@QMS

Came in to post the same comment...

[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0JhC3LO0-8]

nobodies business but the Turks..
almost forgot about that one

Am hoping we can entice a few community members
to host Thursdays, perhaps on a revolving basis.

The mechanics are not complicated, just a short essay
with a banner. The open nature of these things develop
a life of their own most times. C'mon people now..

Cheers!

@Lookout are involved in many of historical conflicts that keep reemerging as seemingly new issues.

The Abrahamic religions refer to three sister monotheistic religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) that claim the prophet Abraham (Hebrew: Avraham אַבְרָהָם ; Arabic: Ibrahim ابراهيم ) as their common forefather.

Catholic church power structure morphing from Western Roman Empire. Orthodox church from the Eastern Roman Empire called Byzantine, prior to the beginning of Protestant movement (1500's) in Germany the conflict for territory was between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church.

However, it wasn't until the Russians converted in 988 AD that the Orthodox Church became the dominant church in Eastern Europe. Christianity had been growing among the Russian people for some time, due to Byzantine traders who worked throughout the region, trading for the furs and amber that came from the Baltic coast. However, in 988, Prince Vladimir was baptized and ordered that the people should be baptized as well. The Russian rulers chose Orthodox Christianity over Catholicism for a number of reasons. First of all, they were physically closer to Constantinople, the center of the Orthodox Church, than they were to Rome. Second, they would have been more familiar with the Orthodox branch of the faith due to the work of previous missionaries and the presence of Greek traders. Finally, they would have been aware that Poland had converted to Catholicism, and had experienced meddling by the Church in its affairs. Whereas the Catholic Church saw itself as a single united church with the Pope as the dominant head of it, the Orthodox Church viewed itself as a looser confederation of member churches. As a result, when a nation converted, a new national church was often created with its own Patriarch, or leader. The conversion to Orthodoxy tied Russia into a sophisticated culture, brought prestige, but also left its ruler free from external pressure and meddling. It also brought in many Byzantines to serve as leaders of the early church who could teach people in the ways of the faith, and also teach priests to read and write, spreading literacy throughout the region.

Modern Russia political leaders deliberately keep the spirit of the Byzantine Empire alive.

In addition, in 2015, the Russian foreign ministry’s press center hosted a constituent assembly of the organization known as the Byzantine Club. Its founders say that the club’s goal is to claim Russia as the successor of the great Byzantine civilization. During the opening ceremony, the club’s president, a member of the Civic Chamber named Sergei Markov, said that Russia is another Europe, concerned not only with law and economics, but also with spirituality. Representatives of the Russian imperial-conservative movement believe that Russia should continue its special historic path that started with its adoption of Orthodox Christianity from the Byzantine Empire.

In his article entitled “Historical Perspective of Russian Foreign Policy,” Russian minister of foreign affairs Sergey Lavrov claimed that Russia did not break under the weight of the Mongol yoke and managed to emerge from this hardship as a united state. Subsequently, that government came to be regarded as a kind of heir to the Byzantine Empire in both the West and in the East. Mr. Lavrov also agreed with the philosopher Ivan Ilyin that great power is not determined by the size of a territory or the number of inhabitants, but by the capacity of the people and their government to take on the burden of huge international problems and cope with these issues creatively.

Our quest for a peaceful, well lived life without an overlord is an old one.

Got 1.5" of rain last night, so it is soggy here.

Is that the sound of the empire falling?

Byzantium started out as the eastern flank of the Roman Empire, so it is Roman and comes, at some point, from the encampments used by Roman soldiery.

In November of 284 A.D., Diocletian, a forceful Roman general, seized power and declared himself the new emperor. One of his earliest orders was to split the Roman Empire in two. He kept the eastern part and gave the western half to his colleague, Maximian.

Diocletian's decision was bold but practical. He figured that the Roman Empire had simply grown too big over the years to be managed effectively by a single person. In 285 A.D., he named his trusted military friend, Maximian, as a Caesar or a junior emperor, while he himself was named an Augustus or a senior emperor. The following year, Diocletian promoted Maximian to be his equal, so both men held the title of Augustus and ruled the split Roman Empire side-by-side. Diocletian chose the city of Nicomedia (modern day's Izmit, Turkey) to be the capital of his Eastern Roman Empire, whereas Maximian picked Milan to be the capital of his Western Roman Empire. With the kingdom broken into two, Diocletian and Maximian were each responsible for fighting the enemies in their respective territory. As it was no longer necessary to stretch the troops across the entire empire, it was much easier to put down the rebels. Diocletian's daring experiment paid off handsomely.

By 293 A.D., Diocletian decided to go a step further and resolve the issue of succession once and for all. That year, both of the senior emperors handpicked their own Caesar. Diocletian chose Galerius, and Maximian selected Constantius. Galerius and Constantius were like apprentices. They did not sit idly waiting for the two senior emperors to die or to retire. Instead, they were each given a sizable territory and had their own capital. Galerius resided at Sirmium (in today's Serbia), and Constantius camped at Trier (in today's Germany). Diocletian called this new power structure tetrarchy (pronounced "te-TRAR-kee") or "rule by four."

https://www.edhelper.com/ReadingComprehension_42_91.html

To my mind the old Roman empire morphs into the Catholic church...

Roman Senators renamed: Cardinals
Roman Governors renamed: Archbishops
Roman Senator with no territory: Bishop (Code of Canon Law 376)
(Large) Roman Province renamed: Archdiocese

(Small) Roman Territory renamed: Diocese
Imperial Chair of Jupiter where Caesar sat renamed: Throne of St. Peter
Vestal Virgins renamed: Nuns
Pontifex Maximus (high priest of College of Senators) renamed: Supreme Pontiff of College of Cardinals
Pontiff or “high priest ” of a pagan religious order (Zues, Apollo, Diana, Mars, Jupiter, Baal, Dionysys, Pythia etc) same name: Pontiff
A Pontiff (Latin: “pontifex”) means bridge-builder or priest between man and the gods of the underworld.
The Roman Calender and Holy Days of the gods renamed: Calendar Holidays of the Saints
Voice of the gods speaking through Caesar: Ex-Cathedra: Voice of God speaking through Pope
Meeting of the Pontiffs (high priests) of the pagan religious orders renamed: Ecumenical Council of the Bishops

Legal act of creating a god (of a living or dead human, as was done to most of the Caesars) “Apotheosis of the Gods” renamed: Canonization of the Saints

A decree of Caesar (dictator for life): Pope’s infalliable Dogma

https://www.redpepper.co.ug/2014/05/did-the-roman-empire-become-the-roma...

Thanks for the OT!

@randtntx  

It’s the only thing that there’s just too little of
What the world needs now is love, sweet love
No, not just for some, but for everyone

Lord, we don’t need another Maddow
There are Maddows and Limbaughs enough to crow
There are Red Teams and Blue Teams enough to lie
Oh, listen, Lord, if you want to know

QMS. C'mon people now...

@snoopydawg

You kinda ruined your argument when you said "there are always individual exceptions". Also, just because a bull elk can't change genders, doesn't mean that humans cannot. Transgender women are women. It is not separate from biology in this argument whatsoever - and this is far from just what people "identify" as. These are people who have gone through biological and physiological changes so much that it changes their gender. This isn't just "I feel like a woman, so deal with it." It's more.

You can tell who is just reacting to the idea without understanding the concept. It is okay to say, I do not know, but let's talk instead of reacting."

So embarrassed for the small mindedness of our leaders who wouldn't know reality if it hit them in the ass. For example:

"In high school as a mediocre athlete on the men's side, I would've qualified as a woman in the Olympic trials," Snider said. "In college, as a middle-of-the-pack athlete, I would have had a record as a woman that would still stand on the books today."

This is a contentious area for many people who may be could use educations instead of outright falsehoods like that. No effeminate men do not qualify as women. They qualify as men unless they have transitioned. Maybe some are transitioning still, I don't know. But this has nothing really to do with making sure that women are protected from men in sports. It is an Kock Brother made up ALEC scam that is making the rounds. Idaho passed it and are paying millions in lawsuits defending it.

I have no idea on the answers for this, but I would think the best way to find a handle would be for all players to get together and talk about what the goals are. Easy Peasy instead of ramping up more hate for others they don't understand. But no. They passed it either. Not sure I want to don waders and read the comments. I will looking for that elusive one...

Some hope...

"Sports agencies around the world right now are working hard to address the issue of disparate or not disparate advantages between the sexes. These efforts are marked by thoughtful, fair discussion and deliberation. This bill stands in stark contrast of that thoughtful, fair deliberation," Dailey-Provost said, calling it "cruel, lazy policy."....

The Utah Democratic Party said the bill indicates the sponsors work "for D.C. far-right interests dedicated to stripping transgender people of rights for nothing more than their gender identity."

source

@enhydra lutris

People different from them scares them for some reason. I do not understand much about gender dysphoria and so I don’t say much about it. Just because others don’t understand it doesn’t make it less valid for those who are experiencing it. Passing bills against something closes down dialogue and that is needed and how to solve the problems coming from misunderstandings about something that isn’t well known. Just my 2 cents, but I have never liked discrimination against any group. It’s just wrong.

for persons who think with their gonads, persons unsure of their gender identity, and devout religious fundamentalists. All three types need some serious educating, but too often they were not reasoned into their beliefs and have no ability to support them with other than simple sophistry, and are therefore much harder to educate. Persons whose reactions are purely glandular, for example usually don't even know that about themselves.