolerated Catholics ? Massachusetts would not tolerate Quakers, or the Dissenters who went on to found Rhode Island and Connecticut. You'd know that if they ever taught you this in school.



Digging your own grave.....

Attending a mass or performing one was considered treasonous in Elizabethan England.

Gosh, well we're talkig about quite a long reign, and with some interesting events taking place in Continental Europe in Roman Catholic kingdoms. Perhaps it might be of some use to place it in some kind of context- like how many Protestants, Muslims or Jews were living in Spain at the same time ? Or when exactly did official harassment of Catholics increase in Elizabethan England ?

So once again, - we see that you blame others for Elizabeth's religious persecution in England.

Not at all. Once again, we see me placing the conflict with treasonous Catholics in Elizabethan England in a wider European context. And also distinguishing between the wishes and actions of Elizabeth and those of her Privy Council and Parliaments.....

Do you think that will fare well with God?

I'm an atheist. I don't care what you think a supernatural being might think.

Uh, they were persecuted in England. Do they not teach you that in your grammar school education?

They indeed taught me that the Pilgrim Fathers were a group of Dissenters who left England during the reign of James I & VI. Not Elizabeth.

[molly bloom]

Unlike in England - the head of State of Spain was distinct from the head of their religion.

The head of the Church of England, not the head of their religion. As far as I'm aware, the C. of E., whatever its faults or merits, is still a branch of Christianity, and not a whole new religion. Under Elizabeth's influence, it retained the Anglo-Catholic aspects of Henry VIII's time, and she was against married bishops, and certainly against divorced or maried bishops re-marrying- as her treatment of one indicated. In fact members of her Privy Council, the Church and the Commons were decidedly more 'Protestant' or Puritanical than her. Also, she was not a theologian, or a priestess.

Rather odd if she was meant to be running a theocracy. Also rather odd that the supposed theocrats, the bishops and archbishops, had no control over the army, the government, the justices of the peace, the navy, or the executive.


In short, England was a monarchy (not an absolutism or despotism) with an elected House of Commons and a House of Lords- a parliament which Elizabeth was constrained to call when she was in need of funds for either the running of the state or in the earlier part of her reign for costly foreign adventures (the war with France, a legacy of her sister Mary's reign, for instance). This again, is basic grammar school knowledge. I'm honestly astonished that someone claiming to have a history degree can assert otherwise.


But not that astonished that it's you doing so...

Henry VIII declared himself pope of his new religion

Please provide an instance of his doing so. Otherwise this is mere hysteria & exaggeration on your part.

Head of state = defender of the faith and the man in charge of the new state religion.

It was not a new religion. It was still Christianity. Defender of the faith was a title bestowed on Henry by a pope, I believe... Henry was simply head of the Church of England- not a priest, not the chief priest, nor despite his interest in theology, a theologian. He was a Renaissance dynast with a keen interest in a male heir. And he ruled over a kingdom, not a theocracy.

Persecution which ended under Henry VIII? No.

Answer the question. Were the Lollards persecuted by the Plantagenet dynasty ? The truth is yes.

So did Henry VIII.

BORING. Yes, I admit, Henry VIII was at one time a persecuting Roman Catholic.

Henry II was censured by Pope Alexander III after his murder of Catholic Thomas Beckett, and Henry II submitted. The Catholic church under the Plantagenets was not the theocracy that England later became under the Tudors.

If you mean did Mary Tudor (Roman Catholic) have her government reenact the legislation against heresy dating from Plantagenet days, then yes she did. And if you mean did Mary Tudor have a surprisisngly large number of people executed for their faith and their faith alone in her short reign, then yes, she did.

Repeating your vacuous opinion that England was a theocracy under the Tudors doesn't make it so.

[Elok]

Well, over here we did have a somewhat prolonged anarchy/civil war period while we decided on the exact details of our democracy, but this was after we decided (by vote) that we were going to set up a democratic government. Even after the 2001 crisis in which the political parties lost a lot of credibility, the guys who advocated dissolving the system and setting up a new one barely got any votes. The various military governments had an even greater threat of military force to rely upon (after all, they had already used them to take power) yet they were toppled in the end (relatively peacefully even).
I think it's a significant difference between that and a system whose head of state, either directly or indirectly, gets it legitimacy from military power.

Yes, but you treasure democracy as something newly won. Give it a couple of generations. I pay my taxes not out of belief in the social contract, but in the knowledge that not doing so will lead to fines, arrest, imprisonment, or worse. Same as almost every other law-abiding citizen on earth. Throughout history, there have been monarchs who ruled humanely and with broad popular support. There have also been ruthless, thuggish democracies--think Athens around the time of the Peloponnesian war. In the end, all rule and law is backed by the threat of force. Which is not to deny that democracy is generally vastly superior...

[Ben Kenobi]

I think it's a significant difference between that and a system whose head of state, either directly or indirectly, gets it legitimacy from military power.

Which has lasted, what? All of a decade?

[Ben Kenobi]

Those bloody dictators who took power by force (and with US support)

Which means exactly what to jolly old england?

and murdered countless civilians? Pretty much worse, IMHO, but I've always been against them and at least 95% of the country agrees with it.

True the monarchy has had problems, but surely you can see that it's far, far superior to what Argentina has experienced.

So either you think I support them (to which I say **** you, they tortured my grandfather) or you think they were a fine example (to which I also say **** you), or I don't really see your point.

The point being that criticizing England when Argentina's system is so terrible makes no sense to me. England is a beacon of Democracy in comparison. Even under the Tudors.

[N35t0r]

Well, over here we did have a somewhat prolonged anarchy/civil war period while we decided on the exact details of our democracy, but this was after we decided (by vote) that we were going to set up a democratic government. Even after the 2001 crisis in which the political parties lost a lot of credibility, the guys who advocated dissolving the system and setting up a new one barely got any votes. The various military governments had an even greater threat of military force to rely upon (after all, they had already used them to take power) yet they were toppled in the end (relatively peacefully even).
I think it's a significant difference between that and a system whose head of state, either directly or indirectly, gets it legitimacy from military power.

[Elok]

Yeah, but to be fair, pretty much all states are ultimately sustained by the implicit threat of military force. Democracy is superior because it gives us a choice as to who holds the guns. Most of the time.

[N35t0r]

As opposed to the next Argentine Junta?

Those bloody dictators who took power by force (and with US support) and murdered countless civilians? Pretty much worse, IMHO, but I've always been against them and at least 95% of the country agrees with it.

So either you think I support them (to which I say **** you, they tortured my grandfather) or you think they were a fine example (to which I also say **** you), or I don't really see your point.

Not true. Some of them had sex with the right people, or were the children of people who did. Others had the previous monarch assassinated; were put in place as useful idiots by people with military, clerical, political, financial or social power; filled a vacancy by popular acclaim after the last occupant got executed...oh, there are a lot of other ways, I'm sure, but those are the big ones that come to mind.

So, in the end, either military power, inheriting something gained through military power, or propped up by people with military power?

[Elok]

Okay, so what's your point? That England is vastly superior for having a well-documented list of mostly-mediocre dictators, who on occasion transferred power peacefully?

[Ben Kenobi]

Not true. Some of them had sex with the right people, or were the children of people who did. Others had the previous monarch assassinated; were put in place as useful idiots by people with military, clerical, political, financial or social power; filled a vacancy by popular acclaim after the last occupant got executed...oh, there are a lot of other ways, I'm sure, but those are the big ones that come to mind.

Elok, not all nations have the storied history of England where they can actually keep track of which military dictatorship is in power, let alone 1000 years of a monarchy.

[Ben Kenobi]

I do love how he is totally oblivious to that fact.

I can't be bothered to read all that text.

Perhaps rah should read before commenting? I hear it's a skill most college programs teach.

[Elok]

I like it how ben defends one branch of the monarchy as 'legitimate' and somehow having a greater 'right' to rule when the only reason they and any other monarchs got to the throne is through military power.

Not true. Some of them had sex with the right people, or were the children of people who did. Others had the previous monarch assassinated; were put in place as useful idiots by people with military, clerical, political, financial or social power; filled a vacancy by popular acclaim after the last occupant got executed...oh, there are a lot of other ways, I'm sure, but those are the big ones that come to mind.

[Ben Kenobi]

I like it how ben defends one branch of the monarchy as 'legitimate' and somehow having a greater 'right' to rule when the only reason they and any other monarchs got to the throne is through military power.

As opposed to the next Argentine Junta?