I contribute quarterly to TheConversation.com It is an interesting site with articles from a wife variety of authors and I find it nicely organized by topics.

This may of been covered already.
https://theconversation.com/the-long-history-of-how-jesus-came-to-resemble-a-white-european-142130

It covers a perspective of white supremacy that the Mormon church certainly followed. It made a minor turn in 1978.

Here are some excerpts:

"But the all-time most-reproduced image of Jesus comes from another period. It is Warner Sallman’s light-eyed, light-haired “Head of Christ” from 1940. Sallman, a former commercial artist who created art for advertising campaigns, successfully marketed this picture worldwide. Through Sallman’s partnerships with two Christian publishing companies, one Protestant and one Catholic, the Head of Christ came to be included on everything from prayer cards to stained glass, faux oil paintings, calendars, hymnals and night lights.

Sallman’s painting culminates a long tradition of white Europeans creating and disseminating pictures of Christ made in their own image."

That image, referred to above, is the picture I had seen most often in Mormon publications. I did not know its history.

back to an excerpt:

"In a multiracial but unequal America, there was a disproportionate representation of a white Jesus in the media. It wasn’t only Warner Sallman’s Head of Christ that was depicted widely; a large proportion of actors who have played Jesus on television and film have been white with blue eyes."

It's okay to whiten Jesus, but white people get all bent out of shape when some ethnicities darken him.

People like their gods to look like themselves.

Better looking versions of themselves nowadays.

Just look at how the paintings of Joe Smith have morphed over time. He's a totally different person.

He's a better looking version of himself now that he is in their Celestial Kingdom.

And yet still 100% unappealing.

*LOL*

Dave the Atheist Wrote:
------
> Just look at how the paintings of Joe Smith have morphed over time. He's a totally different person. >

He really was a different person. It Mormons were to meet him today they wouldn't know him or treat him any differently than they do any other gentile. He'd be called a false-prophet. Unbelievable. A vile (extremely unpleasant;morally bad, wicked) man. Perverted. A weirdo.

Yeah, you walk into a Mormon building and they have pictures of blonde Joey, "translating" gold painted plates were there should be a sign underneath saying it was actually translated with his Head In A Hat from a Glowing Rock.

Everybody in show business knows that you have to give your audience what they want. So everybody gets their own custom Jesus. Not rocket science.


Time will not heal everything, but it will make your heroes blonder and give them the jawbones of Greek Gods. Imagine what Joseph Smith is going to look like in another hundred years.


I would say there is more to this than just Jesus having been "righteous enough to turn white." In our multiracial society Blonde hair dye and bleach sell more than the other colors combined more or less. I find that very interesting but not for the normal reasons. Also skin bleaching exists. Wow. Color has more impact on us than we can imagine and there is something deep in our genes controlling it. Peacocks who have no religion have those tails for a reason. Color does something to us on a subconscious level. Perhaps? Or is that just the artist in me?

Re colour: Hellishly interesting observation, D&D.

Yes, it must be the artist in you.

Jawbones of Greek Gods - LOL.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/04/2020 02:37PM by Nightingale.

"Custom Jesus".

Another catchy phrase. Sounds like a good title for a book. :)

As a person drawn to Christianity from a young age, and having experimented with several forms of it, it bothers me greatly to think of (some?) Christian ideas being based on white supremacy. As it does to see obvious evidence of such beliefs in some churches or even denominations.

But, as some have said, the best way to be a helpful ally is to be informed. Which includes accessing as much reliable information from as many trustworthy sources as possible.

The Jesus toasters are "color blind" though and you can use Wonder Bread, Whole Wheat, Pumpernickle, or Dark Rye. Everybody gets what they want.

The Renaissance began in Europe with Leonardo and Michelangelo among the great painters of that era. They were Europeans, and contact with the darker complected individuals in the Middle East was minimal if not non-existent. People painted "what they knew," period. The Catholic Church was headquartered in Rome, and papal influence spread outward from that epicenter. The printing press was also invented in Europe...

Part of it is a "long story" in that "lighter skin" is a biological adaptation to living at more Northern Latitudes; IIRC, Jared Diamond discusses this matter.

With Great Britatin, France, and Spain the principal colonial powers that "colonized" the New World (apologies to my Native American friends for "neglecting" their histories), the political power they amassed was reflected in their cultural manifestations.

> The Renaissance began in Europe with Leonardo and
> Michelangelo among the great painters of that era.
> They were Europeans, and contact with the darker
> complected individuals in the Middle East was
> minimal if not non-existent.

Not true.

There were Arabs in constant contact with Europeans during the Renaissance in Iberia, Constantinople, and southeastern Europe. There were also Africans, Moorish generals and trading peoples and Christian blacks from Ethiopia and elsewhere who occasionally went on pilgrimages across southern Europe from Constantinople through Italy and France; indeed, there are graves of Africans and Arabs, some in Christian graves and others buried as Muslims, throughout the region.

Recall also that Renaissance Rome was situated at the center of important Mediterranean trade routes that had blacks and Arabs routinely visiting, and even residing in, Constantinople, Genoa, Venice, and Marseille as they routinely traveled between the Black Sea, Anatolia, Egypt and northern Africa, and sometimes all the way to France and Germany.

Indeed, recent research has found strong, if not dispositive, evidence that Leonardo DaVinci's mother was an Arab slave owned by his Italian father.* So Othello was not alone: he was a literary example of a common phenomenon: the alien resident, both honored and discriminated against, in the most sophisticated places in Europe.



*https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/oct/13/education.arts

>>There were Arabs in constant contact with Europeans during the Renaissance in Iberia, Constantinople, and southeastern Europe.

If you'll read what I wrote, I was speaking to that era before the Renaissance. You've resorted your typical misleading tactics with "There were Arabs in constant contact with Europeans during the Renaissance in Iberia, Constantinople, and southeastern Europe." I'm aware of the Moors in Spain; Constantinople lay partly Asia and partly in Eastern Europe. The heart of the Renaissance occurred in Europe (the word means "rebirth" in French, honest).

(see also "Crusades")

You embarrass yourself by resorting to UK tabloids for sources.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/04/2020 08:49PM by SL Cabbie.

I embarrass myself? Like on Clovis/Pre-Clovis, in which debates you constantly dissembled about your relationships with experts who in any case think your position is ridiculous? Somehow I think that inveterate refusal to learn should unnerve you a lot more than it does me.

But let's look at the ways you allege I embarrass myself now regarding Arabs and Africans in Europe. You start by chastising me, saying that "If you'll read what I wrote, I was speaking to that era before the Renaissance." Yet that is not at all what you wrote. What you actually said was that "The Renaissance began in Europe with Leonardo and Michelangelo among the great painters of that era." So no, I did not misread what you wrote. As is your wont, you are now trying to excuse an earlier error without the honesty of a simple mea culpa. Embarrassing? Yes, but not to me.

But hey, if you want to revise your position and say you were talking about the Medieval Ages before the Renaissance, I'm game! In fact, the Arab and African presence in Europe was GREATER in the late Medieval Era than it was during the Renaissance, which began with a tightening of the regulations against Arabs/Moors as well as pogroms and inquisitions.

You should know, after all, that half--and sometimes virtually all--of Spain was ruled by Muslims till the end of the 15th century; and that wars in Iberia, Spain and Italy often involved alliances with Arab powers based in Europe or in North Africa. I guess life never took you to the Andalusia or Cordoba or the other areas Islam controlled from 711 until the late 15th century; I guess you didn't know that hundreds of thousands of Arabs, including Moors, lived in Iberia for centuries thereafter as well.

A man of your purported erudition should also be familiar with the immense contributions of Islam to Renaissance Europe. It was they, after all, whose advanced science, maritime technology, and preservation of Aristotle and other important Greek texts enabled Spain, Portugal, and the Netherlands to establish their naval empires. Meanwhile, the trade routes through Marseilles, Venice, Genoa, Rome, the coasts of modern Croatia and Constantinople were even busier in the many decades before the Renaissance. That's why there are burials of Arabs and blacks in Spain, France, Italy, around the Adriatic, and of course in the Aegean; it's also why the hoary old museums of Europe have portraits of Moorish generals and traders in their collections. So when you describe the contacts between Arabs and Africans on the one hand and Europeans on the other as "minimal or non-existent," you are indicating a dearth of knowledge.

And as for the possibility/probability that Leonardo's mother was herself a Muslim, you disparage the Telegraph as a Tabloid--it is not--but fail to address the issue itself. Do you seriously think you know more about the topic than Martin Kemp, the Oxford professor of art who specializes in Leonardo and who published the relevant book? Do you know more than Luigi Carpasso, the Italian professor and archaeologist who believes for different reasons that Da Vinci's mother was an Arab? Those men and their peers may be wrong, to be sure, but they certainly know more about the topic than you do.

And even if that theory is wrong, the fact remains that, as Donald Sassoon, professor of art at Queen Mary University an another expert on Leonardo writes, "It would have been distinctly odd if Da Vinci hadn't been influenced in some way by the Middle East. We know that he was well read. His work also showed a wide range of outside influences. And Middle Eastern influences were considered very contemporary among artists and painters of the time." Recall also that Alessandro Vezzosi, director of the Museo Ideale Leonardo Da Vinci and yet a third researcher who has independently decided that Leonardo's mother was an Arab, said that "in his later years Da Vinci was increasingly becoming interested in the Middle East."

So you are flat-out wrong. Europe had frequent and extensive contacts with Arabs and Africans during the late Middle Ages and the early stages of the Renaissance. It may be that representations of Jesus became more Nordic during or after the Reformation, when Germano-centric countries wanted to draw a cultural line between themselves Latin Europe. But it is ridiculous to say that Mediterranean-colored people in Italy, Iberia, France and the Adriatic didn't didn't know what Jesus actually looked like. Moors and Arabs were present in Europe's ports and major cities all the time.




Ibid., and

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1571851/Leonardo-Da-Vinci-may-have-been-an-Arab.html



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/05/2020 04:06AM by Lot's Wife.

SLC to Lot's Wife: "You embarrass yourself by resorting to UK tabloids for sources."

LW mentioned The Guardian, a newspaper published in London, England.

SLC uses "tabloid" as a negative description of the Guardian. My friend Google provides a basic definition of tabloid as follows:

"A tabloid is a newspaper with a compact page size smaller than broadsheet. There is no standard size for this newspaper format."

Google further states:

"A tabloid is a newspaper with a compact page size smaller than broadsheet. ... The term tabloid journalism refers to an emphasis on such topics as sensational crime stories, astrology, celebrity gossip and television, and is not a reference to newspapers printed in this format."


In its simplest terms, "tabloid" refers only to the page size of such a newspaper and is not in itself a slur against such a paper. IOW, "tabloid" is not always meant to denigrate a paper's value.


Britannica describes The Guardian (UK) as follows:

"The Guardian, formerly (1821–1959) The Manchester Guardian, influential daily newspaper published in London, generally considered one of the United Kingdom’s leading newspapers.

"The Guardian has historically been praised for its investigative journalism, its dispassionate discussion of issues, its literary and artistic coverage and criticism, and its foreign correspondence. The Guardian’s editorial stance is considered less conservative than that of The Daily Telegraph and The Times, its main London competitors, but its reporting is also marked by its independence. The paper was once called “Britain’s non-conformist conscience.”


https://www.britannica.com/topic/The-Guardian-British-newspaper


In this case, according to these basic definitions as well as information in the above excerpt from Britannica, LW is not referencing a tabloid in the negative sense as the primary source for her research when she mentions The Guardian. Therefore, her conclusions would be better refuted by offering a different argument.

summer, you take SLCabbie too seriously. The Guardian is a solid source, one of the best broadsheets.

But I appreciate the support.

No, you are summer. I read it in the Guardian.

;-)

Oh good heavens. I need a drink! I wondered if I was missing it again. I'm definitely losing my touch. Or reading comprehension. Or...everything... Challenging times.

Anyway, you've got me looking up Leonardo when I should be working. It's more fascinating. So thanks for that.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/07/2020 04:11PM by Nightingale.

Just keep repeating: person, woman, man, camera, TV.

That's all you gotta remember!

I was thinking they're going to need to change that test. They've given away the answer now. I'm OCD enough that it's stuck in my head, going round and round and round. Irritating. But at least I could pass the test now that I've practised. :)

Seriously...

https://www.rd.com/list/why-british-tabloids-are-more-extreme-than-americas/

>>The British tabloid press is notoriously aggressive, some might say to the point of violating laws or the most primitive of standards to run a story first.

https://www.quora.com/Is-The-Guardian-a-tabloid-or-a-respected-newspaper

>>Is it respected? Well I don’t respect it. I don’t respect any of the tabloids actually, just not because they are tabloids. The problem with all of them is that they no longer simply inform, they also specifically peddle an interpretation of events. To read the same story in the Guardian and the Daily Mail will easily show the respective biases. In extreme examples you wonder if they are describing the same event. If a story cannot be “spun” to suit the ideology, then it will simply not be reported.

>>To a certain extent newspapers have always done this of course, but it is now particularly blatant. Most of their “journalists” are now, effectively, paid political activists. Personally, I’d rather draw my own conclusions than pay good money so that people can tell me what to think.

You claim that the Guardian is beneath your standards and then, to substantiate that claim, cite a source that doesn't even mention the Guardian and another that is Quora.

That says it all.

Something for those perceptual blinders you continually put on display.

Here's the link again, and a relevant copy-and-paste:

https://www.quora.com/Is-The-Guardian-a-tabloid-or-a-respected-newspaper

Martin Bourne: "It used to be a 'proper' newspaper but went over to a tabloid format (which is much more efficient and handy for readers) some time ago."

>>"Is it respected? Well I don’t respect it. I don’t respect any of the tabloids actually, just not because they are tabloids. The problem with all of them is that they no longer simply inform, they also specifically peddle an interpretation of events. To read the same story in the Guardian and the Daily Mail will easily show the respective biases. In extreme examples you wonder if they are describing the same event. If a story cannot be 'spun' to suit the ideology, then it will simply not be reported.

>>"To a certain extent newspapers have always done this of course, but it is now particularly blatant. Most of their “journalists” are now, effectively, paid political activists. Personally, I’d rather draw my own conclusions than pay good money so that people can tell me what to think."

And wow, from a real lawyer, not the pretend variety:

Colin Riegels: "To me, overall, it’s a bit schizophrenic. The Guardian drives me absolutely mad because it has an unparalleled ability to combine top quality journalism with the worst excesses of a socialist rag - often literally on the same page."

Why would you double down on something so foolish?

Here you reproduce a link to random posters on an internet board with no more authority than Reddit. You list in particular two people--the only two who agree with you on the topic--with no relevant credentials. They are

1) Martin Bourne, who appears to be a home decorator;* and

2) Colin Riegels, who seems to be a junior investment banker.**

You are of course free to pretend that these people are experts on journalism even as you insist that you always rely on expert sources. But we are equally free to laugh.




*https://www.apostrophereps.com/stylists/martin-bourne/bio

**https://www.harneys.com/people/colin-riegels/

From an actual scholarly publication, not a tabloid.

https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2017-05-26-identity-leonardo-da-vinci%E2%80%99s-mother-revealed-new-book

>>Identity of Leonardo da Vinci’s mother revealed in new book

>>The identity of Leonardo da Vinci’s mother has been revealed in a new book by an Oxford University art historian.

>>An intricate web of evidence supports the identification of Caterina di Meo Lippi as Leonardo’s mother, including Antonio da Vinci’s tax return on 28 February 1458 which asserts that Leonardo, his five year old grandson was living with him.

Let's see if I can follow your scholarship.

I write of new studies suggesting Da Vinci's mother may have been an Arab. I provide the name of one such author, Martin Kemp of Oxford University, as well as two others. I qualify their hypothesis by saying the three "may may be wrong, to be sure;" and again, "even if that theory is wrong."

You respond by citing the very Kemp book to which I was referring but then mischaracterize it with this summary: "Leonardo's Mother an Arab Slave?!? Nonsense!!" Do you not see the problem with that?

/remedial school teacher's voice on

Read the book before you claim to understand it. Otherwise you'll look as naked as Vitruvian Man in front of your classmates.

/remedial school teacher's voice off

I repeat: Kemp's books is one of the ones that discusses the possibility that Leonardo's mother may have been an Arab.

Now back to the main topic. Despite your (always) confident declarations to the contrary, the peoples of southern Europe were very familiar with African and Arab faces in the late Middle Ages and the Renaissance, which you seem erroneously to think came after Da Vinci and Michelangelo.

Hell, the friggin’ VIKINGS made it to North Africa. How is this even a question w/r/t Southern Europe? Oh hey! The Moors have invaded Spain. Again! Jesus, Mary and Jospeh. Did I misread something?

Oh. Apparently I *did* misread something. The assumption seems to be that Arabs stayed put and Europeans were moving out and about to where? To Constantinople! Oh for f**k's sake!

How long ago did the Jewish diaspora begin? And where did they start out? Maybe the f**king Middle East.

And maybe the f**king ROMANS were where? The f**king Middle East. Hence the whole Jesus thing.

The stupid. It burns.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/07/2020 01:15PM by Tevai.

Yep.

The Vikings sacked Rome; established transitory states across Northern Africa and took parts of Spain from the Arabs there; set up the Rus state in Kiev that is now--what do we call it? Oh yes, Russia; and established a major riparian trade route between Constantinople and the Baltic that lasted a couple of centuries. Thus the Vikings were quite familiar with Arabs and Turks.

Meanwhile the Mediterranean was shared by Muslims and Christians, who fought wars, traded with each other, and served on each other's ships. Arabs were spread across Iberia and southern fringes of France and at times parts of Italy, not to mention Turkish control of the Balkans for centuries reaching as far as the outskirts of Vienna more than once. That is why Bosnia, just across the Adriatic from Italy and north of Greece and well to the west of several Christian European countries like Romania and Bulgaria and Serbia, still has a large Muslim population--because, in short, those countries were ruled by the Ottomans for centuries.

So yeah, Scandinavia knew what Arabs looked like into the 11th century if not later; and southern Europe interacted extensively with Arabs and Turks throughout the Middle Ages and into the Renaissance. It was therefore not an absence of experience with dark-skinned people--who anyway looked like the Europeans in Sardinia and Corsica and Malta and much of Iberia--that turned Jesus white and blond.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/07/2020 04:13AM by Lot's Wife.

Those Vikings were busy. But what do you expect when you live on a rock/volcano/permafrost/some such non-arable thing? Such hardship creates some awesomely morose artistry.

See: Every movie directed by Å,å,Æ,æ,Ø,ø.

You insisted elsewhere that "Leonardo's mother was an Arab slave. To wit:

>>Indeed, recent research has found strong, if not dispositive, evidence that Leonardo DaVinci's mother was an Arab slave owned by his Italian father.*

Recent research?!? From 2002? Right...

My sources are from 2017.

>>An intricate web of evidence supports the identification of Caterina di Meo Lippi as Leonardo’s mother, including Antonio da Vinci’s tax return on 28 February 1458 which asserts that Leonardo, his five year old grandson was living with him.

And from your own link where you attempted to trash my identification of Colin Riegels, claiming he "seems to be a junior investment banker."

>>Before joining us, Colin practised as a barrister in London. He served as a judicial assistant to Lord Woolf MR in the English Court of Appeal, and taught law at Oxford University.

You do know the definition of "barrister," right?

Edited to correct typo; the spell-checker--and fatigue--nailed me; I think the former had Regis Philbin in mind...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/09/2020 03:07PM by SL Cabbie.

Doubling down again, Cabbie? I thought you'd learned your lesson when your last post with your argument about a "lawyer" was removed by the admins.


SL Cabbie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You insisted elsewhere that "Leonardo's mother was
> an Arab slave. To wit:
>
> >>Indeed, recent research has found strong, if not
> dispositive, evidence that Leonardo DaVinci's
> mother was an Arab slave owned by his Italian
> father.*

You claim I "insisted" that Leonardo's mother was an "Arab slave?"

Do you know the meaning of the phrase "not dispositive?" How about "even if the theory is wrong?" Or when I called it a "possibility/probability?" Because to an adult with normal cognitive function, those statements indicate that the case is not settled. So your statement that I "insisted" the theory was true is transparently false.


---------------
> Recent research?!? From 2002? Right...
>
> My sources are from 2017.
>
> >>An intricate web of evidence supports the
> identification of Caterina di Meo Lippi as
> Leonardo’s mother, including Antonio da
> Vinci’s tax return on 28 February 1458 which
> asserts that Leonardo, his five year old grandson
> was living with him.

I also cited a source from 2020. And I am aware of the other theories, as is evident in my obvious (to everyone but you) disclaimers.


---------------------
> And from your own link where you attempted to
> trash my identification of Colin Regis, claiming
> he "seems to be a junior investment banker."

"Riegels," not "Regis."

Here's what the source says. "Colin Riegels is the former managing partner of the BVI office and served as the global head of our Banking and Finance practice, advising on a wide range of credit and security issues." Do you know, Cabbie, what "Banking and Finance" means? How about "credit and security issues?" They mean "investment banking." So yes, my statement about his job was, and is, spot on.


-------------------
> >>Before joining us, Colin practised as a
> barrister in London. He served as a judicial
> assistant to Lord Woolf MR in the English Court of
> Appeal, and taught law at Oxford University.
>
> You do know the definition of "barrister," right?

Yeah, as I said in my reply to your now deleted post, a law degree in the UK is an undergraduate degree. Colin Riegels therefore has an undergraduate degree in a field that confers no expertise on journalism at all. As for "teaching" at Oxford, with only an undergrad degree the most he could have done at was to correct some undergrad papers. But even if it were true, teaching law would make him no more an expert on reportage than driving a van for some scholars on one occasion years ago would render a person authoritative on American archaeology.

But let's put aside Riegels's lack of any academic or professional experience and the fact that you cited his opinion from "quora," a site as reliable as Reddit. What did he actually say about The Guardian? He described that newspaper as producing "top quality journalism," which means--follow the ball here--he disagrees with your assertion that the Guardian is a bad source.

Did you miss that?


---------------
/remedial school teacher voice on

I don't know why you cannot just admit an error and move on. But like a dog returning to his vomit, you apparently just can't help yourself.

Sad!

/remedial school teacher voice off

So now you're claiming you didn't say what you said?

Actually, you're putting your narcissistic perceptual distortions on display, claiming "not dispositive" somehow qualifies your "strong evidence" that Leonardo's mother was an Arab slave...

I'll repeat my point that your source was from 2002 and mine was from 2017... And I don't see any links to your specious claims about later sources. Hey, has anybody seen the missing links?

And you're going to claim that Colin taught law at Oxford with only an undergraduate degree? Right...

You're the one with "only an undergraduate degree," and that's obvious to anyone with any objective abilities at all. I left one program in good standing to go into secondary teaching, and another (which you distorted with your typical unwarranted conflating tactics--that's quite the straw man fetish you have there, seriously) for other reasons.

Slippery this one is, better correct these typos while I can

/yoda voice off



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/09/2020 03:02PM by SL Cabbie.

> And you're going to claim that Colin taught law at
> Oxford with only an undergraduate degree?
> Right...

Okay, Brilliant One. If Colin (glad to see you are on first-name terms with him) had more than an undergraduate law degree, why isn't any graduate training listed in his bio? Did he forget to list his advanced degrees? The truth, as Beth showed, is that after 23 years working as a lawyer he returned to university as a doctoral student, where he worked a bit as a TA, but failed to finish his degree and then became a merchant banker.

So where in his background is any experience--educational or professional--in journalism? And why would you cite him as an expert on journalism?


-----------
> You're the one with "only an undergraduate
> degree," and that's obvious to anyone with any
> objective abilities at all.

How do you know that I have an undergraduate degree? I have never claimed that.


---------------
> I left one program in
> good standing to go into secondary teaching, and
> another (which you distorted with your typical
> unwarranted conflating tactics--that's quite the
> straw man fetish you have there, seriously) for
> other reasons.

You "left" one program? Did you graduate or just "leave" to become a high school teacher before finding your way into cab driving?


---------------
> Slippery this one is, better correct these typos
> while I can
>
> /yoda voice off

Yeah, that makes you sound intelligent.

The bottom line is that this Colin guy with you you are so enamored has no expertise in journalism and in fact disagrees with you about The Guardian, which he considers "excellent."

Can you find no better source to support your opinion? Have you asked, for instance, your mailman what he thinks of The Guardian?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/09/2020 04:54PM by Lot's Wife.

Someone can teach law in the UK with only an undergrad degree?

>> He served as a judicial assistant to Lord Woolf MR in the English Court of Appeal, and taught law at Oxford University.

I confess, you got me on one. I don't know you have an undergrad degree... I wouldn't be surprised if you don't, however, but it's usually the case when someone goes to law school, they've earned a BA or BS.

Yes, someone can teach at Oxford without a grad degree--the same as at any US university. If you read his CV, as produced by Beth, you would see that your hero "read for" a doctorate at Oxford but conspicuously did not finish the degree. So just as in an American university, he was a Teaching Assistant and nothing more.

As for me, I have never claimed to have an undergraduate degree nor to have a law degree. So when you challenge my credentials you are arguing with yourself and no one else.

The bottom line, again, is that you asserted that Medieval and Renaissance inhabitants of Italy did not know what Middle Easterners or Africans look like. That was baldly false. Embarrassed by that error, you then chose to argue that The Guardian is a bad source--a "tabloid," in your memorable if inapt words. Then when challenged on that statement, you linked to posts on a public board by a home decorator and an investment banker and pretended that they were authoritative regarding journalism.

Why did you do that, SL Cabbie? Why did cite a home decorator in support of your argument?

Or was that just another "literary device?"

It's a law clerk

https://neuvoo.co.uk/neuvooPedia/en/judicial-assistant/

Note requirements

** Although there are no set entry requirements to become a Judicial Assistant, most candidates tend to be Law students going through their last two years of studies or recently graduated Solicitors or Barristers

It's just crazy through and through. SL Cabbie is always harping about sources yet here he goes to an internet bulletin board--obviously not peer reviewed, not reviewed at all--and references a home decorator and this Riegels character.

We know Riegels has an undergraduate degree in law, worked as a clerk as you note, failed to get his doctorate, and is now a merchant/investment banker. But let's assume for the sake of argument that Riegels was a decorated solicitor who practiced in the highest courts in the land. Would that render him an expert on journalism? No.

Just for the fun of it, though, lets go a step further and assume arguendo that Riegels were an expert on journalism. Would he agree with SL Cabbie that The Guardian is a trashy tabloid and purveyor of bad journalism? To answer that question we can read what Riegels said in the very Quora post Cabbie cited.

Riegels wrote that The Guardian "is definitely not a tabloid." The editorial pages, and especially the op ed pages, are too liberal, he says, and wishes the editors would cull some of that material. But otherwise, The Guardian produces "top quality journalism." Riegels continues, "I have read absolutely top quality investigative reporting in its pages" and "I am glad it is there because there is a real shortage of sensible newspapers which lean left in the UK." So no, Riegels does not believe that The Guardian is an unreliable "tabloid."

The truth is that SL Cabbie exhibits exactly the wrong attitude towards sourcing. He links to online bulletin boards as if they only published credible analysis by experts, cites home decorators and merchant bankers as experts on journalism, and then completely misconstrues what his "experts" say. He evidently does not understand that citing someone who disagrees with you is worse than citing no one at all.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/10/2020 01:46AM by Lot's Wife.

For an even longer history of how God became God, there's Karen Armstrong's A History of God.

From one of many gods, to a favorite god, to the only real god.

From unknowable to intimate and back again several times.

From benevolent to hard-assed and back again several times.

Anyone knows that he was a Jewish man with a high forehead from the House of David, and his nickname was Elmo.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/12/18/did-historical-jesus-exist-the-traditional-evidence-doesnt-hold-up/

This one raised quite a bit of brouha in the past here; the consensus is nothing was written until many years after Jesus' death, but "biblical scholars" are adamant that a "historical Jesus" really existed. "Whether" is a fair enough question, IMO. I recall looking into Josephus' claims and being persuaded that as an Orthodox Jew, the mere mention of a Messiah would've been blasphemous to him, and I note Josephus' writings date to 93-94 A.D.

Background from Wiki:

>>Almost all modern scholars reject the authenticity of this passage in its present form, while the majority of scholars nevertheless hold that it contains an authentic nucleus referencing the execution of Jesus by Pilate, which was then subject to Christian interpolation and/or alteration.

Revisionist history is a sore spot for me, of course, having been raised on Planet Utah and LDS Inc.'s "faith-promoting pablum."

Thanks Erik.

Jesus Christ Was Black (Macka B)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lF-Un1P1LTk&app=desktop

Interview with Bob Marley - question: how do you handle fame? I'm Not Famous... Not To Me - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8r79Vq-zBsk&app=desktop

Rastafari

Mikey Jarrett
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8r79Vq-zBsk&app=desktop
Santa Clause Is Black

Because he's Jesus, and vice versa.

"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the War Room!"

Watch it, Henry!