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 ...
Mayhap, but he has promised in His Holy Word that he hears my prayers ... how he chooses to answer is up to Him. LOL!
Prove it.
Protestant isn’t very specific, and I’m not aware of any denomination except the Catholic one that has such a problem not with lust, but with lust for male flesh.
It isn’t like the catholic denomination is famous for it’s leadership falling for females.
The truth seems to be lacking here. Charity as well. Perhaps a little bit of statistics and maybe some history lessons are in order. What say you all?
What odd little cult teaches you these bizarro false histories?
Most historical records record Bloody Mary as being much less merciful than Elizabeth. Elizabeth had to deal with the bloody mood for over 40 years with a thousand killed by indirect battles, not all related to religion, while Mary had about 300-400 killed in 5 years by direct decree, hence her pseudonym.
Name the untruth in that post, if there was one, you could have.
What were the penalties for a Christians who did not want to be a member of the Catholic denomination and wanted to worship among themselves?
"Now look here, its no use mentioning Protestant religious oppression, especially a specific instance, because, I mean, darnit, Catholics did it too!"
And apparently, in your world, asserting over and over "centuries of oppression" without any specific evidence beats mentioning actual incidents?
What were the penalties for Catholics who did not want to be Protestants?
What odd little cult teaches you these bizarro false histories?
“Perhaps a little bit of statistics and maybe some history lessons are in order.”
I don’t know. I really don’t. Maybe it would be best to stop wasting time, or maybe spurring your plowhorse and jousting at the windmill is virtuous; I don’t know.
Over the many centuries of total catholic domination, what were the penalties for Christians who did not want to be a member of the Catholic denomination and wanted to worship among themselves?
See post 13.
Do NOT compare a religion to the Taliban. It is just as inappropriate as comparing a correspondent to a Nazi, it invokes Godwin’s Law.
Do NOT compare a religion to the Taliban. It is just as inappropriate as comparing a correspondent to a Nazi, it invokes Godwin’s Law.
When post 13 introduced the Taliban, I wasn’t aware of the the rule, and now I see how 13 threaded the needle to introduce the word.
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.