Is The World Getting Better Or Worse?

I followed your link and read four paragraphs. They are about WARS between American colonists and the natives, sometimes initiated by the natives. This has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of the specifically religious murders of heretics, nothing at all. You are actually trying to put these things in that category? That is crazy. In fact religion isn't even mentioned in these stories. Besides if you are trying to make Protestants the bad guys please note that the French were also involved in some of these stories. Were they Protestants?AND BESIDES, THE CATHOLIC INQUISITION WAS OFFICIAL, CONVENED BY THE LEADERSHIP OF THE RC CHURCH, THE PAPACY ETC. IT WAS SPECIFICALLY A SUPPOSED DEFENSE OF CATHOLICISM ITSELF. SINCE PROTESTANTISM DOESN'T HAVE SUCH AN OFFICIAL LEADERSHIP THE COMPARISON FALLS APART ON THAT SCORE ALONE. BUT THE PERSECUTIONS OF THE ANABAPTISTS *WERE* SPECIFICALLY PROTESTANT SO I'LL ACCEPT THAT COMPARISON UP TO A POINT: But there was absolutely nothing in Protestantism like "the Office of the Inquisition" of the RCC, which is still in existence and ready to go back to its dirty business whenever it becomes possible. The RCC also retains its judgments of the Council of Trent, a long list of curses (anathemas) against the doctrines of Protestantism, which would be the charges used to inaugurate an Inquisition against Protestants when possible. The only other specifically Protestant persecution I can think of was the death penalty against the nineteen witches in New England, although it was soon repented of.Sorry, you are comparing apples and oranges. Your examples are nothing at all like the RCC Inquisition or the Crusades. There is no religious motive given in these examples, it is just the usual horrendous warring mess between human beings that has occurred throughout history, over land, over cultural identity, whatever.Stop calling me ignorant for knowing the obvious differences you ignorant people.lEdited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Of course. The Catholics were always plotting to kill the Protestant monarch or blow up Parliament and take the country back from Protestantism to Catholicism. Bloody Mary had killed Protestants just for being Protestants. Elizabeth on the other hand had Catholics put to death for plotting to kill her or committing crimes against the state. (I forget where I heard or read that both Elizabeth I and James I had something like dozens of the equivalent of armed Secret Service men actually sleeping in their bed with them because of all the Catholic plots against them.)Holding office is another way to commit insurrection, so forbidding that is a good idea. And the Catholics would do that to the Protestants in the same situation. \\I seriously doubt it. Like Theodorix you must be calling English settlers Protestants. But there was no religious war against the Penobscots to compare with the Inquisition. Well that covers some pretty complicated history that can't be reduced the way you are doing it, and again you are merely talking about individuals as settlers not as members of any religion and certainly not as acting on behalf of their religion. There was nothing in Protestantism to compare with the persecutions by the RCC.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

No, it was simply a klutzy way of trying to say that they were not acting as Protestants but just as colonists.

As I've said very clearly there was no Protestant genocide or ethnic cleansing.

I'm sorry, cultural or religious clashes are not at all the same thing as an official religious agency intended for the punishment, torture and murder of heretics.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You can hear about Adams' writings in the film between 1:17 and 1:20, which I'm reposting below.The Treaty of Tripoli is introduced around 1:21, and between there and 1:22+ Pinto points out that nobody in the Senate objected to it, that it was unanimously passed.From 1:22:44 a sermon given in 1931 by a Dr. Bird Wilson is quoted, about how the Founders had been mostly "infidels" and that God had been specifically and intentionally "voted out" of the Constitution. Wilson's source was the Proceedings as reported by the Secretary of the Senate, Thompson, which says the question was debated and it was decided to leave God out.From 1:24:39, the source of the information that it was Washington who drafted Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli is given as "nineteenth century historian, Moncure D. Conway."From 1:26 the film discusses Washington specifically. Washington himself wrote nothing on the subject of his religious beliefs, and avoided attempts to get him to state his beliefs. Many are quoted in this section saying he never said anything to suggest he held Christian beliefs. I've already mentioned what was said about him by pastors and others, about his refusing Communion and being a Deist. This is covered in the first couple minutes, and the sermon by Dr. Bird Wilson is given as the source. Wilson personally knew some of the pastors he quotes. Around 1:35 Jefferson's diary is quoted about how some Christian leaders had tried to get Washing to make a clear statement of belief in the Christian faith and how "that old fox" completely avoided doing so.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

So what? That has nothing to do with the topic of the specific persecution of heretics by an official religious body. Apples and oranges. Cultural conflict.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Sorry, you're just repeating complete falsehoods.

So do you have any evidence that Adams professed orthodox Christian beliefs during the founding years?There is only one statement by Washington himself that suggests his opposition to Christian belief and that was something he wrote to Lafayette about how he indulges the Christians in their beliefs but is "no bigot" himself. That's somewhere toward the end of the Washington section. 1:37 or so?

The only persecution committed by Protestants was against the Anabaptists as I've alreaday said. If your long piece says anything different, forget it.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This doesn't seem to belong on the climate denialist thread so I ended up putting it here.So here's Gregory Wrightstone, geologist, who has written a book titled "Inconvenient Facts" about how climate change isn't the big problem we're being told it is.He doesn't deny that the planet is warming up due to increased CO2, but he considers it to be mostly part of a natural cycle, specifically the end of the last ice age. (In my opinion, of course, there was only one ice age, brought about by the worldwide Flood, so that would be the one we're at the end of), and he agrees that we should definitely do what we can to decrease our contribution to the CO2 (though the program also shows the miserable smog in Beijing that needs to be dealt with if any meaningful change is actually sought). But he says the warming trend is a good thing, allowing us to grow more food and so on, that it involves more water in the soil too, and that most of this is part of the natural cycle and the human contribution is minimal. He also says the measurement of the rise is higher than the reality. And so on and so forth.He also claims that some purported facts aren't facts, for instance he gives evidence that forest fires are not increasing but decreasing.He believes in cycles of warming versus ice ages so he says another ice age is to be expected within a few hundred years, and that it's during ice ages that we suffer the most.In other words this isn't psychological denialism, there is real science by real scientists on the other side of this issue.My position is still basically that there is warming but I object to the political alarmism about it; I think we should continue with changes to improve the situation but not at the expense of our economic wellbeing, particularly since there are far worse offenders. And I'd now add that maybe the warming is a good thing, as Wrightstone argues.
,
,
,
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Why focus on Trump when the rest of the world is doing nothing and our record is way better than most? All that shows is that this is basiclally a political and not a scientific issue. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Trump is a bona fide conservative in his cutting taxes on the rich, knowing it will help the country, this isn't just a Trumpism to protect his "brethren." So the standard liberal EvC opinion is that "trickle down economics" doesn't work, sorry but conservatives disagree and the huge improvement in the economy proves them right. Although the liberals will lie about that too,fortunately a lot of the country is benefiting too much from the economy to believe that, including all those brown and black people you think Trump hates.And quoting a bunch of nonAmericans on the climate change problem doesn't get you points either. There are plenty of legitimate scientists who disagree with your 11,000. Most of us are for doing what we can to help the planet, but you aren't going to get very far with us until you stop blaming Trump and go to work on China and the other polluters. You are way too obvious.

Sorry, we've done our bit, go turn your liberal guns on the rest of the world.Oh and we have taken the lead, so we are already the example.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Lowest unemployment since the fifties.
The deficit has built in entitlements that nobody is allowed to change.
Anyone who calls Trump a Nazi is a nutcase.