Jump to content

Civil disobedience : Matt Damon speech/ Opinions ?


Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, The Archer said:

Tudors' sham conversion to Protestantism is the root cause of English royalty's religious schizophrenia during this period.

Well you said it. Henry VIII was theologically a zealous Catholic, only a Catholic who could not endure Papal interventionism; the Henrician Reformation was a Reformation of both state-craftsmanship and the marriage bed. But from the time of Elizabeth I, Anglicanism had proceeded to become embedded in a nation's consciousness, built upon the bedrock of the Book of Martyrs, 39 Articles and Book of Common Prayer. It seems to have proliferated henceforward., if not universally. The problem with Anglicanism for the next century was that it came attacked by those who felt it had not gone far enough evangelically and was still essentially 'Popish' (Puritans), and those who remained Catholic.

12 hours ago, The Archer said:

what England got was a 'German' revolution.

Constitutional monarchs at this stage thus a bit academic to be inherently revolutionary, and commencing with the reign of George III they began to see themselves as 'English'. It did interlock Britain with Hanover which had repercussions on British foreign policy, during the Seven Years' and Revolutionary/Napoleonic Wars for instance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

Well you said it. Henry VIII was theologically a zealous Catholic, only a Catholic who could not endure Papal interventionism; the Henrician Reformation was a Reformation of both state-craftsmanship and the marriage bed. But from the time of Elizabeth I, Anglicanism had proceeded to become embedded in a nation's consciousness, built upon the bedrock of the Book of Martyrs, 39 Articles and Book of Common Prayer. It seems to have proliferated henceforward., if not universally. The problem with Anglicanism for the next century was that it came attacked by those who felt it had not gone far enough evangelically and was still essentially 'Popish' (Puritans), and those who remained Catholic.

Yes, the Pope gave him the title of 'Defender of the (Catholic) Faith' for writing a treatise on the seven sacraments in refutation of Luther and Protestantism. He was more or less a 'Catholic' till the end of his life. But the rejection of Papal authority and the officially sanctioned High Church Anglicanism of the later Tudors and the Stuarts was superseded in pace and strength by what was happening on the ground. A very 'low church' (and I use the term figuratively) grassroots movement that preceded the Reformation and had its roots in Wycliff and the Lollards, and leading right up to Tyndale, ensured that the adoption of Protestantism was not a superficial change that would be enforced top-down. However, it may have very well petered out without royal sanction and official support that came with the state's formal adoption of Anglicanism. This was a real revolution that had far reaching consequences. Without Henry's loss of a boner for his first wife, Protestantism could well have stayed a more cohesive, but smaller, exclusively Northern European movement that was split into mainly Lutheran and Calvinists factions. Not just the worldwide Anglican communion, but the few tens of thousands of North American based sects that trace their lineage back to it, including the various streams of the Mormon religion, all owe a debt to the old goat's wandering eye.

4 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

Constitutional monarchs at this stage thus a bit academic to be inherently revolutionary, and commencing with the reign of George III they began to see themselves as 'English'. It did interlock Britain with Hanover which had repercussions on British foreign policy, during the Seven Years' and Revolutionary/Napoleonic Wars for instance.

That was of course meant in jest. Except for the Tudors on the patrilineal side and William of Orange, all the the English royal houses including the Stuarts, were descended from the Normans who came over the channel after the conquest, and pretty much replaced the Saxon aristocracy wholesale. Hanover and Saxe-Coburg-Gotha-Windsor-Mountbatten, while of German lineage became as thoroughly anglicized as the extended aristocracy which remained very English.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, The Archer said:

Yes, the Pope gave him the title of 'Defender of the (Catholic) Faith' for writing a treatise on the seven sacraments in refutation of Luther and Protestantism. He was more or less a 'Catholic' till the end of his life. But the rejection of Papal authority and the officially sanctioned High Church Anglicanism of the later Tudors and the Stuarts was superseded in pace and strength by what was happening on the ground. A very 'low church' (and I use the term figuratively) grassroots movement that preceded the Reformation and had its roots in Wycliff and the Lollards, and leading right up to Tyndale, ensured that the adoption of Protestantism was not a superficial change that would be enforced top-down. However, it may have very well petered out without royal sanction and official support that came with the state's formal adoption of Anglicanism. This was a real revolution that had far reaching consequences. Without Henry's loss of a boner for his first wife, Protestantism could well have stayed a more cohesive, but smaller, exclusively Northern European movement that was split into mainly Lutheran and Calvinists factions. Not just the worldwide Anglican communion, but the few tens of thousands of North American based sects that trace their lineage back to it, including the various streams of the Mormon religion, all owe a debt to the old goat's wandering eye.

Henry VIII actually persecuted protestants after England broke with Rome, as well as restricting access of The Great Bible to the clergy and the upper classes, not wishing Evangelicalism to proliferate among ordinary laymen! I see the Henrician Reformation as an example of state formation, by which he and other rulers obtained control over state resources, e.g. taxation and litigation, from the Papacy. It represented part of a greater movement which saw Europe move away from the Medieval, and into the (early) Modern Era. It is often debated whether or not Henry VIII would have broken with Rome, or perhaps partially broke with Rome creating an English variant of France's 'Gallicanism', irrespective of the annulment crisis. 

 

23 hours ago, The Archer said:

That was of course meant in jest. Except for the Tudors on the patrilineal side and William of Orange, all the the English royal houses including the Stuarts, were descended from the Normans who came over the channel after the conquest, and pretty much replaced the Saxon aristocracy wholesale. Hanover and Saxe-Coburg-Gotha-Windsor-Mountbatten, while of German lineage became as thoroughly anglicized as the extended aristocracy which remained very English.

The Hanoverian dynasty were related to the Stuarts through dynastic marriage. Electress Sophia of Hanover was a granddaughter of James I and niece of Charles I.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Henry VIII actually persecuted protestants after England broke with Rome, as well as restricting access of The Great Bible to the clergy and the upper classes, not wishing Evangelicalism to proliferate among ordinary laymen! I see the Henrician Reformation as an example of state formation, by which he and other rulers obtained control over state resources, e.g. taxation and litigation, from the Papacy. It represented part of a greater movement which saw Europe move away from the Medieval, and into the (early) Modern Era. It is often debated whether or not Henry VIII would have broken with Rome, or perhaps partially broke with Rome creating an English variant of France's 'Gallicanism', irrespective of the annulment crisis. 

Yes indeed. While it's easy to see the Reformation as a moral and religious crusade, regardless of the general corruption and decadence in western Catholicism at the time, without the willingness and urgency of the Northern Europe's to re-define the existing political and social order, which was ripe for change, it would have floundered as any number of previous dissident movements against Catholicism did.

43 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

The Hanoverian dynasty were related to the Stuarts through dynastic marriage. Electress Sophia of Hanover was a granddaughter of James I and niece of Charles I.

Yes, but she was not a patrilineal descendant. Her son George was about 1/8th Stuart on his mother's mother's side and mostly German for the rest. The Act of Succession not only mandated a religious test, but it also effectively ignored male primogeniture, with about four dozen or so Roman Catholics being more 'Stuart' than George was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, The Archer said:

Yes indeed. While it's easy to see the Reformation as a moral and religious crusade, regardless of the general corruption and decadence in western Catholicism at the time, without the willingness and urgency of the Northern Europe's to re-define the existing political and social order, which was ripe for change, it would have floundered as any number of previous dissident movements against Catholicism did.

Yes, but she was not a patrilineal descendant. Her son George was about 1/8th Stuart on his mother's mother's side and mostly German for the rest. The Act of Succession not only mandated a religious test, but it also effectively ignored male primogeniture, with about four dozen or so Roman Catholics being more 'Stuart' than George was.

Apparently George I arrived in Britain possessing not a word of English, and with two 'ugly' German mistresses in tow!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Apparently George I arrived in Britain possessing not a word of English, and with two 'ugly' German mistresses in tow!

:lol: even in the rarefied world of royalty, his really was an exceptional case of winning the lottery of conception.

 I think it wasn't until the third of them, that they adopted English and even then, the Hanoverians continued marrying German consorts, all through to the end of their line.

Edited by The Archer
Edited for context
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, The Archer said:

:lol:

 I think it wasn't until the third of them, that they adopted English and even then, the Hanoverians continued marrying German consorts, all through to the end of their line.

Victoria was the ''grandmother of Europe''.

Apparently, the reason the Windsors open their presents on Christmas Eve, as opposed to the rest of the UK which does so on Christmas Day, is that it is a relic of their German ancestry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, DieselDaisy said:

Victoria was the ''grandmother of Europe''.

Apparently, the reason the Windsors open their presents on Christmas Eve, as opposed to the rest of the UK which does so on Christmas Day, is that it is a relic of their German ancestry.

Yes, I'm aware. It was one of the things I had in mind when I referred to them as being a 'German' dynasty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

Hanoverian pudding face.

Too much Battenberg cake. It just doesn't make sense to me countries aren't countries they are just job opps for freeloaders like Phil the greek. Nobody seems to come to the UK to work. Like the new mayor of London. His family must have been chased out of somewhere for causing trouble. Sorry if that sounds racist. Maybe it goes both ways. Rich british always rocking over to Kenya to run things. Dennis the Menace is getting banned now too. There's no justice for the working man. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On May 17, 2016 at 7:39 AM, wasted said:

Religion or ideology is just a mask. They are just broke as fuck "criminals". People become terrorists or join regimes just to get a better pay check. Or a pay check. Everywhere is the same. Human nature is the same. It just depends what kind of video budget you got. I mean would isis do youtube beheadings if they had Heal the World video budget. No, with money you can finesse shit. Like drones, that's a fancy, arty, "pc" way to kill kids in schools. But you got Obama, the Sidney of Politics walking like a pimp living in the White House. It's a big budget production. Then we got the same thing over in some broke ass shit hell hole in desert. No budget. They gotta hijack planes to make their MTV video. I think I might of got off topic. Cocktails anyone?

I think this might be your most creatively described post yet! No I don't think isis would do youtube beheadings if they had the heal the world video budget. Haha. I get it.

Its hard to do much about the way it is though when most people simply cannot or do not want to tune into this level of thought. What could do it? Let's follow McKenna and dose the world with psilocybin. Or hang out like summer at Harvard and an acid tea cups all around. That might be the most immediate way down the rabbit hole. But it's not likely so you find comfort in knowing the winds of change are gonna blow one way or the other and alls i's gots is time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Sprite said:

I think this might be your most creatively described post yet! No I don't think isis would do youtube beheadings if they had the heal the world video budget. Haha. I get it.

Its hard to do much about the way it is though when most people simply cannot or do not want to tune into this level of thought. What could do it? Let's follow McKenna and dose the world with psilocybin. Or hang out like summer at Harvard and an acid tea cups all around. That might be the most immediate way down the rabbit hole. But it's not likely so you find comfort in knowing the winds of change are gonna blow one way or the other and alls i's gots is time.

Like len was saying anout the working classes having pride and never losing hope. The status quo is comfortable as well. You have to be sociopath to really see behind the curtain (or a politician). People watch the news to be told what's happening and to be reassured everything is ok by a nice guy or a milf. But in my experience people get jittery when they see and kind of block it out. 

Even Obama. I think he doubled the military budget and these drone strikes are horrible. But still he's seen as avoiding invasion of Iran. But as I see it he laid did Syria by proxy. No need to go in gung ho if everyone will take the hit. And the agreement with Iran is just laying ground work for Trump. There's no way the US military has been sweeping around the world they not going to stop. Even Obama gets told what to do by Jack Nicholson. 

But people see this and turn away because it's not in their best interest. But how long? Not long because what you reap is what you sow. 

But like you said is the alternative any better. It's all downhill skiing with a gold fish bowl on your head. 

But bad shit is happening, but I'm like nah leave it, when's Axl releasing the vault?!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, wasted said:

Like len was saying anout the working classes having pride and never losing hope. The status quo is comfortable as well. You have to be sociopath to really see behind the curtain (or a politician). People watch the news to be told what's happening and to be reassured everything is ok by a nice guy or a milf. But in my experience people get jittery when they see and kind of block it out. 

Even Obama. I think he doubled the military budget and these drone strikes are horrible. But still he's seen as avoiding invasion of Iran. But as I see it he laid did Syria by proxy. No need to go in gung ho if everyone will take the hit. And the agreement with Iran is just laying ground work for Trump. There's no way the US military has been sweeping around the world they not going to stop. Even Obama gets told what to do by Jack Nicholson. 

But people see this and turn away because it's not in their best interest. But how long? Not long because what you reap is what you sow. 

But like you said is the alternative any better. It's all downhill skiing with a gold fish bowl on your head. 

But bad shit is happening, but I'm like nah leave it, when's Axl releasing the vault?!

There was a poll in the New York times once that surveyed 1,000 people and 40% of them said they had a mystical or psychedelic experience that changed who they were. Of those 40% who had it, 80% said they never want to have it again. It upset the apple cart. There is comfort in freedom is a 6 pack of beer and a night off work I guess.

It is a fine line between crazy and genius or politician and actor. Manson was the EPA before that was cool but we locked him up instead. I guess it's all about timing.

138,000 civilians killed by America in the Middle East since 2003. Drone strikes only increasing. Obama is the hip uncle that comes over on the 4th of July. He's really cool and easy to get along with the family. He evens works the grill and brought the little cousins a frisbee. But for gods sake don't mention the time he stuck his finger in your butt behind the shed that Memorial Day. That's what the loyalist of Obama supporters have really become. The family that forgets about the finger incident? Marriage equality is hip and he mic drops with biggie but mention the death orders and the apple cart Gets smashed. You're so white.

its all perspective though and learning to balance. There is only so much you can control. The point is to be your own person and when a ghost comes from behind and says boo, the point isn't to jump but instead to say "I see you going boo and here we are". 

Edited by Sprite
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only reason Henry VIII wanted to split with Rome was because Anne Boleyn wouldn't put out unless he put a ring on it. Eventually Henry did bone her but in the event that she bore him a son he wanted it all legitimised, hence divorce with Catherine, Church of England, etc. As @The Archer said, he was a proud Catholic, title of Fidei Defensor/Defender of the Faith granted to him for writing Assertio septum sacramentorum/In Defence of the Seven Sacraments, up until his willy got the better of him.

With regards to anarchy, the best argument against it that I've heard comes from the failure of the Drop City, Colorado communes in the late '60s. One former resident said that in arguments, the people with louder voices would intimidate the meek. Comes down to power and the balance of it. In a police state, the power is all in the hands of the state and the entire population is subdued. With anarchy, power has no "official" holder except those who have the strength and desire to wield it over others.

Eventually it boils down to the problem of "Who watches the watchmen?", but that is something that will never be solved.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Sprite said:

There was a poll in the New York times once that surveyed 1,000 people and 40% of them said they had a mystical or psychedelic experience that changed who they were. Of those 40% who had it, 80% said they never want to have it again. It upset the apple cart. There is comfort in freedom is a 6 pack of beer and a night off work I guess.

It is a fine line between crazy and genius or politician and actor. Manson was the EPA before that was cool but we locked him up instead. I guess it's all about timing.

138,000 civilians killed by America in the Middle East since 2003. Drone strikes only increasing. Obama is the hip uncle that comes over on the 4th of July. He's really cool and easy to get along with the family. He evens works the grill and brought the little cousins a frisbee. But for gods sake don't mention the time he stuck his finger in your butt behind the shed that Memorial Day. That's what the loyalist of Obama supporters have really become. The family that forgets about the finger incident? Marriage equality is hip and he mic drops with biggie but mention the death orders and the apple cart Gets smashed. You're so white.

its all perspective though and learning to balance. There is only so much you can control. The point is to be your own person and when a ghost comes from behind and says boo, the point isn't to jump but instead to say "I see you going boo and here we are". 

To me it's not a ghost it's the reality. Haunted by reality. But most people just take life as personal vendetta, right until the last final straw. Even a riot would be: give us our share. 

But that's why I like Game of thrones, it shows people in power are no better than your average idiot. Only self interest has driven them to power. to actually solve the world's problems, well that's a job for Chuck D and ice wasted. 

But still the world is full of marvels. Like you put an empty beer can in a trash bin and gets taken way, the god damn subway system is insanely good. We can do all these amazing things but we don't have the werewithall to stop corruption.

Obvious evil just strolls around in our attic. Ah, leave him he not gonna hurt nobody. He like that pitbull that the owner says is a sweetie in the elevator. That's when I pray they is a god you know what Im sayin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/22/2016 at 10:56 AM, Amir said:

Only reason Henry VIII wanted to split with Rome was because Anne Boleyn wouldn't put out unless he put a ring on it. Eventually Henry did bone her but in the event that she bore him a son he wanted it all legitimised, hence divorce with Catherine, Church of England, etc. As @The Archer said, he was a proud Catholic, title of Fidei Defensor/Defender of the Faith granted to him for writing Assertio septum sacramentorum/In Defence of the Seven Sacraments, up until his willy got the better of him.

This is straying from the topic but I had to come back to this since the thought was nagging me. It is questionable whether Henry's personal definition of Catholicism was the right one at all, irrespective of how he defined it for himself. I can see how he might have justified it to himself as a continuation of his rule over a 'Catholic' nation, as a sovereign 'Catholic' head of state who functioned as the custodian of the church's 'Catholicism'. There is some precedent for this in terms of how the Byzantine emperors, Russian Tsars and the Ethiopian 'emperor' kings held sway over what were essentially 'Catholic' , though importantly, non-Roman churches. The Greek and Oriental versions of Catholicism, which use the term Orthodoxy to define themselves as being more 'Catholic' than the Romans, were always organized as independent national bodies where church and state were unified and above all, maintained a  distinctive 'national' character. On the other hand, the western or Roman form of Catholicism, the only truth known to Henry or any other Western/Northern European for at least a thousand years, was defined by both a pan-national character as well as papal supremacy. In this regard, Henry's takeover of the English church is closer to Peter the great's takeover of Russian Orthodoxy, ,and his effort to make the Church effectively an arm of the state. While Henry certainly did follow his wee-willy, I do think that if poor Catherine had borne him a son, or if her daughter had produced an heir, history would have turned out quite differently. But, things turned out as they did, and Henry's willingness to break with Rome, was as much an assertion of national (and personal) character and independence, as it was an effort to redefine the structure of the state, though he may have (in)correctly convinced himself that what he continued to be and do was 'Catholic'.

Edited by The Archer
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, The Archer said:

This is straying from the topic but I had to come back to this since the thought was nagging me. It is questionable whether Henry's personal definition of Catholicism was the right one at all, irrespective of how he defined it for himself. I can see how he might have justified it to himself as a continuation of his rule over a 'Catholic' nation, as a sovereign 'Catholic' head of state who functioned as the custodian of the church's 'Catholicism'. There is some precedent for this in terms of how the Byzantine emperors, Russian Tsars and the Ethiopian 'emperor' kings held sway over what were essentially 'Catholic' , though importantly, non-Roman churches. The Greek and Oriental versions of Catholicism, which use the term Orthodoxy to define themselves as being more 'Catholic' than the Romans, were always organized as independent national bodies where church and state were unified and above all, maintained a  distinctive 'national' character. On the other hand, the western or Roman form of Catholicism, the only truth known to Henry or any other Western/Northern European for at least a thousand years, was defined by both a pan-national character as well as papal supremacy. In this regard, Henry's takeover of the English church is closer to Peter the great's takeover of Russian Orthodoxy, ,and his effort to make the Church effectively an arm of the state. While Henry certainly did follow his wee-willy, I do think that if poor Catherine had borne him a son, or if her daughter had produced an heir, history would have turned out quite differently. But, things turned out as they did, and Henry's willingness to break with Rome, was as much an assertion of national (and personal) character and independence, as it was an effort to redefine the structure of the state, though he may have (in)correctly convinced himself that what he continued to be and do was 'Catholic'.

Gallicanism?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

Gallicanism?

Fair enough comparison. I had in fact been tempted to make a reference to the Carolingians and their long term legacy in the previous post. However, while on the one hand, Gallicanism had some similarities to the 'Orthodox' Catholic versions of co-existence of church and state, advocated the primacy of a national and local episcopacy in matters of religious governance, and emphasized the superiority of an episcopal council over the Pope in matters of faith, on the other hand it really crystallized only well after Anglicanism arrived, it didn't advocate an independent local patriarchate and episcopacy that was more than just functionally independent from Rome, it never denied Papal primacy over the universal apostolic hierarchy, or even defined the Roman patriarchate as a 'first-among-equals'. It certainly was a more ideologically robust dissension than Henry's however, and consequently pushed 'Roman' Catholicism to further innovate on its own theories of papal supremacy.

Edited by The Archer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...