I don't think those were the best results, and they probably weren't considering how successful we've been since bailing on that system

The Inquisition, in reference to the Spanish Inquisition of the 15th and early 16th centuries, was a religious/political movement to consolidate royal Spanish power and seize capital assets.

Religion was a secondary concern and at least as much excuse as reason.

As can be seen by the large majority of sentences being confiscation of property.

I think the primary concern might be "why did they get away with it?"

I didn't say Spanish on purpose

Which Inquisition are you referring to, then?

The Inquisition was a papal office

Still is

Just a different name

The papal inquisition was far more anemic and soft-handed institution than the Spanish Inquisition.

Even with a much longer runtime, their investigations, convictions and sentences are all fewer.

True, but that's still the application of morality

Yes, as most laws are.

Which is the point

Yes, we need to apply moral laws accurately and appropriately.

But US laws don't necessarily derive from a belief structure

All laws derive from a belief structure.

"This should be like this, therefore this law."

The discussion above that I am referring to suggested divine morality rather than social. That makes me nervous because the US cannot institute a state religion.

It absolutely can. You may just wish it does not.

Um, First Amendment absolutely forbids establishment of a state religion

Which can be removed or amended, as with all American laws, by proper democratic action.

...

You do realize it is people who seriously talk like this that keeps the Democratic Party as strong as it is despite thier crazy left edge?

I'm sorry the truth pushes people to associate with a bad crowd.

Recognizing the mutability of American governance is a critical foundation to proper action within it.

It pushes people to form associations that maintain our basic rights to agency.

...You've lost me.

The Democrats are now a cooalition of people wishing to protect thier right to agency from people who would seriously consider taking basic rights away from them.

That's what you see when you look at the actions of the Democratic party?

And if I'm following your implications, me talking about the basic functions of the US government is a threat to people's rights?

That's what I vote for when I vote democrat. I'm economically on the right but I vote democrat mostly to protect my right to agency and to freely associate how I wish.

Specifically how you wish. I'm going to take a stab and say you wouldn't necessarily support the rights of others to freely associate how they wish, depending on what they wanted.

Wait, so is the implication here that Dems never take away rights and Repubs never protect them?

As long as we're not talking conspiracy to cause harm or other situations where danger to others is involved, I do support such rights to associate

No, Beemann

Both sides are f'ing hypocrites

The implication is that the Democrats protect the rights she wants, and the Republicans do not.

I want a side that combines both

I am a gun enthusiast