Thoughts and prayers for all in London
-
The point is that the vast majority of Christians aren't paedophiles, don't support paedophiles, would report paedophiles to the police, and when paedophiles are discovered they focus on showing their disgust for the individual rather than trying to diminish the crime and take attention away from the crime by focusing on the fact that not all Christians are paedos. When paedophiles are discovered the media likewise fully reports on the matter and condemnation is public and widespread and that is how societal attitudes are formed. On the other hand when Muslim terror attacks happen the media spends most of its energy apologising and diminishing the crimes, dragging focus onto how not all Muslims are like this etc, despite many recent polls showing that many Muslims (all Muslims) sympathise with terrorist attacks and actually support them. They think these attacks are justified. Show me a poll where 50% of Christians think the victims of paedophilia deserve it..... That's the difference.
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
despite many recent polls showing that many Muslims (all Muslims) sympathise with terrorist attacks and actually support them
:omg: Do you have any links to these recent polls?
Slogans aren't solutions.
-
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
That's what polls say,
What, the polls which were so accurate at predicting Brexit? Or the polls which accurately predicted the results of the US presidential election?
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
if you choose to ignore polls
I notice you haven't provided a link to a single poll, let alone one from a reputable source with figures to back up your "all Muslims support terrorists" claims. Meanwhile, the MCB have issued a statement[^] condemning yesterday's attack. Quite an odd thing to do if, as you claim, every Muslim "supports terrorist attacks". :doh:
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
this is why we're sleepwalking into a barbaric, backwards world
We're sleepwalking into a barbaric, backwards world because some scumbags take every opportunity to exploit a tragedy to push their own bigoted agenda. :mad:
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
Richard Deeming wrote:
What, the polls which were so accurate at predicting Brexit?
You're talking about predicting the result of a poll, that's a different thing.
Richard Deeming wrote:
I notice you haven't provided a link to a single poll, let alone one from a reputable source with figures to back up your "all Muslims support terrorists" claims.
I didn't claim all Muslims support terrorism. Do you really think I would say something like that? Credit me with some intelligence please. When I said the poll was Muslims (all Muslims) I meant that all Muslims were polled, not just those in Guantanamo Bay for example, ie that is was as fair a representation as you're likely to get.
Richard Deeming wrote:
We're sleepwalking into a barbaric, backwards world because some scumbags take every opportunity to exploit a tragedy to push their own bigoted agenda.
No, we're sleepwalking into a barbaric state because we're taken on an ever expanding Muslim population where half of which think homosexuality should be illegal, half think homosexuals should not be teachers, a third think the wife is less equal than the husband and so....yet people like yourself simply dismiss these things as "racist" and "bigoted agenda".
-
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
despite many recent polls showing that many Muslims (all Muslims) sympathise with terrorist attacks and actually support them
:omg: Do you have any links to these recent polls?
Slogans aren't solutions.
I do but if I posted them people wouldn't simply try to discredit the poll rather than admit that it might be accurate, so I'll leave you to do your own googling.
-
Richard Deeming wrote:
What, the polls which were so accurate at predicting Brexit?
You're talking about predicting the result of a poll, that's a different thing.
Richard Deeming wrote:
I notice you haven't provided a link to a single poll, let alone one from a reputable source with figures to back up your "all Muslims support terrorists" claims.
I didn't claim all Muslims support terrorism. Do you really think I would say something like that? Credit me with some intelligence please. When I said the poll was Muslims (all Muslims) I meant that all Muslims were polled, not just those in Guantanamo Bay for example, ie that is was as fair a representation as you're likely to get.
Richard Deeming wrote:
We're sleepwalking into a barbaric, backwards world because some scumbags take every opportunity to exploit a tragedy to push their own bigoted agenda.
No, we're sleepwalking into a barbaric state because we're taken on an ever expanding Muslim population where half of which think homosexuality should be illegal, half think homosexuals should not be teachers, a third think the wife is less equal than the husband and so....yet people like yourself simply dismiss these things as "racist" and "bigoted agenda".
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
When I said the poll was Muslims (all Muslims) I meant that all Muslims were polled, not just those in Guantanamo Bay for example, ie that is was as fair a representation as you're likely to get.
OK, that's a better explanation. :thumbsup: (If you re-read your previous post, I'm sure you can see how I came to the wrong conclusion about what you were saying.)
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
half of which think homosexuality should be illegal, half think homosexuals should not be teachers
Sorry, are we back to talking about Christians again? :rolleyes:
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
yet people like yourself simply dismiss these things as "racist" and "bigoted agenda".
No, what I'm dismissing is the people who actually do think or claim that most (or all) Muslims "support terrorism". The homophobic and misogynistic attitudes which are prevalent in some communities are totally unacceptable. But this is a distraction from the original point: the need to remind some people that the majority of Muslims are not terrorists. It would be nice to live in a world where that wasn't necessary. Where everyone understood that the actions of a tiny minority do not reflect the intentions of the entire group. But that's not the world we live in (yet).
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
-
Mark_Wallace wrote:
Then let's approve spending another handful of million quid on letting security forces spy on us, purportedly to protect us from the one nutter every few years with a knife, who's labelled as a ter'r'rist.
Months (or even weeks) if you're in Europe. Regardless of how we/everyone/the media/governments try to play it all down it does seem to be on the increase. How long will it be before it's one of our friends or family members injured or killed in a future attack (that we're told by our elites that "we have to learn to live with")? What I don't understand is why people who disagree/dislike our way of life don't just move somewhere more amenable rather than staying here, getting angry with everything and then attacking innocent bystanders?
Ah, I see you have the machine that goes ping. This is my favorite. You see we lease it back from the company we sold it to and that way it comes under the monthly current budget and not the capital account.
Brent Jenkins wrote:
What I don't understand is why people who disagree/dislike our way of life don't just move somewhere more amenable rather than staying here, getting angry with everything and then attacking innocent bystanders?
Because it is there wish that everyone's way of life become their way of life. [interlude] Christianity's spent most of its two millennia doing just that to "heathens" throughout the world. Now, Islam's taking a turn at it - just switch "heathen" and "infidel". WTF's the difference when it's really only a buzz-word for maiming, torturing, and killing anyone who disagrees with their divine insight? [/interlude] They won't leave because it's you they want to leave. Now do you get it?
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010
-
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
When I said the poll was Muslims (all Muslims) I meant that all Muslims were polled, not just those in Guantanamo Bay for example, ie that is was as fair a representation as you're likely to get.
OK, that's a better explanation. :thumbsup: (If you re-read your previous post, I'm sure you can see how I came to the wrong conclusion about what you were saying.)
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
half of which think homosexuality should be illegal, half think homosexuals should not be teachers
Sorry, are we back to talking about Christians again? :rolleyes:
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
yet people like yourself simply dismiss these things as "racist" and "bigoted agenda".
No, what I'm dismissing is the people who actually do think or claim that most (or all) Muslims "support terrorism". The homophobic and misogynistic attitudes which are prevalent in some communities are totally unacceptable. But this is a distraction from the original point: the need to remind some people that the majority of Muslims are not terrorists. It would be nice to live in a world where that wasn't necessary. Where everyone understood that the actions of a tiny minority do not reflect the intentions of the entire group. But that's not the world we live in (yet).
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
Richard Deeming wrote:
I'm sure you can see how I came to the wrong conclusion about what you were saying
I fully agree it was badly worded...I even contemplated editing it after I posted it but CBA :)
Richard Deeming wrote:
But this is a distraction from the original point: the need to remind some people that the majority of Muslims are not terrorists.
But an unacceptably large number support or sympathise with terrorism, and that's a big issue as going from supporting to doing is far easier than going from condemning to doing. Add to that their other prevalent attitudes that are not compatible with a free society like ours and there are huge issues ahead that no-one is facing up to.
-
Brent Jenkins wrote:
What I don't understand is why people who disagree/dislike our way of life don't just move somewhere more amenable rather than staying here, getting angry with everything and then attacking innocent bystanders?
Because it is there wish that everyone's way of life become their way of life. [interlude] Christianity's spent most of its two millennia doing just that to "heathens" throughout the world. Now, Islam's taking a turn at it - just switch "heathen" and "infidel". WTF's the difference when it's really only a buzz-word for maiming, torturing, and killing anyone who disagrees with their divine insight? [/interlude] They won't leave because it's you they want to leave. Now do you get it?
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010
W∴ Balboos wrote:
WTF's the difference
To be fair (and I speak as an atheist here) Christianity generally worked to improve the levels of education, health and civil behaviour.
W∴ Balboos wrote:
They won't leave because it's you they want to leave. Now do you get it?
I got it long ago. Just waiting for others to catch up :)
Ah, I see you have the machine that goes ping. This is my favorite. You see we lease it back from the company we sold it to and that way it comes under the monthly current budget and not the capital account.
-
I do but if I posted them people wouldn't simply try to discredit the poll rather than admit that it might be accurate, so I'll leave you to do your own googling.
Well, that's me convinced.
Slogans aren't solutions.
-
Well, that's me convinced.
Slogans aren't solutions.
You've already made up your mind and nothing will convince you so I'm just saving myself a lot of wasted time :)
-
Richard Deeming wrote:
I'm sure you can see how I came to the wrong conclusion about what you were saying
I fully agree it was badly worded...I even contemplated editing it after I posted it but CBA :)
Richard Deeming wrote:
But this is a distraction from the original point: the need to remind some people that the majority of Muslims are not terrorists.
But an unacceptably large number support or sympathise with terrorism, and that's a big issue as going from supporting to doing is far easier than going from condemning to doing. Add to that their other prevalent attitudes that are not compatible with a free society like ours and there are huge issues ahead that no-one is facing up to.
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
But an unacceptably large number support or sympathise with terrorism,
Well, one would be an unacceptably large number. :) But we're not going to change their minds by demonising or ostracising the entire group every time some nutcase attacks us. After all, we didn't tell all the Irish people to "feck off" every time some nutter from one of their US-funded terrorist organisations called in a bomb threat.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
-
W∴ Balboos wrote:
WTF's the difference
To be fair (and I speak as an atheist here) Christianity generally worked to improve the levels of education, health and civil behaviour.
W∴ Balboos wrote:
They won't leave because it's you they want to leave. Now do you get it?
I got it long ago. Just waiting for others to catch up :)
Ah, I see you have the machine that goes ping. This is my favorite. You see we lease it back from the company we sold it to and that way it comes under the monthly current budget and not the capital account.
Brent Jenkins wrote:
Christianity generally worked to improve the levels of education, health and civil behavior.
That's christianity's narrative. In fact, the church had a strong policy that the worshipers don't need to read - the clergy will do it for them - doing their part to keep Europe in the Dark Ages. Civil behavior? How many Jews they tortured, burned, raped, murdered . . . with teaching the church got underway in the 4th century. Or the church's OK for the Lord of the Manner to f*ck each maiden on her wedding night before the groom gets a taste? The Inquisition (a money/property grab). Health? You're ill because you sinned . . . Actually, just look through western history and you'll see the church taking it's $$ cut from essentially all the hell this planet's surface has endured. The above-mentioned faith, calling it's champion the "Prince of Peace" - sounds an awful lot like the current drama of misery - where they call themselves "The Religion of Peace".
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010
-
You've already made up your mind and nothing will convince you so I'm just saving myself a lot of wasted time :)
I tend to base my opinions on information and you're yet to share any.
Slogans aren't solutions.
-
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
But an unacceptably large number support or sympathise with terrorism,
Well, one would be an unacceptably large number. :) But we're not going to change their minds by demonising or ostracising the entire group every time some nutcase attacks us. After all, we didn't tell all the Irish people to "feck off" every time some nutter from one of their US-funded terrorist organisations called in a bomb threat.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
Richard Deeming wrote:
Well, one would be an unacceptably large number.
Not really, no. You are always going to get variation in a population and there are always going to be a proportion of "bad actors", that is unavoidable. There will always be Christians that support paedophilia, Irish that support paramilitary action, no-one is saying the number of bad actors should be zero, that's just another straw-man argument the left cling to, Muslim terrorist apologisers constantly harping on about paedophiles, Irish terrorists and the Crusades as if the fact that 1% of the population are paedophiles means that 25-50% of Muslims supporting terror is no big deal. It's not the fact that there *are* Muslim sympathisers, it's the fact that there are *so many*. Why are Muslims so disproportionately sympathetic toward violence in the name of religion? Why are they so disproportionately against homosexuals? Why are they so disproportionately in favour of violence, subjugation, intolerance and hatred? There is surely only one answer? What is the common denominator amongst this group? The religion they follow, a religion that preaches hatred and intolerance. Do the maths, it's not that hard.
-
Richard Deeming wrote:
Well, one would be an unacceptably large number.
Not really, no. You are always going to get variation in a population and there are always going to be a proportion of "bad actors", that is unavoidable. There will always be Christians that support paedophilia, Irish that support paramilitary action, no-one is saying the number of bad actors should be zero, that's just another straw-man argument the left cling to, Muslim terrorist apologisers constantly harping on about paedophiles, Irish terrorists and the Crusades as if the fact that 1% of the population are paedophiles means that 25-50% of Muslims supporting terror is no big deal. It's not the fact that there *are* Muslim sympathisers, it's the fact that there are *so many*. Why are Muslims so disproportionately sympathetic toward violence in the name of religion? Why are they so disproportionately against homosexuals? Why are they so disproportionately in favour of violence, subjugation, intolerance and hatred? There is surely only one answer? What is the common denominator amongst this group? The religion they follow, a religion that preaches hatred and intolerance. Do the maths, it's not that hard.
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
as if the fact that 1% of the population are paedophiles means that 25-50% of Muslims supporting terror is no big deal.
You're missing the point. A small number of Christians are paedophiles. Whenever a "paedophile priest" story comes out, nobody jumps on their soapbox to denounce all Christians as child-molesting scumbags. You don't get Christians being stopped in the street and asked, "how many of you people support paedophillia?" You don't get people suggesting we round up all the Christians and deport them to Vatican City, where they can get on with their choir-boy-bum-fest without bothering decent people like us. You just get straight condemnation of the criminals, and those involved in covering up the crime. Compare and contrast: A small number of Muslims are terrorists. When a Muslim commits a terrorist attack, lots of people start loudly claiming that all Muslims, or at least the majority of them, are terrorists, or supporters of terrorism. Reporters and pollsters randomly stop anyone who looks a bit Muslim-y to ask them whether they support terrorism. Any poll of Muslims that shows less than 100% condemnation of terrorism is taken as "proof" that they're all out to get you. Xenophobic idiots start suggesting we "send them all back", even when the attacker was born in the country where the attack took place. Reminding people that Muslims are human beings too, that the majority are not terrorists, and the majority do not support terrorism, is unfortunately still necessary. That doesn't mean that the "apologists" are any less appalled by the crime than you are, or are trying to come up with excuses for the terrorists' behaviour.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
-
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
as if the fact that 1% of the population are paedophiles means that 25-50% of Muslims supporting terror is no big deal.
You're missing the point. A small number of Christians are paedophiles. Whenever a "paedophile priest" story comes out, nobody jumps on their soapbox to denounce all Christians as child-molesting scumbags. You don't get Christians being stopped in the street and asked, "how many of you people support paedophillia?" You don't get people suggesting we round up all the Christians and deport them to Vatican City, where they can get on with their choir-boy-bum-fest without bothering decent people like us. You just get straight condemnation of the criminals, and those involved in covering up the crime. Compare and contrast: A small number of Muslims are terrorists. When a Muslim commits a terrorist attack, lots of people start loudly claiming that all Muslims, or at least the majority of them, are terrorists, or supporters of terrorism. Reporters and pollsters randomly stop anyone who looks a bit Muslim-y to ask them whether they support terrorism. Any poll of Muslims that shows less than 100% condemnation of terrorism is taken as "proof" that they're all out to get you. Xenophobic idiots start suggesting we "send them all back", even when the attacker was born in the country where the attack took place. Reminding people that Muslims are human beings too, that the majority are not terrorists, and the majority do not support terrorism, is unfortunately still necessary. That doesn't mean that the "apologists" are any less appalled by the crime than you are, or are trying to come up with excuses for the terrorists' behaviour.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
Richard Deeming wrote:
Whenever a "paedophile priest" story comes out, nobody jumps on their soapbox to denounce all Christians as child-molesting scumbags.
They don't have to because everyone denounces that behaviour and everyone speaks out against it. It is made abundantly clear that such behaviour is not acceptable and won't be tolerated. Contrast that with the current threat of Islam where there is never any real condemnation, coupled with the fact that sane people accept that many of these Muslims actually support these attacks. That's why Muslims get more grief. There is always going to be "lone wolf" nutters, you can't stop them, but when a priest or teacher turns out to be a paedophile it is probably because they always were one and that drew them to careers that brought them in contact with vulnerable children. Here we have an ideology who is all about hate and it is teaching that hate, spreading it. That's the difference. As much as we have to simply tolerate your Jimmy Savils, your Breviks etc as there will also be evil people in the world, here we have a religion actively spreading hate to people who probably wouldn't otherwise be hateful and intolerant. Why do 5% of Western people think homosexuality is wrong yet 50% of Muslims do? Because the Muslims are taught it actively and aggressively, and they will continue to do so when people like yourself turn a blind eye for fear of offending or appearing Islamophobic.
-
Brent Jenkins wrote:
Christianity generally worked to improve the levels of education, health and civil behavior.
That's christianity's narrative. In fact, the church had a strong policy that the worshipers don't need to read - the clergy will do it for them - doing their part to keep Europe in the Dark Ages. Civil behavior? How many Jews they tortured, burned, raped, murdered . . . with teaching the church got underway in the 4th century. Or the church's OK for the Lord of the Manner to f*ck each maiden on her wedding night before the groom gets a taste? The Inquisition (a money/property grab). Health? You're ill because you sinned . . . Actually, just look through western history and you'll see the church taking it's $$ cut from essentially all the hell this planet's surface has endured. The above-mentioned faith, calling it's champion the "Prince of Peace" - sounds an awful lot like the current drama of misery - where they call themselves "The Religion of Peace".
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010
W∴ Balboos wrote:
OK for the Lord of the Manner to f*ck each maiden on her wedding night before the groom gets a taste
Think you've been watching too much Braveheart.. you know, that Scottish "true life" movie written by an Iowa farmer who believes he's related to William Wallace but has never been to the UK :laugh: Do you really think people would put up with that kind of behaviour here in the UK? Civil behaviour? Yes, compare Europe (and nations colonised by Brits especially) with most other parts of the world.
Ah, I see you have the machine that goes ping. This is my favorite. You see we lease it back from the company we sold it to and that way it comes under the monthly current budget and not the capital account.
-
Richard Deeming wrote:
Whenever a "paedophile priest" story comes out, nobody jumps on their soapbox to denounce all Christians as child-molesting scumbags.
They don't have to because everyone denounces that behaviour and everyone speaks out against it. It is made abundantly clear that such behaviour is not acceptable and won't be tolerated. Contrast that with the current threat of Islam where there is never any real condemnation, coupled with the fact that sane people accept that many of these Muslims actually support these attacks. That's why Muslims get more grief. There is always going to be "lone wolf" nutters, you can't stop them, but when a priest or teacher turns out to be a paedophile it is probably because they always were one and that drew them to careers that brought them in contact with vulnerable children. Here we have an ideology who is all about hate and it is teaching that hate, spreading it. That's the difference. As much as we have to simply tolerate your Jimmy Savils, your Breviks etc as there will also be evil people in the world, here we have a religion actively spreading hate to people who probably wouldn't otherwise be hateful and intolerant. Why do 5% of Western people think homosexuality is wrong yet 50% of Muslims do? Because the Muslims are taught it actively and aggressively, and they will continue to do so when people like yourself turn a blind eye for fear of offending or appearing Islamophobic.
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
They don't have to because everyone denounces that behaviour and everyone speaks out against it.
That's not the point. Everyone agrees the behaviour is unacceptable in both cases. But only in the "Muslim terrorist" case do people try to tar the entire group with the same brush. People are able to condemn the priest who is a paedophile without claiming that all Christians/Catholics/priests are paedophiles. So why do they find it impossible to condemn the Muslim who is a terrorist without claiming that all Muslims must be terrorists?
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
Why do 5% of Western people think homosexuality is wrong yet 50% of Muslims do?
Because almost every religion teaches that. How many Christians think homosexuality is wrong? I'm betting it's much higher than 5%.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
-
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
They don't have to because everyone denounces that behaviour and everyone speaks out against it.
That's not the point. Everyone agrees the behaviour is unacceptable in both cases. But only in the "Muslim terrorist" case do people try to tar the entire group with the same brush. People are able to condemn the priest who is a paedophile without claiming that all Christians/Catholics/priests are paedophiles. So why do they find it impossible to condemn the Muslim who is a terrorist without claiming that all Muslims must be terrorists?
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
Why do 5% of Western people think homosexuality is wrong yet 50% of Muslims do?
Because almost every religion teaches that. How many Christians think homosexuality is wrong? I'm betting it's much higher than 5%.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
Richard Deeming wrote:
Everyone agrees the behaviour is unacceptable in both cases.
I say again, a large percentage of Muslims agree with terrorism so it's not unacceptable in both cases, that's the whole point.
Richard Deeming wrote:
Because almost every religion teaches that.
The Bible doesn't really preach against Homosexuality at all expect Leviticus which isn't instruction for the people. The Church now accepts gay priests, gay marriage etc (obviously not everyone in Christianity, no).
Richard Deeming wrote:
How many Christians think homosexuality is wrong? I'm betting it's much higher than 5%.
Not that homosexuality is *wrong*, but that it should be *illegal*, that you should be punished for it. How many Christian think homosexuals should be tied to chairs and thrown to their death? 0%? Somewhere around there? Thinking something is wrong is fine, it takes all sorts, but thinking others should be punished because they do things you don't agree with is when it crosses the line and *that* is exactly what Islam preaches.
-
W∴ Balboos wrote:
OK for the Lord of the Manner to f*ck each maiden on her wedding night before the groom gets a taste
Think you've been watching too much Braveheart.. you know, that Scottish "true life" movie written by an Iowa farmer who believes he's related to William Wallace but has never been to the UK :laugh: Do you really think people would put up with that kind of behaviour here in the UK? Civil behaviour? Yes, compare Europe (and nations colonised by Brits especially) with most other parts of the world.
Ah, I see you have the machine that goes ping. This is my favorite. You see we lease it back from the company we sold it to and that way it comes under the monthly current budget and not the capital account.
II. The jus primae noctis as a power display in the late Middle Ages We have quite a few examples showing how the popular belief in a former jus primae noctis influenced social relations between lords and peasants in Switzerland, France and Catalonia in the 15th and 16th centuries. One of these stems from a Swiss village in the vicinity of Zurich. In a customal from about 1400 A.D., the rights of the inhabitants of Maur were itemised by the local "Meier", a representative of the lord of Maur, which at that time was the convent of Zurich. "Item, who wants to enter the holy state of marriage in the village and court of Maur, whoever he may be, shall hand over the woman to Us for the first night or he may buy her out, as it is custom and tradition and written in the old customals. If he doesn't do so, he must pay a fine of 30 pennies." (STAZ [Staatsarchiv des Kantons Zürich]. Urkunden Stadt und Land Nr. 2563; copy of the 15th century, cf. Wettlaufer 1999: 251). One hundred and fifty years later, the text had been slightly altered: in the 1543 version, written by a successor of the first editor, one reads "... and when the wedding starts, the bridegroom shall allow the sergeant to lie with his bride for the first night, or he shall buy her off with 5 pounds and 4 pennies." (STAZ C. I 2562, [1543 AD] cf. Wettlaufer 1999: 255). And do recall, this was church sanctioned. I'll take it a step further in that the Church did its utmost to cover up what they should have condemned - but didn't. A habit they brought into the 21st Century. Oh - yes - did I mention Castrati ?
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010
-
II. The jus primae noctis as a power display in the late Middle Ages We have quite a few examples showing how the popular belief in a former jus primae noctis influenced social relations between lords and peasants in Switzerland, France and Catalonia in the 15th and 16th centuries. One of these stems from a Swiss village in the vicinity of Zurich. In a customal from about 1400 A.D., the rights of the inhabitants of Maur were itemised by the local "Meier", a representative of the lord of Maur, which at that time was the convent of Zurich. "Item, who wants to enter the holy state of marriage in the village and court of Maur, whoever he may be, shall hand over the woman to Us for the first night or he may buy her out, as it is custom and tradition and written in the old customals. If he doesn't do so, he must pay a fine of 30 pennies." (STAZ [Staatsarchiv des Kantons Zürich]. Urkunden Stadt und Land Nr. 2563; copy of the 15th century, cf. Wettlaufer 1999: 251). One hundred and fifty years later, the text had been slightly altered: in the 1543 version, written by a successor of the first editor, one reads "... and when the wedding starts, the bridegroom shall allow the sergeant to lie with his bride for the first night, or he shall buy her off with 5 pounds and 4 pennies." (STAZ C. I 2562, [1543 AD] cf. Wettlaufer 1999: 255). And do recall, this was church sanctioned. I'll take it a step further in that the Church did its utmost to cover up what they should have condemned - but didn't. A habit they brought into the 21st Century. Oh - yes - did I mention Castrati ?
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010
- I live in Britain, so I'll guess that none of this applied here. 2) Have you any ideas about the logistics of organising such an event? I mean, getting every single bride and lining them up for a handful of landowners..? Most landowners would have more important things to be doing with their time. It'd be impossible to implement in reality and was probably only used very rarely by a minority of an already very small minority. 3) You're living in the US. You have free speech, democracy, education, rule of law - all of these are founded upon our (and again I speak as an atheist) Christian heritage. It seems fashionable these days to find every fault with Western/European culture while ignoring every problem originating from other places. Even getting back to the original topic, it's only taken a couple of days for our own media to turn the killer into the victim ("us nasty racist white people made him do it"). [How London attacker Khalid Masood snapped because of racism in his village - then went to jail and became radicalised](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/23/violent-extremist-dropped-polices-radar/) Personally, I'm sick to death of it.
Ah, I see you have the machine that goes ping. This is my favorite. You see we lease it back from the company we sold it to and that way it comes under the monthly current budget and not the capital account.
