If I was to be crude, I'd reply 'Yer wife's lipstick'. But that's an offensive sentiment, so let's just go with, 'Lad, I don't know where ye've been, but I see ye've won first prize!'
A lot of this history is presented in a rather backward way! The main bone of contention was that Henry believed that members of the clergy should be tried and sentenced according to civil law. The Church had its own courts, and was incredibly lenient with priests who committed serious crimes (sound familiar?). Becket refused to allow this, and Henry was increasingly frustrated. He did say something at that famous dinner, but no one remembers exactly what. Because he loved Becket deeply, it's unlikely (I think) that he wanted anyone to kill him, and he was devastated by his death and never got over it. The barons took it upon themselves to murder Becket, hoping to curry favor. It didn't work.
I wonder what the Two Thomases, Becket and More, would think of today's evangelicals and their whining about religious liberty? More was not a tolerant man; he might have found them worthy of a little torture at the very least, maybe even the whole burn-at-the-stake thing.
P.S. I do love the right-wing fuckwits who rave on about the piety of Our Founding Fathers. Jefferson had doubts about the divinity of Jesus, Washington was not an enthusiastic church goer, Madison would have been shocked by White House prayer breakfasts, etc. Many of them were deists who revered rational thought, not the dude upstairs: https://www.americanprogres... (Hoy! Stacey Abrams is on the board of directors of American Progress.)
A chief reason they don't like to honor Thomas Paine is because he wasn't religious-y, which is what these Federalist/Republicans just hate to be reminded of about many of the "founding fathers". Other forbidden topics? Slave ownership, adultery (especially with the slaves they owned), really loving to consume lots of booze, and ripping off the government (see the book George Washington's Expense Account). They prefer a white washed history, thank you very much. Emphasis on "white".
FFS don't use Rambo you republican filth! His story is one of police abuse of power and the terrible ways the USA treats those with PTSD, it is about the need for mental health services and how the police should avoid being violent.
This could be an urban legend, but supposedly people in the movie biz were afraid people wouldn't go to see Malcolm X because they hadn't seen Malcolm I-IX.
I remember many years ago when I read the play and saw the movie thinking that I didn't get how Becket was supposed to be in the right, because obviously there shouldn't be a separate justice system for the clergy. While I didn't think he should have been killed over it, I thought he was clearly in the wrong.
If I was to be crude, I'd reply 'Yer wife's lipstick'. But that's an offensive sentiment, so let's just go with, 'Lad, I don't know where ye've been, but I see ye've won first prize!'
It was a tad messy.
A lot of this history is presented in a rather backward way! The main bone of contention was that Henry believed that members of the clergy should be tried and sentenced according to civil law. The Church had its own courts, and was incredibly lenient with priests who committed serious crimes (sound familiar?). Becket refused to allow this, and Henry was increasingly frustrated. He did say something at that famous dinner, but no one remembers exactly what. Because he loved Becket deeply, it's unlikely (I think) that he wanted anyone to kill him, and he was devastated by his death and never got over it. The barons took it upon themselves to murder Becket, hoping to curry favor. It didn't work.
I wonder what the Two Thomases, Becket and More, would think of today's evangelicals and their whining about religious liberty? More was not a tolerant man; he might have found them worthy of a little torture at the very least, maybe even the whole burn-at-the-stake thing.
P.S. I do love the right-wing fuckwits who rave on about the piety of Our Founding Fathers. Jefferson had doubts about the divinity of Jesus, Washington was not an enthusiastic church goer, Madison would have been shocked by White House prayer breakfasts, etc. Many of them were deists who revered rational thought, not the dude upstairs: https://www.americanprogres... (Hoy! Stacey Abrams is on the board of directors of American Progress.)
No one expects to be locked down and spending your time studying the Spanish Inquisition.
A chief reason they don't like to honor Thomas Paine is because he wasn't religious-y, which is what these Federalist/Republicans just hate to be reminded of about many of the "founding fathers". Other forbidden topics? Slave ownership, adultery (especially with the slaves they owned), really loving to consume lots of booze, and ripping off the government (see the book George Washington's Expense Account). They prefer a white washed history, thank you very much. Emphasis on "white".
FFS don't use Rambo you republican filth! His story is one of police abuse of power and the terrible ways the USA treats those with PTSD, it is about the need for mental health services and how the police should avoid being violent.
Love that song.
By today's standards, Dr Franklin would be considered an atheist.
This could be an urban legend, but supposedly people in the movie biz were afraid people wouldn't go to see Malcolm X because they hadn't seen Malcolm I-IX.
I remember many years ago when I read the play and saw the movie thinking that I didn't get how Becket was supposed to be in the right, because obviously there shouldn't be a separate justice system for the clergy. While I didn't think he should have been killed over it, I thought he was clearly in the wrong.
Hey! I'm without faith and I've endured! Or at least people have endured me.
Goon!!
Huh, talking about the Tudors, and then suddenly, a change of topic. I didn't expect a course on the Spanish Inquisition.
Lemme just wheel Catherine in here
That blog post is a graduate-level demonstration of a deep, (or derp), confusion about the relationship between cause and effect.