The history of sectarian roles in the inquisition  is fascinating. (I'm interested.) For electing a leader today, a discussion I want to have more is about how Republicult theofascism continues to suffocate science, withhold medicine from the sick, and just plain condemn to suffering and death people the cult doesn't like.

The Eastern Orthodox Church (including Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, etc.) refers to the single, theologically unified, multinational Christian community that views itself as:

• The historical, unbroken continuation of the original Christian communities established by Jesus Christ and the Twelve Apostles, having maintained unbroken the link between its clergy and the Apostles by means of Apostolic Succession and Sacred Tradition.

• The ecclesial communion which has never fallen into error nor deviated from the beliefs and traditions of the original Christian body, but rather has gone to great lengths to preserve them for future generations. All theological concepts, all explanations and expansions are compared to and validated by the original core beliefs; no deviation is allowed.

• The Christian body which most closely adheres to the canons of the first seven ecumenical councils held between the 4th and the 8th centuries.

George W. Bush plumbed the deepest place in himself, looking for a simple expression of what the assaults of September 11 required. It was his role to lead the nation, and the very world. The President, at a moment of crisis, defines the communal response. A few days after the assault, George W. Bush did this. Speaking spontaneously, without the aid of advisers or speechwriters, he put a word on the new American purpose that both shaped it and gave it meaning. "This crusade," he said, "this war on terrorism."
...
Crusade. I remember a momentary feeling of vertigo at the President's use of that word, the outrageous ineptitude of it. The vertigo lifted, and what I felt then was fear, sensing not ineptitude but exactitude. My thoughts went to the elusive Osama bin Laden, how pleased he must have been, Bush already reading from his script. I am a Roman Catholic with a feeling for history, and strong regrets, therefore, over what went wrong in my own tradition once the Crusades were launched.

The same dynamic--war against an enemy outside leading to war against an enemy inside--can be seen at work today.
...
A cosmic moral-religious battle justifies, equally, risks of world-historic proportioned disaster, since the ultimate outcome of such a conflict is to be measured not by actual consequences on this earth but by the earth-transcending will of God. Our war on terrorism, before it is anything else, is thus an imagined conflict, taking place primarily in a mythic realm beyond history.

In waging such a "war," the enemy is to be engaged everywhere and nowhere, not just because the actual nihilists who threaten the social order are faceless and deracinated but because each fanatical suicide-bomber is only an instance of the transcendent enemy--and so the other face of us. Each terrorist is, in effect, a sacrament of the larger reality, which is "terrorism." Instead of perceiving unconnected centers of inhuman violence--tribal warlords, Mafia chieftains, nationalist fighters, xenophobic Luddites--President Bush projects the grandest and most interlocking strategies of conspiracy, belief and organization. By the canonization of the war on terrorism, petty nihilists are elevated to the status of world-historic warriors, exactly the fate they might have wished for. This is why the conflict readily bleeds from one locus to another--Afghanistan then, Iraq now, Iran or some other land of evil soon--and why, for that matter, the targeted enemies are entirely interchangeable--here Osama bin Laden, there Saddam Hussein, here the leader of Iran, there of North Korea. They are all essentially one enemy--one "axis"--despite their differences from one another, or even hatred of one another.
...
"The past is never dead," William Faulkner said. "It isn't even past."

though she described herself as less sure of the doctrine that being a Christian is the only way to salvation."

If she doesn't believe that, then Thomas is correct.

He is also correct when he says she is entittled to whatever she wants to believe.

That has nothing to do with the Inquisition, or any other historical facts regarding any religion and any attempt to connect the Inquisition with modern day Christanity is a real stretch, especially on the Protestant side.

How her comments play in Peoria is a different subject, just as Romney's Mormon faith is.

Send me a postcard from the Netherword, Bubbie.

Hey, that's Benny talkin' not me.

Digby points out what we should all know by now; the Radical Religious Right is intolerant of religious beliefs not in lockstep with their own:

http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/christian-books.html

For the left though, the Inquisition is always a convenient thing to bring up - never mind that left ideology (Communism), and Fascist ideology (Nazism) killed hundreds of millions more people.

The inquisition is not theology it is history.

Did Marx intend for Stalin, Castro and Kim to kill millions?  Was that part of his theology?

People have killed in the name of religion but Jesus' tenants never had anything to do with the Inquisition.

Mrs. Clinton said she believed in the resurrection of Jesus, though she described herself as less sure of the doctrine that being a Christian is the only way to salvation."

There is no ONE truth in my opinion. People use the same words and have different intentions and meanings. I made one point to BTD that Classical means to him something different than it does to someone else. He confirms that, but states clearly that he is right and the other is wrong. The human drama continues and we all go on arguing over words and thoughts.

Give someone a new word or a new meaning for an old word and they will believe they are in possession of a new fact. But words are only human inventions or tools used for the purpose of communication and to uncover their meaning you have to engage in dialogue with your interlocutor and be prepared to shift meanings of the words you have become accustomed to using in certain ways - if you are truly reaching for understanding.