Sharia Law at Wal Mart [Trigger Warning: People Arguing With Ben]

[Ben Kenobi]

As for Parma - the Pope took it from the French. Are you arguing that the French Occupation was legitimate?

[Ben Kenobi]

We're too far from running water, nobody was living here

Can you prove that?

Title is a European invention. Arguing that people have title when none existed runs into serious problems, given that's not how they themselves settled land issues. For them, occupation was everything and un occupation was everything. Arguing that it's right for the Comanche to come and seize land from others but not right for the Europeans to do the same makes no sense to me.

[Ben Kenobi]

Jesus into a barbarian is beyond me

If it was right for the Romans to collect taxes was it also not right for the Romans to provide civil defense? It's been generally inferred that the obligation of governance is to provide protection for the people under their governance since the times of Athens. Hardly barbaric.

[Proteus_MST]

If it was right for the Romans to collect taxes was it also not right for the Romans to provide civil defense? It's been generally inferred that the obligation of governance is to provide protection for the people under their governance since the times of Athens. Hardly barbaric.

The romans didn´t just defend their civilists ... they were well known for things like razing whole metropolises to the ground ... and killing and enslaving the whole population.
According to nowadays moral standards I´d say that we can compare the romans to the Nazis.

On the other hand I have to admit that, according to the moral standards of the bible the romans weren´t all too bad ...
after all the bible contains accounts about god ordering genocides and neither the new nor the old testament spoke out against slavery.

[Ben Kenobi]

The romans didn´t just defend their civilists ... they were well known for things like razing whole metropolises to the ground ... and killing and enslaving the whole population.
According to nowadays moral standards I´d say that we can compare the romans to the Nazis.

As opposed to say, the Celts? The Vandals? The Muslims? The Goths?

There is a reason we associate civilization with Rome and barbarism with the barbarians. And not the least because Rome protected her citizens and provided for the civil defense not just for a few hundreds of years, but thousands.

after all the bible contains accounts about god ordering genocides and neither the new nor the old testament spoke out against slavery.

The real question should be what did these people do to warrant that response? and if you look in the bible it became clear. They attacked the Israelites when they were in the desert, and the Israelites simply wanted to pass through. Arguing that the response of the Israelites to go to war with those attacking a smaller people in their own defense is genocide, but the attacks on the Israelites are ignored makes no sense to me. The moral seems clear. Don't start what you're not willing to finish.

[C0ckney]

As for Parma - the Pope took it from the French. Are you arguing that the French Occupation was legitimate?

thank you for admitting that the pope acquired parma through conquest, thus proving my point.

for those interested in history, the pope had originally called in the french (together with the spanish and HRE) into italy to assist against venice. concerned at france's growing power he then, like the duplicitous italian prince that he was, switched sides, joining forces with venice and then (IIRC) bringing spain, england and the HRE to fight against france in the 'holy league'. venice then switched sides and joined the french, eventually winning the war. however, this was just one chapter in a whole series of italian wars that would dominate the first half of the 16th century.

[C0ckney]

The concordat offered sovereignty. I love how you choose to leave out the most important deal with the concordat. Had the liberals actually offered the pope something similar, I'm sure he would have accepted. They did not. What they offered - was something they could take away, at anytime. Now, legally, the pope retained autonomy, which was a very important decision for the Holy See, especially with hindsight.

Why, if the liberals are all about freedom, did they offer a worse deal than the fascists?

your complaint was the pope wasn't compensated. i pointed out that he in fact rejected an offer in 1871, no doubt hoping that the situation would change, making a mockery of your point. in the end his successor, recognising that the situation wouldn't change and, like most catholics throughout history, happy to work with fascists, accepted a worse deal.

[Berzerker]

Can you prove that?

Yes

Title is a European invention. Arguing that people have title when none existed runs into serious problems, given that's not how they themselves settled land issues. For them, occupation was everything and un occupation was everything. Arguing that it's right for the Comanche to come and seize land from others but not right for the Europeans to do the same makes no sense to me.

Who said it was right for Comanches to steal land?

If it was right for the Romans to collect taxes was it also not right for the Romans to provide civil defense? It's been generally inferred that the obligation of governance is to provide protection for the people under their governance since the times of Athens. Hardly barbaric.

The Romans were barbaric, taxes dont make them civil.

Now, where did Jesus say he was fine with being a Roman soldier?

more crickets

[Ben Kenobi]

thank you for admitting that the pope acquired parma through conquest, thus proving my point.

Parma was invaded by the French. The pope defeated the French and pushed them out. I really don't see that as an imperial papal conquest in expelling invaders from Italy. The Pope then separated out the Duchy which eventually went to the Bourbons.

So, in reality, by the time 1850 rolled around the Pope didn't actually possess Parma. Another fact that you conveniently left out.

[Ben Kenobi]

Who said it was right for Comanches to steal land?

Cockney?

The Romans were barbaric, taxes dont make them civil.

History would argue with you there.

As for Jesus, where did he condemn a soldier? Did he tell the soldier that he needed to give up his job and follow him? Or did he actually say, "such faith I have not found in all of Israel."

So what I can conclude is that Jesus believed that soldiers made the best Christians.

How would you know, Berz? I'm curious because in Canada they've claimed 130 percent of the province of BC.

[Proteus_MST]

As opposed to say, the Celts? The Vandals? The Muslims? The Goths?

There is a reason we associate civilization with Rome and barbarism with the barbarians. And not the least because Rome protected her citizens and provided for the civil defense not just for a few hundreds of years, but thousands.



The real question should be what did these people do to warrant that response? and if you look in the bible it became clear. They attacked the Israelites when they were in the desert, and the Israelites simply wanted to pass through. Arguing that the response of the Israelites to go to war with those attacking a smaller people in their own defense is genocide, but the attacks on the Israelites are ignored makes no sense to me. The moral seems clear. Don't start what you're not willing to finish.

1. Samuel 15:3
Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.

I think, not only according to nowadays standards the killing of not only adult men and women and the elder ones, but even of all babies and children is considered to be deeply amoral. Not to mention the killing of all livestock.
If that´s O.K. morals, then I cannot see why anyone should condemn Nazi-Germany for its concentration camps, because then thats not a worse thing than the israelites did to the Amalekites

(just to be sure that I am not misunderstood ... for my moral compass both, the genocide of the Amalekites as well as the things Nazi-Germany did are deeply amoral )

If I remember correctly there is also another passage in the bible where god punishes the israelites because their general chose to spare the virgins of a conquered tribe (instead of killing them as well, just as ordered) in order to turn them into sex slaves for his soldiers


Well, all beyond my moral standards, to be honest ... after all we are talking about G-O-D whose morals should be supposed to be eternal and non changing

[C0ckney]

Parma was invaded by the French. The pope defeated the French and pushed them out. I really don't see that as an imperial papal conquest in expelling invaders from Italy.

yes so the pope conquered parma; i'm glad we agree.

The Pope then separated out the Duchy which eventually went to the Bourbons.

So, in reality, by the time 1850 rolled around the Pope didn't actually possess Parma. Another fact that you conveniently left out.

you mean apart from the bit where i told you what the pope did to it (you're welcome).

well let's start with the annexation in 1512 of parma and piacenza (these were then given a as duchy to an illegitimate son of pope).

you really ought to learn to read.

[Ben Kenobi]

The Pope then separated out the Duchy which eventually went to the Bourbons.

I see you missed this part. So when the Pope was actually compensated for his land, he didn't own Parma. Anybody who plays Victoria would know this too.

pope conquered parma;

The Pope defeated France and liberated Parma.

[Ben Kenobi]

Now go and smite Amalek

I see you missed the reference to the Amalekites attempting to destroy the Israelites in the desert.

[C0ckney]

I see you missed this part. So when the Pope was actually compensated for his land, he didn't own Parma. Anybody who plays Victoria would know this too.

more than 200 years passed between those two events.

The Pope defeated France and liberated Parma.

the french that he himself had called in to fight his italian enemies...