Stumpy said:
I stand by my previous assertion.
He's not an historian, a cultural anthropologist, a sociologist, or an ethnographer that deals with the dynamics of inter-ethnic/inter-religious conflicts.
Constantine's Sword is a book written from the perspective of an apologetic Christian theologian. It doesn't strive to be an objective historical work.
Where does it say that you have to be an anthropologist, sociologist, etc... to write/present an accurate and factual account of history?
Although I will concede the fact that the book definitely is written from the perspective of an apologetic Catholic, this does not negate the facts presented nor invalidate its conclusions. Carroll makes no attempt to hide his feelings of guilt and remorse which prompted him to investigate and write the book. His perspective clearly does not change the
facts which he uncovered and presents as evidence in analyzing and arriving at his "preconcieved" conclusions of the guilt/responsibility of the Church. The book therefore nevertheless
does serve as a valid and compelling source of factual data regarding the history of anti-semitism (which is what BG asked about in the first place).
2Thick: you are, as always, dogmatically myopic in your ignorance. Your incessant presentation of unsubstantiated, often fabricated facts (such as your implausible assertion as to the "actual" number of Jews killed in the Holocaust) serves only to underscore your unwaning efforts to convince
yourself that your beliefs and positions are not anti-semitic. I do, however, respect your desire to not believe yourself capable of such vile behavior. Sorry to have to point you in the direction of the mirror, asslown.
We have an expression over here stateside: "if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is a duck." Welcome to MP5's world...
I know, I know...some of your best friends are Jews.