tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1062692702190792942.post3318776554078700956..comments2024-03-20T10:42:44.550+00:00Comments on ROMAN CHRISTENDOM: Apologists for bad Yankee aggression simply make my point for meTribunushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17330137792269530812noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1062692702190792942.post-59891911153504213992008-08-05T10:37:00.000+01:002008-08-05T10:37:00.000+01:00Stephen,The "Highlander" to whom you refer is typi...Stephen,<BR/><BR/>The "Highlander" to whom you refer is typical of a particular type of modern Scotsman.<BR/><BR/>He may be a Loyalist Protestant with all the usual bigotry against Catholics.<BR/><BR/>Another typical type is the sort who hates his own history and is virtually a nihilist. There are sadly too many of them.<BR/><BR/>They tend to be lapsed Presbyterians who have become the very worst sort of whining, whingeing, half-baked Lefty.<BR/><BR/>They usually can't even summon up the spittle to be real Marxists, so miserable and negative are they.<BR/><BR/>They hate the English, they hate the Jacobites, they hate the Catholic Church but have rejected Presbyterianism, they embrace a kind of half-baked atheism but are forced to recognise the evil of Stalin, Hitler and other atheists, and they are often Scottish Nationalists but do not really know what that means.<BR/><BR/>In short, they add up to one big zero.<BR/><BR/>No wonder Scotland is in the state it is in. It has a new Parliament but everyone hates it for the corrupt parcel of self-serving politicians that it is.<BR/><BR/>The Scots who were teetotalling Presbyterian bigots have now become a nation of whiners who hate everybody but themselves and they are not too sure about their neighbours, either!<BR/><BR/>This guy is not dissimilar.<BR/><BR/>In the same breath that he tells you - quite wrongly - that Jacobite government would have prevented the founding of any empire, he might well tell you that he does not agree with having an Empire or that it is "out-dated".<BR/><BR/>Like a lot of ignorant and ill-informed people in Scotland he thinks Jacobitism was a Scottish nationalist movement of some sort. It was nothing of the kind. It was a Crown Unionist movement which intended to keep the union of the Crowns but with separate parliaments - something the British Labour Party said they would deliver and have singularly failed to do.<BR/><BR/>The Bonnie Prince always wore the Garter star first and foremost. He was proud of being Scots but he was British, first, and had no intention whatever of breaking up the union of the Crowns and would most certainly not have been averse to continuing to build a great Empire just as his grandfather, James II, had been.<BR/><BR/>The difference is that the Empire would have had much more Catholic influence - including in America - instead of reverting into a bastion of anti-Catholic prejudice.<BR/><BR/>Tell him so and then sit back and watch the fireworks!<BR/><BR/>This is what happens to a country that first becomes Presbyterian, kicks out the Catholics and Anglicans and the more interesting people, and then turns secularist.<BR/><BR/>It is not a pretty sight.<BR/><BR/>I don't think Prince Charles Edward was "conflicted" over his Catholicism. He did, however, weaken at one point and give in to the Anglicans in the hope of re-gaining his crown - but it did not last long as they were merely playing with him. He reverted to his Catholic faith in exile and died fortified by the rites of the Church.<BR/><BR/>TribunusTribunushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17330137792269530812noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1062692702190792942.post-24386209493959501452008-08-04T22:17:00.000+01:002008-08-04T22:17:00.000+01:00I'm afraid the Colonel's response requires no answ...I'm afraid the Colonel's response requires no answer. If he thinks invading another peoples' country is not "imposing" then I'm afraid I can't help him.<BR/><BR/>But thanks to other contributors for some very interesting information.<BR/><BR/>TribunusTribunushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17330137792269530812noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1062692702190792942.post-85991256164243416082008-08-04T21:02:00.000+01:002008-08-04T21:02:00.000+01:00Thank you for these additional illustrations that ...Thank you for these additional illustrations that rebut the notion that everything good in civilization today derives from the cultural influences of Protestantism and the "Enlightenment." I'd like to hear your response to the speculative alternate history posited <A HREF="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0877505/board/thread/81109102?d=103857250&p=1#103857250" REL="nofollow">here</A>, written by a self-described Highlander concerning what would have happened had Bonnie Prince Charlie won back the British throne. It was written in response to a film about the prince supposedly in the works.<BR/><BR/>On a side note, would you say that the word "conflicted" accurately describes the Stuart prince's attitude toward his Catholicism?Stephen D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/12407954950629078326noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1062692702190792942.post-90658983938224521502008-08-04T03:58:00.000+01:002008-08-04T03:58:00.000+01:00You might be interested in this quotation I saved:...You might be interested in this quotation I saved:<BR/><BR/><I>As in many other countries, public education in the United States began at the instigation of churches. For a long time, schooling was openly religious. In the 1820s, in New York and in other states, legislators became concerned that many students were receiving the wrong type of education. It was not that children were going uneducated - in 1821, about 93 percent of New York's school age youths were already attending private schools. As expressed in legislative debates, the fear was that students educated in private Catholic schools would learn the wrong values and end up becoming criminals. If Protestant schools could be made less expensive through government subsidies, the legislators reasoned, some Catholics would transfer their children there, thus saving them from a life of crime.<BR/><BR/>The subsidies began as a kind of voucher system in which approved Protestant schools received a per pupil payment. However, this had an unintended consequence: the subsidized Protestant schools started competing against each other to attract Catholic students. To compete, they began teaching more of what Catholic parents and students wanted - reading, writing, and math - and less of what they didn't want - Protestant religious training. Advocates of the subsidies found that the subsidized schools were no longer providing the religious training that justified the funding program in the first place.<BR/><BR/>In response, subsidies were limited to the approved Protestant school nearest to a student's home. This reduced the incentive for the schools to compete against each other, and thus to limit their Protestant religious instruction. As government programs tend to do, over time the subsidy scheme grew until it began eliciting complaints that the subsidized schools were getting most of their money from the government while being protected from competition. With the Free Schools Act of 1867, the state simply took over the subsidized schools, which then became public institutions. This is the surprising, true origin of America's public school system.</I><BR/><BR/>-John R. Lott Jr., <I>Freedomnomics: Why the Free Market Works and Other Half-Baked Theories Don't</I>, p. 190-191Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1062692702190792942.post-69264339755408557892008-08-03T00:12:00.000+01:002008-08-03T00:12:00.000+01:00Having to listen to yet another litany of the glor...Having to listen to yet another litany of the glorious, sorrowful and joyful mysteries of a poor, put-upon Catholic world is massively tedious; consider where these people would be if the Latin Catholics had colonized the whole of the western hemisphere.<BR/> Consider the pitiful and repulsive defensiveness that even now defends and apologizes for the fascist and authoritarian regimes in catholic Europe during the 19th and 20th centuries.<BR/> It's no news to you, I'm sure, but the dimwits who're trying to change Catholicism to Unitarianism in drag are no treasures, either.<BR/> I don't know why we have to be involved in YOUR problems; I don't know when we've imposed ours on you.colonelalphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16412772222567410229noreply@blogger.com