Posted on 05/25/2014 4:39:43 PM PDT by NKP_Vet
Today, May 23, is the anniversary of King Henry VIII’s divorce from Catherine of Aragon — the event which started the English Reformation.
In 2003, Charles Clarke, Tony Blair’s Secretary of State for Education and Skills, expressed strong views on the teaching of British history.
I don’t mind there being some medievalists around for ornamental purposes, but there is no reason for the state to pay for them.
In response, Michael Biddiss, professor of medieval history at Reading University, suggested that Mr Clarke’s view may have been informed by Khrushchev’s notion that historians are dangerous people, capable of upsetting everything.
In many ways, Khrushchev was correct. Historians can be a distinct threat — both those who create “official” history, and those who work quietly to unpick it, filling in the irksome and unhelpful details.
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.telegraph.co.uk ...
OK, now I understand where you are coming from.
I don’t know which denomination you mean, but i do know about the Catholicism, I have lived next to Mexico and Latin America all my life, I have seen the Catholics vote against protestant Christians in america all my life, I watched the atheists and Catholics vote for Obama twice.
I wouldn’t want to return to a time when most of FR would be criminals against a church, and a United States could never have been created.
Never in America. In Europe the Catholic church was the law, they made it so, and imposed it, brutally. When the first survivor Christians broke free from Rome they did look very much like the Catholics and Catholic culture of brutality they were born as, and were fighting for their survival, but after a few generations of being free and the Catholic denomination accepting their loss of power, the bloodshed ended.
When I see threads at FR, I also see that some Catholics regret that they can't reimpose that power.
“I didn’t mention Pedophilia, I mentioned that they are famous for sex scandals involving male on male sex.”
Irrelevant. The fact stands that they are famous for what they media have trumpeted.
There is something particularly...dishonest...about rejecting the lamestream media’s propaganda in all areas but one.
No single religion, or lack of religion, put Obozo into office. But the Catholic Church is THE only one that has an official position against Birth control, Homosexuality etc... That is not to say that all of it's members follow those teachings, but the same is true of ANY religion. You go any Church on Sunday morning and you will find people that disagree with any number of precepts, yet each of the religions claims that if you "follow their way" you will get to heaven.
The point remains that when there was bloodshed, it was mutual. There were Catholic countries prosecuting Protestants as traitors and there were Protestant countries that prosecuted Catholics as traitors, and of course, everyone wanted to colonize and enlighten the pagans in the Americas and Africa.
The bloodshed ended when religion became to be viewed as a matter of intellectual choice, following the Enlightenment both in West Europe and America.
The power many Catholics want re-imposed is the power of the Catholic Church to control the Catholic character of people and institutions that want to be called Catholic without actually being Catholic in behavior. We would like our bishops to excommunicate pro-life politicians for example, and colleges that are considered Catholic to actually teach Catholicism. I am not aware of any Catholic that would want the Church to gain legislative power over people and institutions outside of it.
I want America voting like our second largest Christian denomination, not our largest one.
I live in America, I’m not interested in what some guys in Rome say or what purity they maintain on paper, I’m interested in how people vote in the greatest nation on earth, and Catholics have always voted as they vote today, with 4 to 5 exceptions.
We all know that the democrats depend on the Catholic vote and made a law to destroy America in 1965, so that they could import more Catholics and non-protestants, and it has worked.
Conservatives, and the left know what Catholic immigration means, it means what it always has, more moving to the left.
I see I am wasting my breath. Feel free to have the last word.
Yes we have Catholics who want to end America and regain Monarchy, who see the founding of the United States as a blight on Catholicism, that can only be removed once it is conquered by Rome.
Why do you think threads with a lot of what you thought were conservative voting, pro-life, anti-gay, good old right wing Catholics on them, get so strange when the topic turns to ending immigration?
I am a monarchist but I don’t want to “regain Monarchy” in America since we don’t have a monarch and have nowhere to find him. If America one day elects one, I’ll be fine with it. But I have a highly atypical set of political views. Neither I or anyone I know wants America to be conquered by anything. These are just your fantasies about people you apparently never spent time talking to.
Whatever take one has on immigration, it is not exactly “let’s conquer America and kill everyone who disagrees” type of position that you accuse us of. Personally, by the way, I am all for immigration severely curtailed even when legal.
Amazing.
Meanwhile, don’t make up fake quotes for me.
Sorry. The first is a quote from you. The second is an attempt at humor, paraphrasing your “imposed it, brutally” and “fighting for their survival” from post 163.
It was imposed and maintained brutally, and it took real wars to get free from it.
bookmark
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.