NationStates Jolt Archive

This movie makes me sick. If there was ever a movie out to bash Catholics, this it it. The whore Queen Elizabeth I is made to look like a wise and tolerant ruler, when in reality she was a bigot and a tyrant.

Its a shame that the Spanish Armada lost and wasn't able to liberate England from this wretched harlot Queen.

Repeat after me, It's a movie, more often than not, will not be based on reality. and say that over and over until it sinks in.

This movie makes me sick. If there was ever a movie out to bash Catholics, this it it. The whore Queen Elizabeth I is made to look like a wise and tolerant ruler, when in reality she was a bigot and a tyrant.

Its a shame that the Spanish Armada lost and wasn't able to liberate England from this wretched harlot Queen.

lolz, I know it was a crappy movie, but dang...:p

What do you expect from a movie based on Tudor history? :D

Repeat after me, It's a movie, more often than not, will not be based on reality. and say that over and over until it sinks in.
I can't argue with THAT.

This movie makes me sick. If there was ever a movie out to bash Catholics, this it it. The whore Queen Elizabeth I is made to look like a wise and tolerant ruler, when in reality she was a bigot and a tyrant.

Its a shame that the Spanish Armada lost and wasn't able to liberate England from this wretched harlot Queen.
* This message is supported by the Irish(Popeland) Government *

This movie makes me sick. If there was ever a movie out to bash Catholics, this it it. The whore Queen Elizabeth I is made to look like a wise and tolerant ruler, when in reality she was a bigot and a tyrant.

Its a shame that the Spanish Armada lost and wasn't able to liberate England from this wretched harlot Queen.

Do my eyes deceive me, or did you just call history's second most famous female virgin a whore?

Do my eyes deceive me, or did you just call history's second most famous female virgin a whore?

How are you sure about that?
Who knows what has gotten lost in the anals of history?
Yes, that is a deliberate misspelling.

Its typical 'Western' history, IE: History written by the British.
Of course the Spaniards are going to be portrayed as evil. If it was a movie about the Napoleonic Wars the Spanish would've been amusing incompetents with funny accents.

geee i think that if the church could survive the real elizabeth it can survive a movie about her.

Do my eyes deceive me, or did you just call history's second most famous female virgin a whore?

She was the most expensive whore in London. She was harldy a virgin. She banged Walter Raleigh, Robert Dudley, Christopher Hatten, Robert Devereux.

Do my eyes deceive me, or did you just call history's second most famous female virgin a whore?

Who would the most famous one be? Not Mary, surely. She gave birth, and well, the birds and the bees tell me that she got cock for that to happen.

She was the most expensive whore in London. She was harldy a virgin. She banged Walter Raleigh, Robert Dudley, Christopher Hatten, Robert Devereux.

You sound a bit jealous. :p

How are you sure about that?
Who knows what has gotten lost in the anals of history?
Yes, that is a deliberate misspelling.

Nice one

Do my eyes deceive me, or did you just call history's second most famous female virgin a whore?

The by virgin you mean she didn't do anyone in a marriage than yes. If by virgin you mean she didn't do anyone, than I'm afraid to tell you that she was most certainly not a virgin.

Gibson's had a fair run, let the opposing sides have a shot, eh?

The by virgin you mean she didn't do anyone in a marriage than yes. If by virgin you mean she didn't do anyone, than I'm afraid to tell you that she was most certainly not a virgin.

She was the most expensive whore in London. She was harldy a virgin. She banged Walter Raleigh, Robert Dudley, Christopher Hatten, Robert Devereux.

It's all speculation though. There's as much evidence of it as there is of say, a certain Messiah getting married... and I'm sure you don't believe that on such flimsy evidence, would you Theodosis?

Gibson's had a fair run, let the opposing sides have a shot, eh?

:D

She was the most expensive whore in London. She was harldy a virgin. She banged Walter Raleigh, Robert Dudley, Christopher Hatten, Robert Devereux.

Really? What is the going rate for a night with the Queen?


And would any of this matter to you if she had been pro-Catholic?

This movie makes me sick. If there was ever a movie out to bash Catholics, this it it. The whore Queen Elizabeth I is made to look like a wise and tolerant ruler, when in reality she was a bigot and a tyrant.

But that was pretty much inherent for the time, however, when compared to previous monarchs, she was very progressive. And she was no way near as bigoted and intolerant as the papacy.

when in reality she was a bigot and a tyrant.


Don't forget terrorist. She supported Sir Francis Drake's (who she knighted btw) piracy against Spain, which I would label as aiding and abetting terrorists.

She was the most expensive whore in London. She was harldy a virgin. She banged Walter Raleigh, Robert Dudley, Christopher Hatten, Robert Devereux.

What, she was supposed to remain chaste?

Sexist.

What, she was supposed to remain chaste?

Sexist.

Really.

I mean, hell, I would have banged Walter Raleigh. He had a nice ass.

What, she was supposed to remain chaste?

Sexist.

Well, she was a woman.

Wait, if women remain chaste...

*thinks*
There must be some deprived sexists out there.

I see Pope Benedict has found NSG.

I see Pope Benedict has found NSG.

Lol :p

I see Pope Benedict has found NSG.

You are assuming he knows how to use a computer.

You are assuming he knows how to use a computer.

He is one of the worlds top intellectuals, much moreso than all you leftist pimply teens.

He is one of the worlds top intellectuals, much moreso than all you leftist pimply teens.

But he uses the computer much for the same reason no doubt. ;)

You are assuming he knows how to use a computer.

"Is it Catholic?"
"Your Holiness, it's an inani-"
"IS IT CATHOLIC OR NOT!?!?!"
"*sigh* No."
"Baptize it."

*computer doused with holy water*
*fritzes*

"Obvious Spawn of Satan(tm). On to the rest of today's business: 1.) Setting the Church back three hundred years. . ."

He is one of the worlds top intellectuals, much moreso than all you leftist pimply teens.

I have known plenty of "intellectuals" that do not know jack about using a computer, being an intellectual is not directly tied your ability to use a computer.

QEI was much more tolerant than the church or her sister or pretty much any other European monarch at the time. As to the virginity thing who cares it makes no difference one way or another whether she slept with anyone.

"Is it Catholic?"
"Your Holiness, it's an inani-"
"IS IT CATHOLIC OR NOT!?!?!"
"*sigh* No."
"Baptize it."

*computer doused with holy water*
*fritzes*

"Obvious Spawn of Satan(tm). On to the rest of today's business: 1.) Setting the Church back three hundred years. . ."

A heathen like yourself has no clue how the Catholic Church works. We don't want to "adapt to the modern world" that your revolutionary madness has created.

QEI was much more tolerant than the church or her sister or pretty much any other European monarch at the time. As to the virginity thing who cares it makes no difference one way or another whether she slept with anyone.

Yes it does.
She was spreading her 'ideals' and becoming a vessel in which 'evil' was harbored.

geee i think that if the church could survive the real elizabeth it can survive a movie about her.
I would like to nominate this for the Winnin' o' the Thread.

The OP is right in saying the queen wasn't all she was cracked up to be...but for Pete's sake, it's just a movie! Not even a political one, at that.

"Obvious Spawn of Satan(tm). On to the rest of today's business: 1.) Setting the Church back three hundred years. . ."
How has he set the Church back, any amount of time?

How has he set the Church back, any amount of time?

He hasn't succumbed to the socialist/secular agenda.

The Catholic Church has been too liberal since the 60s, if anything "setting it back" would be good. I don't think that will happen anytime soon though.

A heathen like yourself has no clue how the Catholic Church works. We don't want to "adapt to the modern world" that your revolutionary madness has created.

You know many from within fight to update the church to deal with todays changing world ... and then there are those like you that do not.

I used to hope for change but maybe it would be better for the world if the church just faded away into the history books

He hasn't succumbed to the socialist/secular agenda.

The Catholic Church has been too liberal since the 60s, if anything "setting it back" would be good. I don't think that will happen anytime soon though.

Hopefully it wont happen at all

A heathen like yourself has no clue how the Catholic Church works. We don't want to "adapt to the modern world" that your revolutionary madness has created.

*satire*

BTW, you are participating in the revolutionary madness.

You know I was not all that interested in this movie before, I may have to catch it when it comes out on DVD now though

How has he set the Church back, any amount of time?

Interconfessional relations, for one thing.

A heathen like yourself has no clue how the Catholic Church works. We don't want to "adapt to the modern world" that your revolutionary madness has created.

Oh, almost forgot: I am Catholic, and proud of it.

Interconfessional relations, for one thing.
Really? I haven't seen much of that, with the exception of him quoting the anti-Islamic Byzantine emperor. I'm still not exactly sure what that was about.

I think this Pope gets a bad rap just because the guy before him was so charismatic. Ideologically, I think they're about the same.

He is one of the worlds top intellectuals, much moreso than all you leftist pimply teens.

Ahh to be a teenager again. Not.

Being an intellectual hardly defines you as computer literate.

Hopefully it wont happen at all

Nah let them. If they are traditionalists, they will start running through the streets about endtimes being near.....

Really? I haven't seen much of that, with the exception of him quoting the anti-Islamic Byzantine emperor. I'm still not exactly sure what that was about.

I think this Pope gets a bad rap just because the guy before him was so charismatic. Ideologically, I think they're about the same.

He dissed Protestants and Eastern Orthodox Christians as being "not Churches in the proper sense." Benedict essentially backtracked on JP's "we are all pilgrims en via (on the way) to the same goal" of unity with God.

Click Stand;13172319']Don't forget terrorist. She supported Sir Francis Drake's (who she knighted btw) piracy against Spain, which I would label as aiding and abetting terrorists.

No more so than most major powers in the current (and a lot of of the historical world).

A heathen like yourself has no clue how the Catholic Church works. We don't want to "adapt to the modern world" that your revolutionary madness has created.

Oh good. Then you dinosaurs can die out like the rest of the unadaptive species.

Good riddance to bad rubbish I say.

Virgin, schmirgin.....

She had fabulous clothes. See the movie for the costume design, alone.

He dissed Protestants and Eastern Orthodox Christians as being "not Churches in the proper sense." Benedict essentially backtracked on JP's "we are all pilgrims en via (on the way) to the same goal" of unity with God.

Christ founded ONE Church upon Pope St. Peter the rock, ONE Church with the keys to heaven.

This new age hippy garbage about all religions being right is bull.

Christ founded ONE Church upon Pope St. Peter the rock, ONE Church with the keys to heaven.

This new age hippy garbage about all religions being right is bull.

And how much does the modern church resemble the one that was originally founded I wonder.

He dissed Protestants and Eastern Orthodox Christians as being "not Churches in the proper sense." Benedict essentially backtracked on JP's "we are all pilgrims en via (on the way) to the same goal" of unity with God.

I didn't hear that. Okay, I can understand why people would think he's putting the Church back, although I continue to disagree.

I didn't hear that. Okay, I can understand why people would think he's putting the Church back, although I continue to disagree.

Prods and Orthodox broke away from the true Church and they teach heretical doctrines, so of course they aren't "proper churches".

Christ founded ONE Church upon Pope St. Peter the rock, ONE Church with the keys to heaven.

This new age hippy garbage about all religions being right is bull.

Yeah... that's a good fable, but Elizabeth is based on actual history.

Prods and Orthodox broke away from the true Church and they teach heretical doctrines, so of course they aren't "proper churches".

And the churches that predate RC?

He is one of the worlds top intellectuals, much moreso than all you leftist pimply teens.

I am 42. I don't have pimples. I am left handed...

And the Pope may be an intellectual, but he has not proven himself particularly worthy of my respect, so you might consider backing up a smidge on the attitude, my friend.

Christ founded ONE Church upon Pope St. Peter the rock, ONE Church with the keys to heaven.

This new age hippy garbage about all religions being right is bull.

Pope JP was a hippy spouting garbage? Never knew that.

And how much does the modern church resemble the one that was originally founded I wonder.

Is it underground being persecuted everywhere it exists? Then no.

I didn't hear that. Okay, I can understand why people would think he's putting the Church back, although I continue to disagree.

It was seen as a step forward in Catholic acceptance of other churches. He isn't radically setting things back, but he is reversing the gradual change established by "hippy" JP.

Prods and Orthodox broke away from the true Church and they teach heretical doctrines, so of course they aren't "proper churches".

Well, considering Martin Luther simply stole St. Augustine's ideas about the Gospel and the Church, the Church made a saint of a heretic.

Prods and Orthodox broke away from the true Church and they teach heretical doctrines, so of course they aren't "proper churches".

Errr.... on the other hand, the Catholics had it wrong and went further and further astray, and the Protestants and Orthodox churches did their best to look at what was going wrong and make it right.

(Wow... this whole line of debate goes nowhere fast, doesn't it?)

Prods and Orthodox broke away from the true Church and they teach heretical doctrines, so of course they aren't "proper churches".
I like the word "Prods." Can we call the others Orthies?

I like the word "Prods." Can we call the others Orthies?

Should be Prots, actually... since it comes from Protestant. But I like the Orthies idea. :D

*looks at Theodosis X*

JESUS WAS A JEW MWAHAHAHA

*runs away*

even better

your God is a negro! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYexskpUUBI!

*runs away again*

But that was pretty much inherent for the time, however, when compared to previous monarchs, she was very progressive. And she was no way near as bigoted and intolerant as the papacy.

That's indeed a true statement.

I see Pope Benedict has found NSG.

LMAO!!

A heathen like yourself has no clue how the Catholic Church works. We don't want to "adapt to the modern world" that your revolutionary madness has created.

Son...half of my family is catholic and you know what? You really are being a jackass and painting all Catholics in a bad light. Thank God my family does not act like a twit like you are doing.

And how much does the modern church resemble the one that was originally founded I wonder.

Considering the fact that they were jews...

But he uses the computer much for the same reason no doubt. ;)

I actually burst out laughing. The thread should have ended here.

This movie makes me sick. If there was ever a movie out to bash Catholics, this it it. The whore Queen Elizabeth I is made to look like a wise and tolerant ruler, when in reality she was a bigot and a tyrant.

Its a shame that the Spanish Armada lost and wasn't able to liberate England from this wretched harlot Queen.

Excuse me, but wasn't she the Queen who took England from a debt-ridden, verge of bankruptcy flyspeck on the map of Europe to one of the wealthiest, freest countries in the world at the time?

horray for sectarian strife! i support Hibs. i'm pure gunne chib ya puss if ye a hearts fan, ye bam.

horray for sectarian strife! i support Hibs. i'm pure gunne chib ya puss if ye a hearts fan, ye bam.

:confused:

:confused:

you know nothing because you are foreign. *pats InGen on the head*

you know nothing because you are foreign. *pats InGen on the head*

*smiles cluelessly*

I just dont understand hating any one group for any specific reason.
What I do understand is hating all people simply becuase they exist.

People suck.

I just dont understand hating any one group for any specific reason.
What I do understand is hating all people simply becuase they exist.

People suck.


The Squatch is back!

:)

The Squatch is back!

:)

INDEEDY!

Nice to be noticed.

Does this rubber clown suit make my ass look fat?

Does this rubber clown suit make my ass look fat?

Just a bit. ;)

*runs*

Just a bit. ;)

*runs*

The peanut butter stains probably dont help.

The peanut butter stains probably dont help.

Yeah, I concur.


j/k

The peanut butter stains probably dont help.

Playing with the dog again?

Playing with the dog again?

OH....Yes, the dog...

Yah, thats it.

OH....Yes, the dog...

Yah, thats it.

That would explain it. :p

Listen and think. Please. Pleeeaaaase. (http://origin-wordforword.publicradio.org/programs/2007/09/14/)

It's not Cate Blanchett's fault that the Catholics turned out to be the bad guys!

Repeat after me, It's a movie, more often than not, will not be based on reality. and say that over and over until it sinks in.

A film about an important event with important characters from history isn't based on reality..?

What, she was supposed to remain chaste?

Sexist.


In fairness, she did portray herself in her propaganda as the Virgin Queen :)

Which some people find fascinating in the context of the time she ruled.

This movie makes me sick. If there was ever a movie out to bash Catholics, this it it. The whore Queen Elizabeth I is made to look like a wise and tolerant ruler, when in reality she was a bigot and a tyrant.

Its a shame that the Spanish Armada lost and wasn't able to liberate England from this wretched harlot Queen.

Dance Monkey, Dance!

horray for sectarian strife! i support Hibs. i'm pure gunne chib ya puss if ye a hearts fan, ye bam.

Dirty wee hibee. Go back to portobello.

This movie makes me sick. If there was ever a movie out to bash Catholics, this it it. The whore Queen Elizabeth I is made to look like a wise and tolerant ruler, when in reality she was a bigot and a tyrant.

Its a shame that the Spanish Armada lost and wasn't able to liberate England from this wretched harlot Queen.

*lol
It might be a bad movie, but it can hardly be worse or more ridiculos than this review :p

Is anyone else having a deja vu moment reading Theodosis X's posts and that of...oh...say, Jesussaves?

I for one heartily endorse the satirical content of this new poster.

This movie makes me sick. If there was ever a movie out to bash Catholics, this it it.

I don't know, Dogma did a pretty good job of that.

I think Dave Barry said it best when he wrote ""Elizabeth...who was called the Virgin Queen because it was not considered a tremendously smart move to call her the Really Ugly Queen." hehe

"wretched harlot queen"

"Wretched Harlot Queen"...

Sounds like an Iron Maiden Song

To be fair, I doubt Elizabeth got laid more often than the Pope at that time.

To be fair, I doubt Elizabeth got laid more often than the Pope at that time.

Joke 1: "are you kidding, how many altar boys are in the vatican?"

Joke 2: "no way dude, ladies love a big hat."

Being a Hollywood history film I am surprised the Spanish Armada wasn't defeated by a plucky yank.

Being a Hollywood history film I am surprised the Spanish Armada wasn't defeated by a plucky yank.

They're saving that for the sequel. :D

Should be Prots, actually... since it comes from Protestant. But I like the Orthies idea.


So Catholics should be "cats" then? And Buddhists "buddies" or "buds"? :)

Anyone actually seen this film yet. First one was good, hopefully this one should be just as good

This movie makes me sick. If there was ever a movie out to bash Catholics, this it it. The whore Queen Elizabeth I is made to look like a wise and tolerant ruler, when in reality she was a bigot and a tyrant.

Its a shame that the Spanish Armada lost and wasn't able to liberate England from this wretched harlot Queen.

Yep, which would be the best reason not to watch the thing....like me. The Brits generally think the sun shines out her painted arse, so to be blunt, what do you expect?

* This message is supported by the Irish(Popeland) Government *

I'm sorry, but could you explain that, please. Thanks.

I'm sorry, but could you explain that, please. Thanks.

Um....

Irish is a Catholic nation and a conservative one at that hence the last part?

So Catholics should be "cats" then?
Naw, just Kats. ;)

*Flees from the wrath of Kat and her bow* :D

To be fair, I doubt Elizabeth got laid more often than the Pope at that time.

Pope Pius IV and Pope Gregory XIII who were Popes during Elizabeth's reign both fathered children. At least Elizabeth didn't have any kids...

Um....

Irish is a Catholic nation and a conservative one at that hence the last part?


Largely catholic, not that conservative, in the greater scheme of things...However why a statement about Elizabeth being a bigot and tyrant have to be sponsored by an Irish govt is what I'm curious about. She ran a police state, in a sense, and used fear of catholicism to create an english nationalism with a distinctly xenophobic nature. You don't have to be Irish to come up with that......

Are we sure the OP didn't mean Hat Fest, it being a costume drama and all?

This movie makes me sick. If there was ever a movie out to bash Catholics, this it it. The whore Queen Elizabeth I is made to look like a wise and tolerant ruler, when in reality she was a bigot and a tyrant.
Oh yeah, she totally did so much worse than the one who went around burning all the protestants.

This movie makes me sick. If there was ever a movie out to bash Catholics, this it it. The whore Queen Elizabeth I is made to look like a wise and tolerant ruler, when in reality she was a bigot and a tyrant.

This OP is already a "hatefest", as the OPer calls the movie itself.

Its a shame that the Spanish Armada lost and wasn't able to liberate England from this wretched harlot Queen.

Clearly, it wasn't thy Lord's will. Who art thou to call a shame the deed of thy Lord? *nod*

Religion is a double-edged tool.

Largely catholic, not that conservative, in the greater scheme of things...However why a statement about Elizabeth being a bigot and tyrant have to be sponsored by an Irish govt is what I'm curious about. She ran a police state, in a sense, and used fear of catholicism to create an english nationalism with a distinctly xenophobic nature. You don't have to be Irish to come up with that......

She did have a fair bit of Catholic Europe trying to have her (papally endorsed) assassinated and/or invade the UK.

She wasn't exactly a wonderful person, but compared to most of our monarchs she ranks pretty highly.

And whether she was a virgin or not is pure speculation. And beside the point really.

Anyone besides me noticed that the OP has not returned?

Anyone besides me noticed that the OP has not returned?

It's not the first time he's done it, 'apparently' has an obsession with shouting about Elizabeth I was a 'bigot, tyrant and most expensive whore ever'. I suspect he may have gone to hide under a bridge and wait for some goats.

Actually, if you'll check Moderation, you'll see he's been perma-banned.

Actually, if you'll check Moderation, you'll see he's been perma-banned.

Ah! Gotcha. To bad :(

You are assuming he knows how to use a computer.

He's gotta find his pedo-porn somewhere.

To start off, I have to say that I am Catholic, but I am not proud of some of the history that the Church has had in the past.

In the Middle Ages/Renaissance era, the Church was corrupt, as much as I hate to admit it. Who got the brunt of this? The common people. They had to pay taxes to the government as well as the church. Also, they had to pay priests and church officials for confession.

Confession was supposed to be free, but soon corrupted into a profitable enterprise, because what has more value than one's immortal soul?

As for Elizabeth I, though she may not have been the "virgin" queen, she did make progression for England, and made it better for the common people, that's what's most important. It's hard not to respect her for the strength she displayed and she stood up for what she believed and fought for it, how is it so much different than today?

Though I love being Catholic and the many traditions we have, it would be hard for me to believe in the Papacy at the time, since the pope himself ordered assasination attempts, when there is a commandment "thou shalt not kill..." even indirectly...

She was the most expensive whore in London. She was harldy a virgin. She banged Walter Raleigh, Robert Dudley, Christopher Hatten, Robert Devereux.

Poor, poor Raleigh. He wanted to get a away from her. He seriously wanted to lead an expedition to the new-World, but she wouldn't let him. His was poetic and handsome, unlike his cousin Francis Drake. So he got stuck. Ah, well.

:(

How are you sure about that?
Who knows what has gotten lost in the anals of history?
Yes, that is a deliberate misspelling.

*Attempts to not make snide remark about "anals of history" in reference to a possible virgin*

:D

This movie makes me sick. If there was ever a movie out to bash Catholics, this it it.


Machiavelli was devout Catholic. But I believe he said:

CHAPTER XII.--That it is of much moment to make account of Religion; and
that Italy, through the Roman Church, being wanting therein, has been
ruined... to find the source of Italy's ills one need look no-further then the Catholic Church...the closer you are to that church, the farther you are form God.

-Discourses.

And people wonder why the Church put him on "The Index". Supposedly because he was immoral. Hah, hah.

Don't believe me? http://www.gutenberg.org/catalog/world/readfile?fk_files=46063&pageno=34

Scroll down to chapter twelve and read-on.

Machiavelli was devout Catholic. But I believe he said:

CHAPTER XII.--That it is of much moment to make account of Religion; and
that Italy, through the Roman Church, being wanting therein, has been
ruined... to find the source of Italy's ills one need look no-further then the Catholic Church...the closer you are to that church, the farther you are form God.

-Discourses.

And people wonder why the Church put him on "The Index". Supposedly because he was immoral. Hah, hah.

Don't believe me? http://www.gutenberg.org/catalog/world/readfile?fk_files=46063&pageno=34

Scroll down to chapter twelve and read-on.

Correct me if I'm wrong but Machiavelli also wrote at a time when there were multiple princes, dukes, whatevers trying to assert their own authority and declare sovereignty and find stability, right? Pretty much the highest sovereign authority in his time was the Catholic Church and it makes sense that he'd want to "dethrone" it, as it were.

This movie makes me sick. If there was ever a movie out to bash Catholics, this it it. The whore Queen Elizabeth I is made to look like a wise and tolerant ruler, when in reality she was a bigot and a tyrant.

Its a shame that the Spanish Armada lost and wasn't able to liberate England from this wretched harlot Queen.

And put the Spanish in charge, as they were during the reign of Mary Tudor (known as Bloody Mary for her charming habit of burning non-Catholics and anyone else who disagreed with her as part of her vain attempt to keep her husband, the King of Spain, happy). Now there was a love-fest.

As tolerant rulers go, Elizabeth was the gold standard for the time. As long as they obeyed the rules, Catholics were tolerated. Today, she would be considered appalling, but then she was, indeed, wise and tolerant.

She ran a police state

She inherited a police state, and I assure you that even if she wanted to she would not be able to change that.


and used fear of catholicism to create an english nationalism with a distinctly xenophobic nature.

That already existed. In fact, pretty much every country in Europe could be described as nationalist if you insist on judging it on modern day standards.

Correct me if I’m wrong but Machiavelli also wrote at a time when there were multiple princes, dukes, whatevers trying to assert their own authority and declare sovereignty and find stability, right? Pretty much the highest sovereign authority in his time was the Catholic Church and it makes sense that he’d want to “dethrone” it, as it were.
Yes, Machiavelli saw Papal control of countries as a danger to state stability, especially to his beloved republics.

And that’s why the Catholic Church denounced him, and began to use his name as a synonym for the devil.

“Old Nick” and all that.

Correct me if I'm wrong but Machiavelli also wrote at a time when there were multiple princes, dukes, whatevers trying to assert their own authority and declare sovereignty and find stability, right? Pretty much the highest sovereign authority in his time was the Catholic Church and it makes sense that he'd want to "dethrone" it, as it were.

If that were so, I would very much doubt he admired Cesare Borgia. He just wanted an Italian state...any state, so long as it was Italian, to unite the nation before a hostile takeover. Anyway, he never took the book to be published, he just carried to conversations with his friends. It was located after his death.

He was banished at the time from his beloved Florence. Tortured on the rack, and then black-listed. He wanted a power base. He wanted to dethrone little nations, and bring it all under-control of a big state. He was not concerned about dethroning the biggest Italian state; however, he evidently did not like it.

If that were so, I would very much doubt he admired Cesare Borgia.
I think The Prince is given too much credit as Machiavelli’s political views. Yes, he saw a strong, absolute, leader as a tool to sweep away old, unworking republics. But this was only a temporary position to be filled by the republic.

He just wanted an Italian state...any state, so long as it was Italian, to unite the nation before a hostile takeover. Anyway, he never took the book to be published, he just carried to conversations with his friends. It was located after his death.
But if we take The Prince and Discourses together, I believe we are seeing a clearer picture of Machiavelli’s political stance. One in which the Christian faith was seen as glorifying humanity, rather than individual courageous actions, and in which the Roman Church was seen as morally corrupt and incapable of acting as Italy’s moral guide.

You may very well be right — Machiavelli never advocated the downfall of the Church, merely its replacement by pagan religion controlled by the republic — but I think his view was stronger than a mere distaste for Roman Catholicism.

I think The Prince is given too much credit as Machiavelli’s political views. Yes, he saw a strong, absolute, leader as a tool to sweep away old, unworking republics. But this was only a temporary position to be filled by the republic.


But if we take The Prince and Discourses together, I believe we are seeing a clearer picture of Machiavelli’s political stance. One in which the Christian faith was seen as glorifying humanity, rather than individual courageous actions, and in which the Roman Church was seen as morally corrupt and incapable of acting as Italy’s moral guide.

You may very well be right — Machiavelli never advocated the downfall of the Church, merely its replacement by pagan religion controlled by the republic — but I think his view was stronger than a mere distaste for Roman Catholicism.
From my reading of both The Prince and The Discourses, I would say that Machiavelli clearly supported the republic as the most viable form of government because he saw it as most able to adapt to changing circumstances and most resistant to political corruption. But he honestly pointed out that republics, though resistant, are not immune to corruption. Far from it. They are especially prone to corruption via manipulation of the minds and moods of the people. To the extent the Church had built itself into an overwhelming political power in Italy by doing exactly that, Machiavelli denounced the Church as a corrupt and corrupting influence in government and the enemy of the kind of stability he considered most beneficial to people. And he was correct on the facts. But that had nothing to do with any questions of faith or religious belief that people might hold, and Machiavelli made that clear as well. His indictment was of the Church, not religion.

In the interest of full disclosure, Machiavelli is my favorite political philosopher. :)

Also in the interest of full disclosure, I just wanted to make that one point. I'm not planning to get involved in a thread whose OP has been banned, and which is probably already dead.

From my reading of both The Prince and The Discourses, I would say that Machiavelli clearly supported the republic as the most viable form of government because he saw it as most able to adapt to changing circumstances and most resistant to political corruption. But he honestly pointed out that republics, though resistant, are not immune to corruption. Far from it. They are especially prone to corruption via manipulation of the minds and moods of the people. To the extent the Church had built itself into an overwhelming political power in Italy by doing exactly that, Machiavelli denounced the Church as a corrupt and corrupting influence in government and the enemy of the kind of stability he considered most beneficial to people.
I agree wholeheartedly.

And he was correct on the facts. But that had nothing to do with any questions of faith or religious belief that people might hold, and Machiavelli made that clear as well. His indictment was of the Church, not religion.
Yes, he certainly doesn’t incite religion per se, but I think we can identify a disappointment at least with the Christian faith, when compared to the Roman’s pagan religion(s). See The Discourses, Chapters 11-13.

In the interest of full disclosure, Machiavelli is my favorite political philosopher.
Certainly an interesting fellow. Don’t know if I agree wholly with him though.

Also in the interest of full disclosure, I just wanted to make that one point. I’m not planning to get involved in a thread whose OP has been banned, and which is probably already dead.
Awww.

I find it refreshing that trolly nonsense can turn into an interesting discussion on political philosophy.

Machiavelli denounced the Church as a corrupt and corrupting influence in government and the enemy of the kind of stability he considered most beneficial to people. And he was correct on the facts. But that had nothing to do with any questions of faith or religious belief that people might hold, and Machiavelli made that clear as well. His indictment was of the Church, not religion.
Indeed. He was certainly a Catholic. But he said he didn't attend church because the preacher was too moral. If the man wasn't going to Hell, then he wouldn't know anything of sin, and therefor should not talk of it. :p

In the interest of full disclosure, Machiavelli is my favorite political philosopher. :)

That makes two of us.

Also in the interest of full disclosure, I just wanted to make that one point. I'm not planning to get involved in a thread whose OP has been banned, and which is probably already dead.

In addition he hates the Borgias. :(

This movie makes me sick. If there was ever a movie out to bash Catholics, this it it. The whore Queen Elizabeth I is made to look like a wise and tolerant ruler, when in reality she was a bigot and a tyrant.

Its a shame that the Spanish Armada lost and wasn't able to liberate England from this wretched harlot Queen.

Yes! You're right! BWAHAHAH! Fuck the pope and long live the Virgin Queen! Up Raleigh! Guy Fawkes deserved it! EXTERMINATE THE PAPISTS!!

That'll teach you to follow the whore of babylon and the gilded satan of Rome, &c &c

This movie makes me sick. If there was ever a movie out to bash Catholics, this it it. The whore Queen Elizabeth I is made to look like a wise and tolerant ruler, when in reality she was a bigot and a tyrant.

Its a shame that the Spanish Armada lost and wasn't able to liberate England from this wretched harlot Queen.

LOL! Are you kidding me? Did you believe every word of An Inconvenient Truth too? Oh, and did you see Space Truckers? Watch out for those killer robots!

Make more funny, funny man!

But seriously. Films are not reality. Oh, and religious bias doesn't look pretty when arguing against history. Go moan about Mugabe or something.

ddint King Philip say Gods an Englishman becasue of the the Defeat of the Armada

I agree wholeheartedly.


Yes, he certainly doesn’t incite religion per se, but I think we can identify a disappointment at least with the Christian faith, when compared to the Roman’s pagan religion(s). See The Discourses, Chapters 11-13.
Well, of course, Roman religion was more fun. ;)


Certainly an interesting fellow. Don’t know if I agree wholly with him though.
Well, chocolate is my favorite sweet, but it's not the only thing I eat. Machiavelli is my favorite. It doesn't mean I live by his precepts.

Awww.

I find it refreshing that trolly nonsense can turn into an interesting discussion on political philosophy.
That's true, but I have other things to do. See you at one of the other NSG coffee-klatches. :)

I actually burst out laughing. The thread should have ended here.

:p
But life goes on.

Well, of course, Roman religion was more fun. ;)
All those entrails; all those togas.

What’s a god to do...

I don't know, Dogma did a pretty good job of that.

I think Dave Barry said it best when he wrote ""Elizabeth...who was called the Virgin Queen because it was not considered a tremendously smart move to call her the Really Ugly Queen." hehe

So you're a Dave Barry fan too?! LMAO :D

"Meanwhile, over in Italy, Christopher Columbus was forming." LMAO

"And on October 8 the nation celebrated its very first July Fourth."

"Chapter 11: The Nation Enters Chapter Eleven"

"Chapter 7: The Forging Of A Large, Wasteful Bureaucracy."

"THE DECLINE OF SPAIN
On October 8, 1565, Spain declined."

This movie makes me sick. If there was ever a movie out to bash Catholics, this it it. The whore Queen Elizabeth I is made to look like a wise and tolerant ruler, when in reality she was a bigot and a tyrant.

Its a shame that the Spanish Armada lost and wasn't able to liberate England from this wretched harlot Queen.

Wow, and this guy got perma-banned? He seems like a rather congenial chap doesn't he? Let's just be happy there won't be more of the same.

So you're a Dave Barry fan too?! LMAO :D

"Meanwhile, over in Italy, Christopher Columbus was forming." LMAO

"And on October 8 the nation celebrated its very first July Fourth."

"Chapter 11: The Nation Enters Chapter Eleven"

"Chapter 7: The Forging Of A Large, Wasteful Bureaucracy."

"THE DECLINE OF SPAIN
On October 8, 1565, Spain declined."

Didn't he make every date October 8, because it was easy to remember?
That's not a bad idea, actually. Every year, we celebrate Independence/Easter/Christmas/Purim/Columbus Day. It'd make the holiday season much less stressful.

I'm a little late. But...

How are you sure about that?
Who knows what has gotten lost in the anals of history?
Yes, that is a deliberate misspelling.

Rofls my waffles.

Its nice to know that, while Theodosis X is gone, his pusillanimous view of both the Catholic church and other churches lives on. And his views on the 'hippy' pope (John Paul II; my favorite pope.)

So you're a Dave Barry fan too?! LMAO :D

"Meanwhile, over in Italy, Christopher Columbus was forming." LMAO

"And on October 8 the nation celebrated its very first July Fourth."

"Chapter 11: The Nation Enters Chapter Eleven"

"Chapter 7: The Forging Of A Large, Wasteful Bureaucracy."

"THE DECLINE OF SPAIN
On October 8, 1565, Spain declined."

Another fan. I'm glad someone is lol. Here's a good one that seems to fit the discussion. (In some warped way XD)

The Vikings, for example, "were extremely rugged individuals whose idea of a fun time was to sail over and set fire to England, which in those days was fairly easy to ignite because it had a very high level of thatch."

Another fan. I'm glad someone is lol. Here's a good one that seems to fit the discussion. (In some warped way XD)

The Vikings, for example, "were extremely rugged individuals whose idea of a fun time was to sail over and set fire to England, which in those days was fairly easy to ignite because it had a very high level of thatch."
See, it's worrying when I think the guy writing this is more intelligent than the people who write the columns that appear in the back of the paper.

This movie makes me sick. If there was ever a movie out to bash Catholics, this it it. The whore Queen Elizabeth I is made to look like a wise and tolerant ruler, when in reality she was a bigot and a tyrant.

Its a shame that the Spanish Armada lost and wasn't able to liberate England from this wretched harlot Queen.

You know what makes me sick?

That people can actualy hold a grudge for several 100 years. Isn't that sickning, isn't that how hate for others is ingrained, generation after generation?

Get over it ya pleb, its fuckin' flim. If you speak as an irate Catholic, then how about practicing some of that good old Christian forgiveness for once huh?

Christ founded ONE Church upon Pope St. Peter the rock, ONE Church with the keys to heaven.

This new age hippy garbage about all religions being right is bull.

It must really kill you to live in a nation where everyone has the right to worship (or not) as they see fit.

This movie makes me sick. If there was ever a movie out to bash Catholics, this it it. The whore Queen Elizabeth I is made to look like a wise and tolerant ruler, when in reality she was a bigot and a tyrant.

Its a shame that the Spanish Armada lost and wasn't able to liberate England from this wretched harlot Queen.

Compared to Mary, and either Dudley or Somerset, she was tolerant.

However, quite why you expect a C16th ruler to adhere to contemporary notions of tolerance and multi-faith societies is beyond me. You strike me as being another would be historian unable to even try to escape the morality of his present.

Compared to Mary, and either Dudley or Somerset, she was tolerant.

However, quite why you expect a C16th ruler to adhere to contemporary notions of tolerance and multi-faith societies is beyond me. You strike me as being another would be historian unable to even try to escape the morality of his present.

The way I'm reading him, he doesn't adhere to the contemporary ideals of tolerance and ecumenism. He just wants to substitute a 16th century ruler (Philip of Spain) who was not known for tolerance for the one 16th century ruler who was. I get the feeling that he would happily reintroduce Torquemada and the inquisition if only Catholicism could once again be ascendant.

The way I'm reading him, he doesn't adhere to the contemporary ideals of tolerance and ecumenism. He just wants to substitute a 16th century ruler (Philip of Spain) who was not known for tolerance for the one 16th century ruler who was. I get the feeling that he would happily reintroduce Torquemada and the inquisition if only Catholicism could once again be ascendant.

I do get that impression now, but considering all I read was the OP, and then hit reply, I may have been lacking in information when writing.

Have we ever had a wannabe Spanish Inquisition member before?

Compared to Mary, and either Dudley or Somerset, she was tolerant.


Eh, I think Somerset and Dudley were ok. One of them (can't remember who) even temporarily allowed freedom of religion (sort of).

See, it's worrying when I think the guy writing this is more intelligent than the people who write the columns that appear in the back of the paper.


Well the difference is the guy writing the newspaper column knows what he is writing is ridiculous and the guy who started this thread is trying to be serious. Yea I wonder who is more whacked out of his mind.