Pope Francis Smacks Trickle Down

[Cap'n Cat]

D, In college, I had a history professor by the name of Lawrence Kohl. Very even-handed in his approach to things; if he had some religious or social opinions, he never expressed them in the classroom. He was a great teacher and if he had any religious faith, I know nothing about it.

He was discussing one day his expectations for us about our class thesis paper. In explaining how we should approach our research, he said something that always stuck with me, to the effect: "View with great suspicions contemporary historians who are writing for a political or social purpose. Often their intent is to mold the future rather than fairly explain the past, and they will mold their historical accounts to coincide with their hopes for the future."

You rely on precisely such people when you form your opinion of the past.

Kinda like them textbook cocksuckers in Texas.

[JoltinJoe]

D, In college, I had a history professor by the name of Lawrence Kohl. Very even-handed in his approach to things; if he had some religious or social opinions, he never expressed them in the classroom. He was a great teacher and if he had any religious faith, I know nothing about it.

He was discussing one day his expectations for us about our class thesis paper. In explaining how we should approach our research, he said something that always stuck with me, to the effect: "View with great suspicions contemporary historians who are writing for a political or social purpose. Often their intent is to mold the future rather than fairly explain the past, and they will mold their historical accounts to coincide with their hopes for the future."

You rely on precisely such people when you form your opinion of the past.

Kinda like them textbook cocksuckers in Texas.

Absolutely agree. But this happens on both sides of the political/social spectrum.

[Cap'n Cat]

And, whereas I agree with your professor's assertion, it's also true that contemporary historians are, by and large, attempting to make sense of, and often correcting the abuses, lies, half-truths, outright dogma and misinformation promulgated by characters in the past. In the case of centuries of Catholic apologists, they have entyire mountain ranges of fertile ground through which to plow. History isn't necessarily confined to the past, but rather, itself goes through multiple ruminations to find the truth. It evolves.

[YoUDeeMan]

Winners write history...and the truth gets lost.

[Cap'n Cat]

Winners write history...and the truth gets lost.

Hence the great value in constantly examine it, right, Clucky? The reason person would rather see some idols fall if it mean the truth.

[JoltinJoe]

And, whereas I agree with your professor's assertion, it's also true that contemporary historians are, by and large, attempting to make sense of, and often correcting the abuses, lies, half-truths, outright dogma and misinformation promulgated by characters in the past. In the case of centuries of Catholic apologists, they have entyire mountain ranges of fertile ground through which to plow. History isn't necessarily confined to the past, but rather, itself goes through multiple ruminations to find the truth. It evolves.

Again, I agree with you, and I think he warned against not all contemporary historians, but those who have a social or political agenda, precisely for that reason. (Obviously, he is a contemporary historian himself, and pretty accomplished one to boot).

But the revisionist history about the Catholic Church tends to the overkill, for the political and social purpose of discrediting the moral message of the Church today.

By way of one example, let's examine the statement that the Catholic Church brutalized the natives of Central America. What actually happened, is that the Spanish Crown organized the military adventures of the Conquistadors in the new world, for the purpose of expanding its political reach and wealth. Now, granted the Conquistadors were overwhelming Catholic, as was most of Spain, and granted too that Catholic missionaries traveled with the Conquistadors.

History records that the Conquistadors plundered the natives, took wealth and send it back to Spain (keeping their negotiated portion of the bounty for themselves), and forced many conversions under the threat of death they carried out so frequently.

But NONE of these activities were sanctioned by the Catholic Church. In fact, the reason we know with a great degree of historical certainty about what happened is because many of the Catholic clergy traveling with the Conquistadors reported back to their superiors with great alarm over what was happening, which ultimately resulted in the Pope issuing a condemnation of the events.

Or let's look at the Inquisition. Now I'm not going to tell you that the Inquisition was a wonderful thing. But first, the reason the Church started the Inquisition was because civil authorities were routinely imposing death sentences for heresy. So the Church sought to exercise jurisdiction over heresy trials; provide the accused with the ability to defend against the charges (which was not allowed by the civil authorities); and to permit the accused to recant if found guilty. Additionally, the Church rarely ordered a death sentence or imposed torture (which it lacked ability to carry out). Not a great thing, but not the monstrosity reported by contemporary historians.

In fact, contemporary historians with a bias against the Church intentionally obscure the difference between the Catholic Inquisition and the Spanish Inquisition. They were not one and the same. The Spanish Inquisition was authorized by the Spanish Crown; it was condemned by the Pope as being cruel and unauthorized; and it was more used for political reasons than to maintain Catholic purity.

The Spanish Inquisition was the brutal and excessive Inquisition people commonly think of today. Due to being so actively misled, people believe that the Spanish Inquisition was one and the same with the Catholic Inquisition, when the Spanish Inquisition was never authorized by the Church and was, in fact, condemned by the Church.

[Ibanez]

D, In college, I had a history professor by the name of Lawrence Kohl. Very even-handed in his approach to things; if he had some religious or social opinions, he never expressed them in the classroom. He was a great teacher and if he had any religious faith, I know nothing about it.

He was discussing one day his expectations for us about our class thesis paper. In explaining how we should approach our research, he said something that always stuck with me, to the effect: "View with great suspicions contemporary historians who are writing for a political or social purpose. Often their intent is to mold the future rather than fairly explain the past, and they will mold their historical accounts to coincide with their hopes for the future."

You rely on precisely such people when you form your opinion of the past.

While pursuing my history degree, I heard the same thing. And to a point it's very true. However, using that logic, can you really trust ANYTHING? Obviously, it was all at some point contemporary. Eventually but not generally, the further away from a person or event we get, the accounts will become more and more accurate. There are always a bias and there are always "authors" like Bill O'Reilly who will distort the truth

There are authors to avoid (Bill O'Reilly) and others to pay attention to like C. Vann Woodward and Alistair Horne. My thought on authors and any historical book/essay/article is to judge the source and have an understanding of the social and political ideas/norms of the time. For instance, you have to read anything about Abe Lincoln and understand that he was, by our ideals, a bigot. You have to know that abolition was a minority movement. And yes, you have to understand that the right of slavery was seen as a state right (this is a problem for many. Revisionists try to separate the two but it's impossible. Many don't realize that the war started out as a war to preserve the Union, not end slavery.) He used slavery as a tool. Today, he's praised. During the war, he was vilified. Thomas DiLorenzo writes often on Lincoln and you have to take his interpretation of history with a grain of salt. You can't rely on one book/source/author for all of your information. That's abundantly clear.

George W. Bush was vilified during and immediately after his administration, however his approval is increasing ( 33% when he left office and I think it's closer to 50% now ) But, give him a good look. He's did great things with the homeless problem in America.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/3 ... 86462.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The federal Department of Housing and Urban Development reported that the number of the chronically homeless declined by 30 percent between 2005 and 2007.

[Ibanez]

And, whereas I agree with your professor's assertion, it's also true that contemporary historians are, by and large, attempting to make sense of, and often correcting the abuses, lies, half-truths, outright dogma and misinformation promulgated by characters in the past. In the case of centuries of Catholic apologists, they have entyire mountain ranges of fertile ground through which to plow. History isn't necessarily confined to the past, but rather, itself goes through multiple ruminations to find the truth. It evolves.

Again, I agree with you, and I think he warned against not all contemporary historians, but those who have a social or political agenda, precisely for that reason. (Obviously, he is a contemporary historian himself, and pretty accomplished one to boot).

But the revisionist history about the Catholic Church tends to the overkill, for the political and social purpose of discrediting the moral message of the Church today.

By way of one example, let's examine the statement that the Catholic Church brutalized the natives of Central America. What actually happened, is that the Spanish Crown organized the military adventures of the Conquistadors in the new world, for the purpose of expanding its political reach and wealth. Now, granted the Conquistadors were overwhelming Catholic, as was most of Spain, and granted too that Catholic missionaries traveled with the Conquistadors.

History records that the Conquistadors plundered the natives, took wealth and send it back to Spain (keeping their negotiated portion of the bounty for themselves), and forced many conversions under the threat of death they carried out so frequently.

But NONE of these activities were sanctioned by the Catholic Church. In fact, the reason we know with a great degree of historical certainty about what happened is because many of the Catholic clergy traveling with the Conquistadors reported back to their superiors with great alarm over what was happening, which ultimately resulted in the Pope issuing a condemnation of the events.

Or let's look at the Inquisition. Now I'm not going to tell you that the Inquisition was a wonderful thing. But first, the reason the Church started the Inquisition was because civil authorities were routinely imposing death sentences for heresy. So the Church sought to exercise jurisdiction over heresy trials; provide the accused with the ability to defend against the charges (which was not allowed by the civil authorities); and to permit the accused to recant if found guilty. Additionally, the Church rarely ordered a death sentence or imposed torture (which it lacked ability to carry out). Not a great thing, but not the monstrosity reported by contemporary historians.

In fact, contemporary historians with a bias against the Church intentionally obscure the difference between the Catholic Inquisition and the Spanish Inquisition. They were not one and the same. The Spanish Inquisition was authorized by the Spanish Crown; it was condemned by the Pope as being cruel and unauthorized; and it was more used for political reasons than to maintain Catholic purity.

The Spanish Inquisition was the brutal and excessive Inquisition people commonly think of today. Due to being so actively misled, people believe that the Spanish Inquisition was one and the same with the Catholic Inquisition, when the Spanish Inquisition was never authorized by the Church and was, in fact, condemned by the Church.

This is the problem with armchair historians. They can't understand the difference between Church-sanctioned crimes and crimes done in the name of Christ (Spanish conquests). People hear a priest burned a witch in 1555 and they assume that's the position of the Vatican.

[GannonFan]

Many don't realize that the war started out as a war to preserve the Union, not end slavery.

I know it's a tangent to this thread, but why do you think people believe the Civil War was initially about slavery? Historians are unanimous that the war, from the northern side, was to save the Union. No real historian believes that Lincoln waged his side of the war at its onset to end slavery. If common people today believe that it's also because common people today have scant knowledge of history (most can't even name the second President of the US for instance). But history is also pretty decided that the Civil War never happens, at that time specifically, in the absence of slavery. It was the elephant in the room for half a century so it's hard to say it wasn't a dominating factor, despite the specific motivations of some of the politicians of that era.

[D1B]

D, In college, I had a history professor by the name of Lawrence Kohl. Very even-handed in his approach to things; if he had some religious or social opinions, he never expressed them in the classroom. He was a great teacher and if he had any religious faith, I know nothing about it.

He was discussing one day his expectations for us about our class thesis paper. In explaining how we should approach our research, he said something that always stuck with me, to the effect: "View with great suspicions contemporary historians who are writing for a political or social purpose. Often their intent is to mold the future rather than fairly explain the past, and they will mold their historical accounts to coincide with their hopes for the future."

You rely on precisely such people when you form your opinion of the past.

No greater political or social purpose for the majority than to protect, glorify and sanitize religion, Joe. You rely precisely on such people when you form your opinion of the past.

Contemporary historians???? Hell, I used a circa 1466 quote from a devout catholic to support my argument.

[D1B]

And, whereas I agree with your professor's assertion, it's also true that contemporary historians are, by and large, attempting to make sense of, and often correcting the abuses, lies, half-truths, outright dogma and misinformation promulgated by characters in the past. In the case of centuries of Catholic apologists, they have entyire mountain ranges of fertile ground through which to plow. History isn't necessarily confined to the past, but rather, itself goes through multiple ruminations to find the truth. It evolves.

Again, I agree with you, and I think he warned against not all contemporary historians, but those who have a social or political agenda, precisely for that reason. (Obviously, he is a contemporary historian himself, and pretty accomplished one to boot).

But the revisionist history about the Catholic Church tends to the overkill, for the political and social purpose of discrediting the moral message of the Church today.

By way of one example, let's examine the statement that the Catholic Church brutalized the natives of Central America. What actually happened, is that the Spanish Crown organized the military adventures of the Conquistadors in the new world, for the purpose of expanding its political reach and wealth. Now, granted the Conquistadors were overwhelming Catholic, as was most of Spain, and granted too that Catholic missionaries traveled with the Conquistadors.

History records that the Conquistadors plundered the natives, took wealth and send it back to Spain (keeping their negotiated portion of the bounty for themselves), and forced many conversions under the threat of death they carried out so frequently.

But NONE of these activities were sanctioned by the Catholic Church. In fact, the reason we know with a great degree of historical certainty about what happened is because many of the Catholic clergy traveling with the Conquistadors reported back to their superiors with great alarm over what was happening, which ultimately resulted in the Pope issuing a condemnation of the events.

Or let's look at the Inquisition. Now I'm not going to tell you that the Inquisition was a wonderful thing. But first, the reason the Church started the Inquisition was because civil authorities were routinely imposing death sentences for heresy. So the Church sought to exercise jurisdiction over heresy trials; provide the accused with the ability to defend against the charges (which was not allowed by the civil authorities); and to permit the accused to recant if found guilty. Additionally, the Church rarely ordered a death sentence or imposed torture (which it lacked ability to carry out). Not a great thing, but not the monstrosity reported by contemporary historians.

In fact, contemporary historians with a bias against the Church intentionally obscure the difference between the Catholic Inquisition and the Spanish Inquisition. They were not one and the same. The Spanish Inquisition was authorized by the Spanish Crown; it was condemned by the Pope as being cruel and unauthorized; and it was more used for political reasons than to maintain Catholic purity.

The Spanish Inquisition was the brutal and excessive Inquisition people commonly think of today. Due to being so actively misled, people believe that the Spanish Inquisition was one and the same with the Catholic Inquisition, when the Spanish Inquisition was never authorized by the Church and was, in fact, condemned by the Church.

Don't matter who did what - the church could have stopped all of the above, but didn't.

An impotent, after-the-fact statement of condemnation or an after-the-fact footnote in a papal bull is meaningless to the millions who perished or suffered because of the catholic church's cowardice and corruption, and does not absolve the church of responsibility.

At the time it was a billion times more powerful than the Spanish Crown. In 1933 it was a billion times more powerful than Hitler. In both cases the church did nothing.

Joe, with great power comes great responsibility and your church, time and time again, has failed to step up and do the right thing. This is what happens when you value wealth and power more than peoples' well- being.

[D1B]

Again, I agree with you, and I think he warned against not all contemporary historians, but those who have a social or political agenda, precisely for that reason. (Obviously, he is a contemporary historian himself, and pretty accomplished one to boot).

But the revisionist history about the Catholic Church tends to the overkill, for the political and social purpose of discrediting the moral message of the Church today.

By way of one example, let's examine the statement that the Catholic Church brutalized the natives of Central America. What actually happened, is that the Spanish Crown organized the military adventures of the Conquistadors in the new world, for the purpose of expanding its political reach and wealth. Now, granted the Conquistadors were overwhelming Catholic, as was most of Spain, and granted too that Catholic missionaries traveled with the Conquistadors.

History records that the Conquistadors plundered the natives, took wealth and send it back to Spain (keeping their negotiated portion of the bounty for themselves), and forced many conversions under the threat of death they carried out so frequently.

But NONE of these activities were sanctioned by the Catholic Church. In fact, the reason we know with a great degree of historical certainty about what happened is because many of the Catholic clergy traveling with the Conquistadors reported back to their superiors with great alarm over what was happening, which ultimately resulted in the Pope issuing a condemnation of the events.

Or let's look at the Inquisition. Now I'm not going to tell you that the Inquisition was a wonderful thing. But first, the reason the Church started the Inquisition was because civil authorities were routinely imposing death sentences for heresy. So the Church sought to exercise jurisdiction over heresy trials; provide the accused with the ability to defend against the charges (which was not allowed by the civil authorities); and to permit the accused to recant if found guilty. Additionally, the Church rarely ordered a death sentence or imposed torture (which it lacked ability to carry out). Not a great thing, but not the monstrosity reported by contemporary historians.

In fact, contemporary historians with a bias against the Church intentionally obscure the difference between the Catholic Inquisition and the Spanish Inquisition. They were not one and the same. The Spanish Inquisition was authorized by the Spanish Crown; it was condemned by the Pope as being cruel and unauthorized; and it was more used for political reasons than to maintain Catholic purity.

The Spanish Inquisition was the brutal and excessive Inquisition people commonly think of today. Due to being so actively misled, people believe that the Spanish Inquisition was one and the same with the Catholic Inquisition, when the Spanish Inquisition was never authorized by the Church and was, in fact, condemned by the Church.

This is the problem with armchair historians. They can't understand the difference between Church-sanctioned crimes and crimes done in the name of Christ (Spanish conquests). People hear a priest burned a witch in 1555 and they assume that's the position of the Vatican.

The Spanish Crown didn't fart unless it got permission from the Catholic Church. What's the difference?

[D1B]

And, whereas I agree with your professor's assertion, it's also true that contemporary historians are, by and large, attempting to make sense of, and often correcting the abuses, lies, half-truths, outright dogma and misinformation promulgated by characters in the past. In the case of centuries of Catholic apologists, they have entyire mountain ranges of fertile ground through which to plow. History isn't necessarily confined to the past, but rather, itself goes through multiple ruminations to find the truth. It evolves.

Again, I agree with you, and I think he warned against not all contemporary historians, but those who have a social or political agenda, precisely for that reason. (Obviously, he is a contemporary historian himself, and pretty accomplished one to boot).

But the revisionist history about the Catholic Church tends to the overkill, for the political and social purpose of discrediting the moral message of the Church today.

By way of one example, let's examine the statement that the Catholic Church brutalized the natives of Central America. What actually happened, is that the Spanish Crown organized the military adventures of the Conquistadors in the new world, for the purpose of expanding its political reach and wealth. Now, granted the Conquistadors were overwhelming Catholic, as was most of Spain, and granted too that Catholic missionaries traveled with the Conquistadors.

History records that the Conquistadors plundered the natives, took wealth and send it back to Spain (keeping their negotiated portion of the bounty for themselves), and forced many conversions under the threat of death they carried out so frequently.

But NONE of these activities were sanctioned by the Catholic Church. In fact, the reason we know with a great degree of historical certainty about what happened is because many of the Catholic clergy traveling with the Conquistadors reported back to their superiors with great alarm over what was happening, which ultimately resulted in the Pope issuing a condemnation of the events.

Or let's look at the Inquisition. Now I'm not going to tell you that the Inquisition was a wonderful thing. But first, the reason the Church started the Inquisition was because civil authorities were routinely imposing death sentences for heresy. So the Church sought to exercise jurisdiction over heresy trials; provide the accused with the ability to defend against the charges (which was not allowed by the civil authorities); and to permit the accused to recant if found guilty. Additionally, the Church rarely ordered a death sentence or imposed torture (which it lacked ability to carry out). Not a great thing, but not the monstrosity reported by contemporary historians.

In fact, contemporary historians with a bias against the Church intentionally obscure the difference between the Catholic Inquisition and the Spanish Inquisition. They were not one and the same. The Spanish Inquisition was authorized by the Spanish Crown; it was condemned by the Pope as being cruel and unauthorized; and it was more used for political reasons than to maintain Catholic purity.

The Spanish Inquisition was the brutal and excessive Inquisition people commonly think of today. Due to being so actively misled, people believe that the Spanish Inquisition was one and the same with the Catholic Inquisition, when the Spanish Inquisition was never authorized by the Church and was, in fact, condemned by the Church.

Joe, you better get Netanyahu on the phone, cuz his old man fucked up and confused the two inquisitions!

Breaking News 12/3/2013

Today Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu met Pope Francis at the Vatican. According to the DPA news agency, Netanyahu brought with him a slightly unusual gift: A book about the Spanish inquisition.

The leader of the world's only Jewish state giving the leader of the Catholic Church a book that largely revolves about Spanish Catholics questioning, torturing, and punishing Jewish converts to Catholicism is certainly noteworthy. The Spanish inquisition is widely held up as one of the worst excesses of the Roman Catholic Church, and thousands of people were expelled from Spain or burned at the stake. Worse still, the inquisition of Catholic converts (and the use of torture to discover heretics) was first legally sanctioned by Pope Innocent IV.

So, Netanyahu's gift may seem passive aggressive (or maybe just aggressive), and perhaps it is. But it is important to think of the context of the book, which is written by Netanyahu's father Ben-Zion Netanyahu, a well-regarded historian who worked at both Hebrew University of Jerusalem and Cornell University.

The elder Netanyahu's impact on his politician son is well-known within Israeli circles. In 1998, David Remnick of the New Yorker wrote that while Ben-Zion Netanyahu's opinions frequently differed from his son, the pessimism of his right wing worldview influenced his son's hawkish policies. “His dilemma is always to what degree he can, or should, remain true to the ideals, the stubbornness, of his father," Remnick observed.

The book given to the pope, titled "The Origins of the Inquisition in Fifteenth-Century Spain," is considered Netanyahu's most important work, and it reflects that deep pessimism. The book argues that, contrary to the widely held view that the Jewish converts persecuted by the Catholic church were secretly practicing Judaism, they were in fact devout Catholics who had forsaken their religious heritage. As such, the book argues, the persecution of the Jews was not truly based on religious grounds, but on a racial prejudice and financial envy that would be echoed years later in the Holocaust.

As Ben-Zion Netanyahu died just last year at the age of 102, it seems likely that Netanyahu meant the gift to be a personal touch. Given the reported inscription ("To His Holiness Pope Francis, great guardian of our common heritage") and the other reported gift — a carved panel of Saint Paul, an apostle who holds a special place in the relationship between the two religions — it seems also to highlight the inescapable link between Judaism and Catholicism, for better or worse.


Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/netanyah ... z2mRrINSQU" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Ibanez]

Many don't realize that the war started out as a war to preserve the Union, not end slavery.

I know it's a tangent to this thread, but why do you think people believe the Civil War was initially about slavery? Historians are unanimous that the war, from the northern side, was to save the Union. No real historian believes that Lincoln waged his side of the war at its onset to end slavery. If common people today believe that it's also because common people today have scant knowledge of history (most can't even name the second President of the US for instance). But history is also pretty decided that the Civil War never happens, at that time specifically, in the absence of slavery. It was the elephant in the room for half a century so it's hard to say it wasn't a dominating factor, despite the specific motivations of some of the politicians of that era.

You said it,

f common people today believe that it's also because common people today have scant knowledge of history (most can't even name the second President of the US for instance).

These are the people that are trying to talk about it, and there are countless of them on this website, but they don't understand it because they only know what they learned in that one week in high school, back in 1986. They confuse the motives of each side. I think most, educated people understand that the South fought to maintain slavery and the North fought to preserve the Union. At least, until Gettysburg. It wasn't then that the motives changed for the North. Ignorant southerners will say it was about States Rights and not slavery but are too dumb to realize that slavery was a states right for them.

[JoltinJoe]

Again, I agree with you, and I think he warned against not all contemporary historians, but those who have a social or political agenda, precisely for that reason. (Obviously, he is a contemporary historian himself, and pretty accomplished one to boot).

But the revisionist history about the Catholic Church tends to the overkill, for the political and social purpose of discrediting the moral message of the Church today.

By way of one example, let's examine the statement that the Catholic Church brutalized the natives of Central America. What actually happened, is that the Spanish Crown organized the military adventures of the Conquistadors in the new world, for the purpose of expanding its political reach and wealth. Now, granted the Conquistadors were overwhelming Catholic, as was most of Spain, and granted too that Catholic missionaries traveled with the Conquistadors.

History records that the Conquistadors plundered the natives, took wealth and send it back to Spain (keeping their negotiated portion of the bounty for themselves), and forced many conversions under the threat of death they carried out so frequently.

But NONE of these activities were sanctioned by the Catholic Church. In fact, the reason we know with a great degree of historical certainty about what happened is because many of the Catholic clergy traveling with the Conquistadors reported back to their superiors with great alarm over what was happening, which ultimately resulted in the Pope issuing a condemnation of the events.

Or let's look at the Inquisition. Now I'm not going to tell you that the Inquisition was a wonderful thing. But first, the reason the Church started the Inquisition was because civil authorities were routinely imposing death sentences for heresy. So the Church sought to exercise jurisdiction over heresy trials; provide the accused with the ability to defend against the charges (which was not allowed by the civil authorities); and to permit the accused to recant if found guilty. Additionally, the Church rarely ordered a death sentence or imposed torture (which it lacked ability to carry out). Not a great thing, but not the monstrosity reported by contemporary historians.

In fact, contemporary historians with a bias against the Church intentionally obscure the difference between the Catholic Inquisition and the Spanish Inquisition. They were not one and the same. The Spanish Inquisition was authorized by the Spanish Crown; it was condemned by the Pope as being cruel and unauthorized; and it was more used for political reasons than to maintain Catholic purity.

The Spanish Inquisition was the brutal and excessive Inquisition people commonly think of today. Due to being so actively misled, people believe that the Spanish Inquisition was one and the same with the Catholic Inquisition, when the Spanish Inquisition was never authorized by the Church and was, in fact, condemned by the Church.

Joe, you better get Netanyahu on the phone, cuz his old man **** up and confused the two inquisitions!

Breaking News 12/3/2013

Today Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu met Pope Francis at the Vatican. According to the DPA news agency, Netanyahu brought with him a slightly unusual gift: A book about the Spanish inquisition.

The leader of the world's only Jewish state giving the leader of the Catholic Church a book that largely revolves about Spanish Catholics questioning, torturing, and punishing Jewish converts to Catholicism is certainly noteworthy. The Spanish inquisition is widely held up as one of the worst excesses of the Roman Catholic Church, and thousands of people were expelled from Spain or burned at the stake. Worse still, the inquisition of Catholic converts (and the use of torture to discover heretics) was first legally sanctioned by Pope Innocent IV.

So, Netanyahu's gift may seem passive aggressive (or maybe just aggressive), and perhaps it is. But it is important to think of the context of the book, which is written by Netanyahu's father Ben-Zion Netanyahu, a well-regarded historian who worked at both Hebrew University of Jerusalem and Cornell University.

The elder Netanyahu's impact on his politician son is well-known within Israeli circles. In 1998, David Remnick of the New Yorker wrote that while Ben-Zion Netanyahu's opinions frequently differed from his son, the pessimism of his right wing worldview influenced his son's hawkish policies. “His dilemma is always to what degree he can, or should, remain true to the ideals, the stubbornness, of his father," Remnick observed.

The book given to the pope, titled "The Origins of the Inquisition in Fifteenth-Century Spain," is considered Netanyahu's most important work, and it reflects that deep pessimism. The book argues that, contrary to the widely held view that the Jewish converts persecuted by the Catholic church were secretly practicing Judaism, they were in fact devout Catholics who had forsaken their religious heritage. As such, the book argues, the persecution of the Jews was not truly based on religious grounds, but on a racial prejudice and financial envy that would be echoed years later in the Holocaust.

As Ben-Zion Netanyahu died just last year at the age of 102, it seems likely that Netanyahu meant the gift to be a personal touch. Given the reported inscription ("To His Holiness Pope Francis, great guardian of our common heritage") and the other reported gift — a carved panel of Saint Paul, an apostle who holds a special place in the relationship between the two religions — it seems also to highlight the inescapable link between Judaism and Catholicism, for better or worse.


Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/netanyah ... z2mRrINSQU" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

As the Gipper would say, "There you go again."

I haven't read the book, but you didn't quote the book. You quoted an newspaper article. And the inferences suggested by the journalist's text (created by the linking of two disassociated events in a single paragraph, those being the Spanish Inquisition and the Papal Bull which "authorized torture) are false.

I don't know whether the book's allegations are being correctly reported or not -- but I doubt it.

And the Papal Bull which "authorized" torture was in fact an effort to severely limit the use of torture by civil authorities.

[Ibanez]

Joe, you better get Netanyahu on the phone, cuz his old man **** up and confused the two inquisitions!

Breaking News 12/3/2013

As the Gipper would say, "There you go again."

I haven't read the book, but you didn't quote the book. You quoted an newspaper article. And the inferences suggested by the journalist's text (created by the linking of two disassociated events in a single paragraph, those being the Spanish Inquisition and the Papal Bull which "authorized torture) are false.

I don't know whether the book's allegations are being correctly reported or not -- but I doubt it.

And the Papal Bull which "authorized" torture was in fact an effort to severely limit the use of torture by civil authorities.

Wouldn't you say limiting an act is still an approval of that act?

[D1B]

Joe, you better get Netanyahu on the phone, cuz his old man **** up and confused the two inquisitions!

Breaking News 12/3/2013

As the Gipper would say, "There you go again."

I haven't read the book, but you didn't quote the book. You quoted an newspaper article. And the inferences suggested by the journalist's text (created by the linking of two disassociated events in a single paragraph, those being the Spanish Inquisition and the Papal Bull which "authorized torture) are false.

I don't know whether the book's allegations are being correctly reported or not -- but I doubt it.

And the Papal Bull which "authorized" torture was in fact an effort to severely limit the use of torture by civil authorities.

Joe, write up a correction and send it to the journalist. Hey, I'll even send it for you. I know you're a busy man.

Don't forget about SAB too. I'll send that one for you as well.

[GannonFan]

I know it's a tangent to this thread, but why do you think people believe the Civil War was initially about slavery? Historians are unanimous that the war, from the northern side, was to save the Union. No real historian believes that Lincoln waged his side of the war at its onset to end slavery. If common people today believe that it's also because common people today have scant knowledge of history (most can't even name the second President of the US for instance). But history is also pretty decided that the Civil War never happens, at that time specifically, in the absence of slavery. It was the elephant in the room for half a century so it's hard to say it wasn't a dominating factor, despite the specific motivations of some of the politicians of that era.

You said it,

f common people today believe that it's also because common people today have scant knowledge of history (most can't even name the second President of the US for instance).

These are the people that are trying to talk about it, and there are countless of them on this website, but they don't understand it because they only know what they learned in that one week in high school, back in 1986. They confuse the motives of each side. I think most, educated people understand that the South fought to maintain slavery and the North fought to preserve the Union. At least, until Gettysburg. It wasn't then that the motives changed for the North. Ignorant southerners will say it was about States Rights and not slavery but are too dumb to realize that slavery was a states right for them.

Agreed. The main root of the problem is there are too many people who spout off about things like this with little actual knowledge of what they are spouting about. Just like the X-files, the truth is out there, some people just don't bother taking a little extra time and using some additional neurons to find it.

[Ibanez]

You said it,

These are the people that are trying to talk about it, and there are countless of them on this website, but they don't understand it because they only know what they learned in that one week in high school, back in 1986. They confuse the motives of each side. I think most, educated people understand that the South fought to maintain slavery and the North fought to preserve the Union. At least, until Gettysburg. It wasn't then that the motives changed for the North. Ignorant southerners will say it was about States Rights and not slavery but are too dumb to realize that slavery was a states right for them.

Agreed. The main root of the problem is there are too many people who spout off about things like this with little actual knowledge of what they are spouting about. Just like the X-files, the truth is out there, some people just don't bother taking a little extra time and using some additional neurons to find it.

Yup.

[D1B]

You said it,

These are the people that are trying to talk about it, and there are countless of them on this website, but they don't understand it because they only know what they learned in that one week in high school, back in 1986. They confuse the motives of each side. I think most, educated people understand that the South fought to maintain slavery and the North fought to preserve the Union. At least, until Gettysburg. It wasn't then that the motives changed for the North. Ignorant southerners will say it was about States Rights and not slavery but are too dumb to realize that slavery was a states right for them.

Agreed. The main root of the problem is there are too many people who spout off about things like this with little actual knowledge of what they are spouting about. Just like the X-files, the truth is out there, some people just don't bother taking a little extra time and using some additional neurons to find it.

And some people, brainwashed by a cult, are incapable of finding it.

[D1B]

Agreed. The main root of the problem is there are too many people who spout off about things like this with little actual knowledge of what they are spouting about. Just like the X-files, the truth is out there, some people just don't bother taking a little extra time and using some additional neurons to find it.

Yup.

Ibanez, The Historian.

[Ibanez]

Agreed. The main root of the problem is there are too many people who spout off about things like this with little actual knowledge of what they are spouting about. Just like the X-files, the truth is out there, some people just don't bother taking a little extra time and using some additional neurons to find it.

And some people, brainwashed by a cult, are incapable of finding it.

You know that brainwashing is removing the ability to question and think freely. So they can find the truth,but it's unlikely unless something happens which causes them to doubt.

[Ibanez]

Yup.

Ibanez, The Amateur Historian.

FIFY.

[D1B]

And some people, brainwashed by a cult, are incapable of finding it.

You know that brainwashing is removing the ability to question and think freely. So they can find the truth,but it's unlikely unless something happens which causes them to doubt.

Many of em, deep down, know the truth. They live a life of blissful delusion and some of the more honest ones, like Ivytalk, admit this...."I could not handle knowing there is no ultimate purpose of life. Its too depressing."

[Ibanez]

You know that brainwashing is removing the ability to question and think freely. So they can find the truth,but it's unlikely unless something happens which causes them to doubt.

Many of em, deep down, know the truth. They live a life of blissful delusion and some of the more honest ones, like Ivytalk, admit this...."I could not handle knowing there is no ultimate purpose of life. Its too depressing."

They've been taught to not question. That's the problem. Once you start questioning things, you allow doubt to enter the equation. Doubt has no room in a faith-based organization.