Posted by rsp777 on 11/28/2021 4:27:00 AM (view original):
tang…That answer is easy. He believes CHRISTIAN PROPAGANDA and outright FALLACIES of the church. Isn’t that obvious?

The Catholic Church does take responsibility for the crusades and the inquisitions and even silence during the nazi atrocities.

There is too much animosity toward religion around here. Also too much religious preaching for this type of forum. It IS inappropriate.
Whitewashing or denying history because it is upsetting is also deplorable.

No this is NOT being “self important”.
Just trying to show some matured balance and keeping it real.

Posted by tangplay on 11/28/2021 2:10:00 AM (view original):
If you want to claim that the Crusades were righteous because the Muslims didn't have a right to Jerusalem, that's a bit more justifiable, I guess, but the idea that the Crusades were to defend Europe from an Islamic invasion is just flatly false.

I'm genuinely curious where you got this idea from

I've said it was hyperbole.
There was never a true threat to "all of Europe". The Muslim conquests came to a halt in France once they began encountering larger and better equipped armies.

However, Muslim aggression and conquest didn't just halt entirely. They continued to attempt conquest throughout much of modern day Spain and even much more so in the Mediterranean region. By the time of the first crusades the Muslims had conquered nearly 2/3 of the ancient Christian world (most notable exception being Europe). The final straw was when they banned Christians from entering Jerusalem, the Holy city Christians would regularly make pilgrimage to.

Now, it has to also be made clear that from the very beginning (almost immediately after the first Christian churches emerged - Apostolic Age) the Romans actively persecuted Christians. It's spread was much more organic, but eventually (beginning in the 4th century or so) Rome adopted Christianity as it's own "State Religion".

This is where the Roman Catholic Church, began to really grow in power and authority. Conversion was accomplished by force and did not resemble early proselytizing. By this time the "religion" was more a tool used as a club to "convert" the "heathens", rather than espousing the gentle teachings of a loving Christ. With this new found authority and backing power of the greatest empire at the time, Christianity (at least in name if not in spirit) experienced a huge growth spurt.

Even at this tender age (from say 400 - 700) there was LOTS of in-fighting, struggles for power & persecution of the "heretics" who didn't conform to the Roman definition, appropriation and codification of Christianity.

Politics!

As per always.

Former DOJ official Jeff Clark "indicated that he intends to invoke the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimnation apparently because he believes testimony about his interaction with President Trump would tend to incriminate him."

As Trump has said: If you’re innocent, why are you taking the Fifth Amendment?

OK, but why quote Trump??
His verbal output has as much in common with the truth as I have with twerking Miley Cyrus!

Quoting Trump makes absolutely perfect sense because it was about taking the 5th smendment.

By a 5–2 vote, the (extremely conservative) Florida Supreme Court holds that criminal defendants who exercise their right against self-incrimination by refusing to admit guilt may be punished with higher sentences due to "lack of remorse." Florida's sentencing statutes do not actually allow judges to use "lack of remorse" as a justification for a higher sentence. The Florida Supreme Court just made up this new rule—it doesn't come from the legislature.

weird.

For the record I’m fine with people invoking their fifth amendment rights. It’s conservative judges and Trump that think it’s bad. So former DOJ official Clark doing it is something for them to consider I guess.

I think the conservative courts think that the Supreme Court will bail them out.

We just had the Rittenhouse trial where the prosecutor got reamed for implying guilt for the same thing.

In the George Floyd case the defendant did not speak at sentencing to preserve appeal rights.

Isn't that ruling just directly against the constitution?

Posted by tangplay on 12/2/2021 3:03:00 PM (view original):
Isn't that ruling just directly against the constitution?

You’d think so!

The state of Missouri commissioned a study to see if mask mandates worked. When the results came in, showing they saved lives, the state blocked publication in order to maintain its attempt to force cities like St. Louis to end their mask mandates:

Posted by laramiebob on 12/2/2021 10:55:00 AM (view original):
OK, but why quote Trump??
His verbal output has as much in common with the truth as I have with twerking Miley Cyrus!

I'll never get that image out of my head now! Thanks, Bob!

The way I read that was "Miley Cyrus while she is twerking."

Your double simile correction has no grammatically correct interpretation.

EDIT: lolz, he took it down