Should the U.S. give reparations for slavery?

[Johan Banér]

Seriously? It was the Church that started the Holy Crusades in order to take control of the rich spice trading routes.

Funnily enough THAT is a Marxist argument – straight up historic materialism. No one but them makes THAT argument.

Though I am of course aware that Marxist is the LAST thing you are. What I assume you probably want to say here is that Catholic Church is morally destitute and only about filthy lucre, and always has been. Unlike morally upright, God-fearing Protestants.

It was the Church who destroyed the Templars for their money and lands.

No, unless the king of France was going around saying "L'Églie c'est moi!" Philippe le Bel didn't however. He was the one who seized their assets and put them on the bonfires.

It was the Church that sponsored the Inquisition which was all about seizing money and property.

The Dominican Order was tasked with the original Inquisition, in southern France and northern Italy, beginning in 1231, to convert the Cathars, Paterans, Bogomils, Waldensians etc. that had taken hold there. No seizures, though, and a process of peaceful conversion, in particular in Northen Italy where about HALF the population was initially considered heretics of some kind.
The later SPANISH Inquisition, which was under the Spanish Crown, later did things somewhat differently. (Still, might want to watch that Marxist historical materialist streak showing.)

It was the Church that rap[ed and enslaved and butchered the New World.

No, again that was the kings. And when it wasn't it tended to be local Big Men out to make money, far away from any kind of either royal or church control. The Church argued that the natives were human being in need of being brought to Christ.

And it was the Church that made a deal with the Nazis to protect themselves, said nothing and did nothing about the mass extinction of the Jews and then provided Vatican diplomatic passports, sanctuaries and transportation to help the murderer and torturers out of Germany to escape prosecution. The Church has a foul history when it comes to civil rights.

Interestingly in the latest move by the Vatican we might be getting some better documentation of what went on.

You are exaggerating MASSIVELY here. But it is NOT somehow random. What you have presented here is in effect the Anglosaxon Protestant Black Legend of Catholicism, poineered by the British, replanted in its New World colonies, and apparently still flourishing.

You're from the South too?

[nastle]

yes we should
a one way ticket first class to african country of choice

[nastle]

No, Jesus founded Christianity. The Catholic Church evolved from that founding.

he did ? what is the evidence ?

[Massena]

he did ? what is the evidence ?

You can start here and let us know the findings of your research:

https://www.amazon.com/Christianity-...s=books&sr=1-3

https://www.amazon.com/Story-Christi...s=books&sr=1-4

https://www.amazon.com/Story-Christi...s=books&sr=1-5

https://www.amazon.com/History-Catho...s%2C140&sr=1-3

You'll also find that the Protestant religions came from the Roman Catholic Church during the Reformation.

The Wars of Religion are also interesting-bloody but interesting:

https://www.amazon.com/Religion-1562...s=books&sr=1-2

https://www.amazon.com/Religious-155...s=books&sr=1-3

https://www.amazon.com/Religious-155...s=books&sr=1-6

I've always found that starting wars, particularly wars of conquest, in the name of religion of any kind antithetical to religion in general, especially when touting one's religion as a 'religion of peace.'

Of course, you could also use the Bible, especially the New Testament as a reference.

There will be a quiz at the end of the instructional period.

[Persephone]

And then the Irish turned into corrupt Congress critters with names like Ryan, McConnell and Graham.

True on Ryan and McConnell, my vote is still out on Graham though.

Blacks also turned into corrupt democRATS of Congress: Maxine Waters, Alcee Hastings, Sheila Jackson Lee, Greg Meeks, Charlie Rangel, Corrine Brown, Chaka Fattah and Eddie Bernice Johnson.

[Emtos]

No the two were quite different. The Americans were living in colonies without the same rights as Englishmen. In point of fact they were not considered Englishment by the British government. That was not the case with the southern states in the US as they were full citizens, with the notable exception of the black slaves, and they had the same rights as other American citizens.

Once again a foray by you into history comes up with incorrect and skewed material.

And if you're actually interested in the period of the American Revolution you might want to study just a little bit the Age of Reason and the Enlightenment.

It's normal that colonials doesn't have the same rights as normal Englishmen. It will be absurd to give to give them some rights.

Soithern States had the right to separate from Yankees. It's not a question of rights, it's a question of identity.

[Mountain Man]

Funnily enough THAT is a Marxist argument – straight up historic materialism. No one but them makes THAT argument.

Though I am of course aware that Marxist is the LAST thing you are. What I assume you probably want to say here is that Catholic Church is morally destitute and only about filthy lucre, and always has been. Unlike morally upright, God-fearing Protestants.

No, unless the king of France was going around saying "L'Églie c'est moi!" Philippe le Bel didn't however. He was the one who seized their assets and put them on the bonfires.

The Dominican Order was tasked with the original Inquisition, in southern France and northern Italy, beginning in 1231, to convert the Cathars, Paterans, Bogomils, Waldensians etc. that had taken hold there. No seizures, though, and a process of peaceful conversion, in particular in Northen Italy where about HALF the population was initially considered heretics of some kind.
The later SPANISH Inquisition, which was under the Spanish Crown, later did things somewhat differently. (Still, might want to watch that Marxist historical materialist streak showing.)

No, again that was the kings. And when it wasn't it tended to be local Big Men out to make money, far away from any kind of either royal or church control. The Church argued that the natives were human being in need of being brought to Christ.

Interestingly in the latest move by the Vatican we might be getting some better documentation of what went on.

You are exaggerating MASSIVELY here. But it is NOT somehow random. What you have presented here is in effect the Anglosaxon Protestant Black Legend of Catholicism, poineered by the British, replanted in its New World colonies, and apparently still flourishing.

You're from the South too?

Marxist? Horse pucky. That's liberal revisionism of history.

[American87]

If I knew my money was going to help fellow Southerners I'd be happy to pay reparations. They were exploited for a long time. Building up black communities and small businesses could benefit everyone.

Good point. Do you think we should increase welfare for all people, and not just pay reparations to blacks?

[marktwain]

he did ? what is the evidence ?

When we 'round up the usual suspects' for who started Christ-ianity, for some strange reason, Jesus is top of the list..

[Massena]

It's normal that colonials doesn't have the same rights as normal Englishmen. It will be absurd to give to give them some rights.

Soithern States had the right to separate from Yankees. It's not a question of rights, it's a question of identity.

Again, you are incorrect in your assumptions. And no state has the right to secede from the United States. If you believe that a state does, please show where in the US Constitution that it states that.

[marktwain]

Seriously? It was the Church that started the Holy Crusades in order to take control of the rich spice trading routes. It was the Church who destroyed the Templars for their money and lands. It was the Church that sponsored the Inquisition which was all about seizing money and property. It was the Church that rap[ed and enslaved and butchered the New World. And it was the Church that made a deal with the Nazis to protect themselves, said nothing and did nothing about the mass extinction of the Jews and then provided Vatican diplomatic passports, sanctuaries and transportation to help the murderer and torturers out of Germany to escape prosecution. The Church has a foul history when it comes to civil rights.

And none of this has anything to do with 21st century demands for reparations by people who have never know slavery on their entire lives but whose ancestors were often enslaved in the past by Catholics.

NO REPARATIONS, PERIOD.

If "none of...." has nothing to with the topic, why in heck did you post it in the first place??
I am beginning to suspect, MM, that behind your agnostic mask , lurks a genuine snake handlin' brother of the Rockbottom Crick first reptilian divinity....

[Emtos]

Again, you are incorrect in your assumptions. And no state has the right to secede from the United States. If you believe that a state does, please show where in the US Constitution that it states that.

Show me where it says in British constitution that somebody can secede from Britain. And why should states respect some old paper ?

[Tuebor]

This is such a silly and moronic idea. Who is left alive to reparate? What about indentured servants? Do they get reparations too? Who pays for the reparations? The descendants of all those who fought and died (well of those who were able to have descendants, before getting croaked) freeing the slaves? If we keep it to the descendants of slave owners, or Southerners in general, what about those who are descended from both sides? Do they pay half as much?

I had two great great grand-pappies who put the torch to Georgie and a certain capitol city of Southron Carolinee. Do I get a "Get Out of Paying Reparations" card? What about blacks? Do their taxes go into paying reparations for the suffering of their own antecedents? What about people of mixed color, especially in the south?

The insanity gets deep very fast, when we start talking about paying out reparations for something that occurred more than a century and a half ago.

This is nothing more than a bunch of guilty white people trying to make political hay with any greedy black person who might believe he should get a nice stipend for something that happened to somebody else five or more generations in the past.

Tuebor

[Massena]

Show me where it says in British constitution that somebody can secede from Britain. And why should states respect some old paper ?

It wasn't a secession, it was a revolt of a colony from the mother country. Again, get your facts straight.

[Emtos]

It wasn't a secession, it was a revolt of a colony from the mother country. Again, get your facts straight.

A revolt leading ot independence is exactly a secession. And a perfidous betrayal by the way.