‘Big Bang Theory’ Asks For God’s Help With Election Against ‘A Fascist, Hate-Filled, Fear-Mongering’

[rangerrebew]

‘Big Bang Theory’ Asks For God’s Help With Election Against ‘A Fascist, Hate-Filled, Fear-Mongering’ Ruler
7:03 PM 10/29/2018 | Entertainment
Katie Jerkovich | Entertainment Reporter

A “Big Bang Theory” producer called for God’s help on election day against “a fascist, hate-filled, fear-mongering,” ruler without specifically naming President Donald Trump.

“I humbly beseech thee to make thy presence known on November 6th. Demonstrate your omnipotence through us as we make ink marks on little circles in curtained booths,” a message in the credits at the end of the October 25th CBS sitcom read, according to News Busters Monday. (RELATED: Emily Ratajkowski Blasts ‘Big Bang Theory’ Star For Weinstein Op-Ed)
 
“Of course if you, in your divine wisdom, believe a fascist, hate-filled, fear-mongering, demagogic, truth-shattering, autocratic golf cheater is what we need right now, then, you know, thy will be done,” it added.

The message continued, “But if thou art inclined to more freedom, more love, more compassion, and just more of the good stuff thou hath been promoting in our hearts or our parietal lobes — either one, doesn’t really matter — I submissively ask that thy encourage voter turnout in that general direction.”

https://dailycaller.com/2018/10/29/big-bang-theory-gods-help-election/

[To-Whose-Benefit?]

One more good reason I don't watch TV.

Gave up on it over 30 years ago and never looked back.

[aligncare]

One more good reason I don't watch TV.

Gave up on it over 30 years ago and never looked back.

I’m 7 years without that constant droning noise in the background. Ah, peace and quite. And, whenever the mood strikes, for entertainment there’s always music, books, talk radio, streaming.

[Sighlass]

The Show has ran about 4 years past it's funny date. It is leftist drivel now, like most everything else on tv. Even Blue Bloods is now total crap. I don't know of a tv show now that you could pay me to watch.

[Jazzhead]

Trump's not on the ballot, idiot.   

[sneakypete]

The Show has ran about 4 years past it's funny date. It is leftist drivel now, like most everything else on tv. Even Blue Bloods is now total crap. I don't know of a tv show now that you could pay me to watch.

@Sighlass

That's a lot like saying "I never read books,and know of no books you could pay me to read." How WOULD you know if you never read a book or watch tv?

Yeah,there is a lot of crap on tv. There is also some truly great entertainment. Game of Thrones is a current one. LOTS of stuff on BBC/PBS if you like historical dramas or modern dramas like MI-5,but if you like comedy,British comedy is pretty strange.

There there are shows that aired for years and are now available for viewing via streaming videos,like The Americans,Homeland,Better Call Saul,etc,etc,etc. One of my favorites,The Vikings,has just started a new season,and it is based on the actions of actual historical characters.

I probably have access to something like 2,000 channels,most of them free,on my ROKU streaming video device,so if I can't find something interesting to watch,I'm just not trying. There are entire channels devoted to nothing but war movies,horror movies,comedies,and pretty much anything else you can think of.

As for The Big Bang Theory,that producer just cost himself and everyone involved in the show millions in lost revenues from re-runs. Yeah,this is the last season so he thought he could get cocky and run his mouth,but he screwed himself and most of the people he works with because there are a lot of people who will refuse to watch the re-runs because of this.

[Snarknado]

After the election I thought broadcast TV and much of cable would be wall-to-wall cheap shots. From what little I watch, I haven't seen that happen nearly as much as I expected. Before Trump, an oft-repeated theme was terrorism perpetrated by a "patriot" group, with a Muslim or illegal alien saving the day. Hollywood of course hasn't changed, but my guess is that nose-diving ratings are giving them second thoughts about unnecessarily offending large numbers of viewers.

I think some shows deserve some credit too. Nathan Fillion is as far left as you can get, but that rarely spilled over into Castle episodes.

There is definitely a lot of great British TV, with many of the mystery series based on the works of successful authors like Anthony Horowitz, Colin Dexter, Elizabeth George, Ian Rankin, Ann Cleeves...

[Sighlass]

@Sighlass

That's a lot like saying "I never read books,and know of no books you could pay me to read." How WOULD you know if you never read a book or watch tv?

Yeah,there is a lot of crap on tv. There is also some truly great entertainment. Game of Thrones is a current one. LOTS of stuff on BBC/PBS if you like historical dramas or modern dramas like MI-5,but if you like comedy,British comedy is pretty strange.

There there are shows that aired for years and are now available for viewing via streaming videos,like The Americans,Homeland,Better Call Saul,etc,etc,etc. One of my favorites,The Vikings,has just started a new season,and it is based on the actions of actual historical characters.

I probably have access to something like 2,000 channels,most of them free,on my ROKU streaming video device,so if I can't find something interesting to watch,I'm just not trying. There are entire channels devoted to nothing but war movies,horror movies,comedies,and pretty much anything else you can think of.

As for The Big Bang Theory,that producer just cost himself and everyone involved in the show millions in lost revenues from re-runs. Yeah,this is the last season so he thought he could get cocky and run his mouth,but he screwed himself and most of the people he works with because there are a lot of people who will refuse to watch the re-runs because of this.

Sorry @sneakypete, what you consider good TV doesn't even come close in my book. Starting with Game of Thrones (spits at religion, centers on occult, and sex scenes that make watching it embarrassing close to porn). What the BBC puts out now (usually so politically correct it makes me want to vomit with gay central characters). The last great BBC mini-series was Cranford.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0974077/

I don't have 2000 channels, but I have access to most every popular streamed video series via in internet (Ex. WatchEpisodeSeries(dot)com). Basically foreign mystery shows were the last to go super PC. "Last Man Standing" is the last comedy series to attempt to present a conservative point of view that is not totally ridiculed.

"The Vikings" I also gave a try. Same thing, it was vulgar, over the top bloody, and if memory serves also full of gratuitous sex and spat at most people of religious backgrounds as stupid and corrupt.

The new versions of "Anne of Green Gable" by the BBC (and long favorite of family shows) have been rewritten with a feminist whinny child that has been abused and has been molded to be annoying. 

I stand by my statement, I see little of value in today's tv. In the entertainment section of TBR, I put up a list of 100 shows/movies in the past I did find worth viewing. IOWs I have actively tried to  find good shows to watch, just shows now touted as great viewing (including a teacher dying of cancer who decides to become a drug dealer of great meth) are not worth polluting ones head with.

[To-Whose-Benefit?]

@Sighlass

"The Vikings" I also gave a try. Same thing, it was vulgar, over the top bloody, and if memory serves also full of gratuitous sex and spat at most people of religious backgrounds as stupid and corrupt."

The series falls under the heading of Fornaldur Saga (Family Saga) of Ragnar Lothbrok and his descendants.

Ragnar's fame has lasted 1200 years. He didn't get that by helping Little old Ladies across the street and dropping a $20 in the church collection plate on Sundays.

The opening time frame is 2 centuries before the Christian Conversion and as for people of religious backgrounds, they had plenty of respect for their Own.

Scandinavia was converted largely by fire and steel. If you want to get all hissy about people's "Religious Beliefs" I'd suggest you do your research first.

Charlemagne had his locals who wouldn't convert beheaded.

Richard the Lion Heart - the Crusades greatest Warrior for Christ - was quite arguably the most sacreligious man of his day, routinely cursing by the private parts of the Holy Trinity to every churchman he ran into, stopping just short of the Pope himself.

And that was political pragmatism. He needed the Pope to stay out of his way in Europe, after Crusade, so he could kill off everyone else who challenged him.

For that matter the Rules of the Order of the Templars forbid them to bathe, in the middle east, in chain mail. To bathe was exalting the pleasures of the flesh and a sign that your True Master was not Jesus but the Devil.

So don't get all huffy imposing your values on earlier civilizations you seem to know damn little about.

[To-Whose-Benefit?]

The mind set and day to day aspect of The Vikings the producers got pretty well.

The most famous 4 lines of verse from the day were:

Kinsmen die, cattle die
One thing I know
Never dies
The doom (manner) of a man's dying

To be welcomed into Valhalla a man was expected to die in combat.

Dying of sickness or old age sent them to hell.

Your projections disliked the research the producers put into their scripts.

[andy58-in-nh]

If it weren't for sports and an occasional movie, I wouldn't turn the TV on. Toxic dramas, unfunny comedies and fake news can all survive without my support. Or not. 

[Sighlass]

@Sighlass
So don't get all huffy imposing your values on earlier civilizations you seem to know damn little about.

@To-Whose-Benefit? Thanks for the ping.

In perspective of what I consider good tv, I will get as dang huffy as I please. I could care less if it is great to you or anyone else. I didn't comment on the Viking beliefs, I commented on how the show was presented and portrayed Christians, which like most other series was unrealistic. In a word, "Joyless" comes to mind in that portrayal of Christians (other words cowardly, greedy, and hypocritical also rank up there). You may positively identify with the raping hoard as good tv, I don't. The monk kidnapped does what? Ohh yeah, converts to a heathen because it is more fun. Who breaks their oath in the series? The Christians of course even though it was usually the opposite. It was Christianity that took most of Europe out of darkness, not the opposite.

[sneakypete]

"The Vikings" I also gave a try. Same thing, it was vulgar, over the top bloody, and if memory serves also full of gratuitous sex and spat at most people of religious backgrounds as stupid and corrupt.

@Sighlass

You complain about vulgarity,over the top bloody scenes,and sex,and are a Bible Thumper????

Have you never read the freaking Bible?

[sneakypete]

@To-Whose-Benefit? Thanks for the ping.

...It was Christianity that took most of Europe out of darkness, not the opposite.

@Sighlass

ROFLMAO! Christianity won because Christianity was more brutal than the Vikings. I don't recall ever hearing of Thor commanding the Vikings to take the children of defeated cities by the heels and bash their brains out against the stone walls of the city to insure they disappear forever,like your "kind,gentle,and loving" Christian God did according to the "Holy Bible".

You are brainwashed and live in your own little fantasy world that has no connection whatsoever to reality.

[Sighlass]

@Sighlass

ROFLMAO! Christianity won because Christianity was more brutal than the Vikings. I don't recall ever hearing of Thor commanding the Vikings to take the children of defeated cities by the heels and bash their brains out against the stone walls of the city to insure they disappear forever,like your "kind,gentle,and loving" Christian God did according to the "Holy Bible".

You are brainwashed and live in your own little fantasy world that has no connection whatsoever to reality.

Ohh, good grief Sneaky, I never once claimed God was ALL kind, gentle and loving... if I did, please point it out to me. Stop making up crap as you go. The Lord is a loving and "jealous" Lord and makes no bones about it.

Psalms that you paraphrase reads like this...

......Remember, O LORD, the sons of Edom on the day Jerusalem fell: “Destroy it,” they said, “tear it down to its foundations! O Daughter Babylon, doomed to destruction, blessed is he who repays you as you have done to us. Blessed is he who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks.....

Does "repay" mean something to you? Who is Babylon? Was Babyon's destruction warranted? It isn't a conquer thing, it is vengeance thing to full blown evil, not to conquer, but to to show that messing with God's people doesn't pay in the long run.

Jeremiah 50:28-30 also talks about it... and the reasons behind why vengeance was wanted. (repay according to her deeds)....

Call together the archers against Babylon: all ye that bend the bow, camp against it round about; let none thereof escape: recompense her according to her work; according to all that she hath done, do unto her......

@sneakypete

Before the flood...3rd Command (Death penalty forbidden): "Whoever kills Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold." Gen. 4:15

After the Flood....(and before 10 commandments)...3rd Command: (Death penalty commanded): "Whoever sheds man's blood, by man his blood shall be shed... Gen. 9:6

[sneakypete]

 The Lord is a loving and "jealous" Lord and makes no bones about it.

 

Correct me if I am wrong,but isn't jealousy one of the "7 deadly sins"?

I guess it is ok for the Big Guy to be jealous and order the murder of innocent infants,and only a sin or evil if someone else does it,huh?

Christianity succeeded on the level of no other religious in the west because it was the most violent and unforgiving,period.   It appeals to the evil side of mankind because it allows them to justify any brutality they can come up as long as it is done in "the name of the Lord". No evil they do in "HIS name" is evil,it is "Gawds Will".

Ever hear of the word "hypocrisy"?

[Sighlass]

Correct me if I am wrong,but isn't jealousy one of the "7 deadly sins"?

I guess it is ok for the Big Guy to be jealous and order the murder of innocent infants,and only a sin or evil if someone else does it,huh?

Christianity succeeded on the level of no other religious in the west because it was the most violent and unforgiving,period.   It appeals to the evil side of mankind because it allows them to justify any brutality they can come up as long as it is done in "the name of the Lord". No evil they do in "HIS name" is evil,it is "Gawds Will".

Ever hear of the word "hypocrisy"?

Ever hear of the word "clueless"?

The LORD is a jealous and avenging God; the LORD takes vengeance and is filled with wrath. The LORD takes vengeance on his foes and vents his wrath against his enemies. Nahum 1:2


Sometimes He uses His people to take that vengeance.

Again, you have a problem with the Lord avenging what was done to his people? Did you have a problem at 9/11 when America decided to punish those that attacked it? Some folks point out that it is unChristian to kill, but it actually is unChristian to "murder". Big difference. One is deserved, the other isn't.

Seven Deadly Sins is a Catholic thing (or was)... What the Bible does list is 7 things the Lord despises. You can do your own homework... Proverbs 6:17 is a good start and no it doesn't list what you suggest. The only sin that cannot be forgiven is complete rejection of God’s grace which is outright rebellion against God, also known as blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. It is a good thing sin of which you listed can be forgiven, otherwise there would be no hope for myself (whom has committed all the sins the cardinal listed as deadly). BTW... oddly Jealousy is not on any of the lists (but if it were, I have committed more than my fair share of it too).

I don't know where you got the notion that Christians were to be pansies and "love" everything that comes against it. Jesus was a man, not a woman (and was offensive to most people). He even affirmed the putting to death of wayward kids that cursed their parents at one point, something that gets glossed over by most Christians now days as uncivilized (but to Jesus it certainly wasn't).

The Bible makes it clear there is a time and place for everything... Including a time to make war and fight (usually to defend ones family, country, and religion).... something Babylon found out. Like it or not, those wars were fought to win, not coddle, something that people have a problem with now days. It was fought to bring on peace, and to do so it meant not being gentle to those that didn't fight fair in return.

Christianity succeeded on the level of no other religious in the west because it was the most violent and unforgiving,period.

Christianity succeeded because it appealed and spoke love and forgiveness to everyone of all status, from poor to rich. To be loved and accepted forever no matter what color you were, no matter what your status in life and how bad you were previously. It spoke acceptance and forgiveness, something we don't find much elsewhere.

______________________________

Per forum etiquette, if you want we can continue this in PM...

[sneakypete]

Ever hear of the word "clueless"?

The LORD is a jealous and avenging God; the LORD takes vengeance and is filled with wrath. The LORD takes vengeance on his foes and vents his wrath against his enemies. Nahum 1:2


Sometimes He uses His people to take that vengeance.

@Sighlass

Well,ain't THAT "Special"

[/quote]Christianity succeeded because it appealed and spoke love and forgiveness to everyone of all status, from poor to rich. [/quote]

No,it succeeded because The Catholic Church was given the authority to have it's own courts and judgements due it being a senior branch of government if not THE senior branch of government in the west,and people just naturally hate the idea of being burned at the stake or in a pot of boiling oil.

You are right about even the nobility/rich and the poor both having to pay at least lip service to the Pope,though. The Catholic Church had so much power they could order the peasants to revolt and overthrow the aristocracy,and the aristocracy knew this to be true. In FACT,the Catholic Church WAS in effect "the law of the land" over all of Europe at one time.

Being devoutly religious was a REQUIREMENT if you wanted to survive.

Much like Islam of today.

[To-Whose-Benefit?]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_at_B%C3%A9ziers

"Kill them all, God will know His own"
Main article: Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius.

[July, 1209]

Commanded by the Papal legate, the Abbot of Citeaux, Arnaud Amalric,[2] the crusader army reached the outskirts of Béziers on 21 July 1209. As they started to pitch their camp, the Bishop of Béziers, Renaud de Montpeyroux, tried to avert bloodshed and to negotiate. He came back to Béziers with the message that the town would be spared provided it would hand over their heretics.[3] The bishop had drawn up a list of 222 individuals, mostly Cathars, some Waldensians, likely to be perfecti or leaders of their communities. But in a meeting at the Cathedral, it was determined that to hand over these people was not possible because they had too much support within the town. So the bishop asked the Cathars to leave the town to save themselves. This proposal was rejected, and the bishop left the town with just a few Cathars.[1]

The 'Christian' Army/Mob took the town and slaughtered 20,000, almost all devout Catholics, under Papal Authority to get at 222 Cathar Heretics, whose main Sin was that they believed they didn't Need a Pope or a Roman Church to achieve Personal Salvation.

7,000 Old men, women and children locked themselves in the Cathedral praying for deliverance from the 'Christian' mob out side.

The mob broke in and slaughtered every last person, man, woman and child, babes in arms, from the doors to the pulpit to cut down the Priests saying mass.

[To-Whose-Benefit?]

Massacre at Ayyadieh
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_at_Ayyadieh

"The Massacre of Ayyadieh occurred during the Third Crusade after the fall of Acre when Richard I of England had more than two thousand Muslim soldiers and civilians from the captured city killed in front of the Saracen armies of Saladin on August 20, 1191. Despite attacks by Muslim forces during the killings, the Christian Crusaders were able to retire in good order. "

The number was 2,700. Beheaded is white wash.

They were marched out onto a nearby hilltop and hacked to pieces, (to let Saladin's army get a good view of it) their bellies slashed open while they were alive and their 'Christian Pilgrim' killers sifted through their guts looking for gold they might have swallowed to hide it as Richard was taking the City (Acre).

Looting and such was fine with the Pope.

The Crusades were a way to send his most fractious nobles off to kill the 'Enemies of Christendom' rather than make constant and bloody war against each other in Europe, which undermined the Vatican's Authority as the Supreme Ruler over everyone including Kings, Dukes and Barons.

[To-Whose-Benefit?]

@Sighlass

In Europe during the Crusades, otherwise devout Christians were grabbed, accused, condemned for taking regular baths, and then burned at the stake by Papal Inquisitors.

It was a home front war against Heresy.

Bathing proved they were in League with the Devil. Since they were obsessed with the flesh rather than the spirit through self mortification they were all sneaking off at night to have huge pig pile orgies at Black Masses.

Shall I continue?

[To-Whose-Benefit?]

Viking Age Iceland, Privatization Run Amok or Libertarian Paradise?

The Free State Icelandic Commonwealth (1000 - 1264) was the free-est, Least violent society I've ever seen.

It collapsed thanks to The Catholic Church's Religious Taxes.

http://wulfanson.blogspot.com/2016/04/viking-age-iceland-privatization-run.html

[Frank Cannon]

One more good reason I don't watch TV.

Gave up on it over 30 years ago and never looked back.

That explains why you are so uptight. You missed out on Sex in the City....

[Sighlass]

Massacre at Ayyadieh
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_at_Ayyadieh

"The Massacre of Ayyadieh occurred during the Third Crusade after the fall of Acre when Richard I of England had more than two thousand Muslim soldiers and civilians from the captured city killed in front of the Saracen armies of Saladin on August 20, 1191. Despite attacks by Muslim forces during the killings, the Christian Crusaders were able to retire in good order. "

The number was 2,700. Beheaded is white wash.

They were marched out onto a nearby hilltop and hacked to pieces, (to let Saladin's army get a good view of it) their bellies slashed open while they were alive and their 'Christian Pilgrim' killers sifted through their guts looking for gold they might have swallowed to hide it as Richard was taking the City (Acre).

Looting and such was fine with the Pope.

The Crusades were a way to send his most fractious nobles off to kill the 'Enemies of Christendom' rather than make constant and bloody war against each other in Europe, which undermined the Vatican's Authority as the Supreme Ruler over everyone including Kings, Dukes and Barons.

Not sure why you decided to go this tangent and don't have time for picking apart all you posted so I picked this one on a whim. Perhaps it is just an "religion bad" screed, but it has nothing to do with what I said earlier. God wasn't directing this war personally, as my earlier examples exemplified.

Ahh good ole Wiki, and notice not one reference is given at the bottom of the page for where they got the information or numbers, but it matters not....

I applaud the destruction of the invading Muslims..... also why did you leave out parts of the article.. and then add parts that were not in the article... Example: Looting and such was fine with the Pope.... exactly where is that said in the wiki article? The Third Crusade was part of the ongoing struggle between the Christian West and Muslim East for possession of the Holy Land. A war I applaud for the most part.

The wiki article says this...

After the fall of Acre, Richard I wanted to exchange a large number of Muslim prisoners from the city for the True Cross, a large ransom and Christians held captive by Saladin.

However, the Saracen leader stalled for time because he hoped a fresh Muslim army would reach him and help recapture Acre. When Richard I asked for a list of important Christians being held captive by the Muslims, Saladin refused. The English king realised he was being stalled so he demanded that a ransom payment and prisoner exchange should occur within one month.

When the deadline was not met, an infuriated Richard I ordered that all the prisoners from Acre should be taken to a small hill called Ayyadieh. There in full view of the Muslim army and Saladin's own field headquarters, around 3000 soldiers, men, women and children from the city (according to Muslim sources) were put to the sword......

______________________________________________________

You also say this "bellies slashed open while they were alive and their 'Christian Pilgrim' killers sifted through their guts looking for gold "

Where exactly did you get that, it certainly wasn't in the wiki article you linked.... A google search found an article of Romans doing that to the Jews but I am having a hard time finding where it was said about this Ayyadieh massacre. Perhaps you can link where you are getting your information, wiki is bad enough, but I can't verify half of what you say.

______________________________________


Then you go off on a no bathing tangent. More utter BS. Even liberal Huffington Post says it is BS. Yes some in the Inquisitions had to ask permission to bathe, to keep it from being something they didn't want, (visiting public bathhouses with prostitutes) but I see no proof that when someone started to stink bad enough they were not allowed to take a bath.

Stop wasting my time. You hate Christians enough to post sketchy crap, I get it. @To-Whose-Benefit?

[To-Whose-Benefit?]

@Sighlass
 

Don't suppose you ever READ my historical fiction, did you?

Where the heck do you Think I got it from?

I'm the one here with the early medieval history fix.

My info comes from My own bookshelves. Histories of Vikings, Richard the Lionheart, The Poor Fellow Soldiers of Jesus Christ, The Crusades, etc.

Got plenty of them, much better researched than Wiki.

But since I'm not writing for a PhD here, I'm not going back through them all page by page line by line to print You an annotation that You won't consult anyway.

Tell me what you know about Papal Interdict from the period. OK?

How about the penalty for Templars caught Horse Racing?

That one I know chapter and verse from:

https://www.amazon.com/Medieval-Warhorse-Byzantium-Crusades-Military/dp/0938289845/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1541044077&sr=1-1&keywords=Medieval+War+Horse

Because I only own this one book covering the subject and I wrote it into a scene for Vol 4 of my Viking Hunter Series that I'm still moving characters and plots around in.

If you really want to take a swing at me try reading Sir Steven Runciman's 3 Vol History of the Crusades:

https://www.amazon.com/History-Crusades-Vol-Foundations-Jerusalem/dp/052134770X/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1541044309&sr=1-3&keywords=Steven+Runciman+A+History+of+The+Crusades

https://www.amazon.com/History-Crusades-Jerusalem-Frankish-1100-1187/dp/0521347718/ref=sr_1_7?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1541044309&sr=1-7&keywords=Steven+Runciman+A+History+of+The+Crusades

https://www.amazon.com/History-Crusades-Vol-III-Kingdom/dp/0521347726/ref=sr_1_9?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1541044309&sr=1-9&keywords=Steven+Runciman+A+History+of+The+Crusades

Or The Dream and The Tomb by Robert Payne

https://www.amazon.com/Dream-Tomb-History-Crusades/dp/0815410867/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1541044444&sr=1-1&keywords=The+Dream+and+The+Tomb

The Templars: The Dramatic History of the Knights Templar, the Most Powerful Military Order of the Crusades

https://www.amazon.com/Templars-Dramatic-Powerful-Military-Crusades-ebook/dp/B00KF2XX8E/ref=sr_1_61?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1541044616&sr=1-61&keywords=Templars

Warriors of God: Richard the Lionheart and Saladin in the Third Crusade by James Reston Jr. (2001-05-15) Hardcover – 1800

https://www.amazon.com/Warriors-God-Richard-Lionheart-2001-05-15/dp/B017V8A20G/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1541044974&sr=1-2&keywords=Richard+and+Saladin+James+Reston

That's just a few on mine.


Reston's a fair introduction but he went sensationalist in claiming Richard and his Cousin Phillip of France had been gay bunk mates in youth. The theory never even surfaced till 1948. And Reston, writing from the same sources everyone else had used for near 800 years took off with it.

Where it came from was monks. Richard loved verbally abusing them. So a few tried to get back at him, while copying his history.

Point being you're not gonna find everything online, and I'm not going digging for it from books you don't own, and won't buy to then put your Rose Colored Disney version of Christianity glasses back on, and just Ignore me in answer.