Vandals tag Joan of Arc statue with "Take ir down"

>>138200546
nobody normal is gonna show up to protect that shit if you neo nazi alt right spencer dicksucking asswipes keep lumping everyone thats slightly conservative as one of yours.

Bumping because slide is steep today.

JEANNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNEEEEEEEEEEE

>>138200973
Change your flag dickwipe.
You don't deserve to fly it.
Joan was a Christian warrior and pivotal to the liberty precedent.

>>138200546
Reminder: St. Joan was burned at the stake by w**te males for being a strong woman. They saw her as a threat to their misogynist narrow minded system

Hundreds of years later they're back to their old ways

>>138202329
You kidding me?
She was captured by her enemies and punished for crimes against the state.

>>138202329
Reminder: just a figure head

>>138204001
>punished for crimes against the state.
She was burnt for being a heretic.

File: 1485997946271.jpg (32KB, 594x598px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 594x598px

>>138200546
>SJWs want to take down the statue of probably the only female which has done something that required balls

File: 1495586142543.gif (437KB, 500x545px) Image search: [Google]

437KB, 500x545px

anti-Jeannu fags will burn

>>138204555
And who ran the state?

>>138204001
This guy is giving you prots a bad name
As if the flag wasn't enough

>>138204001
>>138204555

Wrong, she was illegally put on trial by a bunch of heretics, so that they could kill a lawful prisoner of war who they feared.

>>138200546
Of course it should be taken down. She's a symbol of white patriarchy of how the white cis gendered male will dominate no matter how much you achieve.

>>138205634
Dude
She was killed by the English who were ruled by the Catholic church.
Her enemies

Besides, the venerate Mulan who may never have dressed male yet demonize Joan. Is it because I dare say she was Christian?

>>138204676
she was white and not even american tho
we gotta replace her with a statue representing all the african-american peoples that have died to build this country

>>138206217

Wrong, the church opposed the trail, it was set up by the english


>he trial for heresy was politically motivated. The tribunal was composed entirely of pro-English and Burgundian clerics, and overseen by English commanders including the Duke of Bedford and the Earl of Warwick.[69] In the words of the British medievalist Beverly Boyd, the trial was meant by the English Crown to be "...a ploy to get rid of a bizarre prisoner of war with maximum embarrassment to their enemies".[51] Legal proceedings commenced on 9 January 1431 at Rouen, the seat of the English occupation government.[70] The procedure was suspect on a number of points, which would later provoke criticism of the tribunal by the chief inquisitor who investigated the trial after the war.[71]

>>138206217

nder ecclesiastical law, Bishop Cauchon lacked jurisdiction over the case.[72] Cauchon owed his appointment to his partisan support of the English Crown, which financed the trial. The low standard of evidence used in the trial also violated inquisitorial rules.[73] Clerical notary Nicolas Bailly, who was commissioned to collect testimony against Joan, could find no adverse evidence.[74] Without such evidence the court lacked grounds to initiate a trial. Opening a trial anyway, the court also violated ecclesiastical law by denying Joan the right to a legal adviser. In addition, stacking the tribunal entirely with pro-English clergy violated the medieval Church's requirement that heresy trials be judged by an impartial or balanced group of clerics. Upon the opening of the first public examination, Joan complained that those present were all partisans against her and asked for "ecclesiastics of the French side" to be invited in order to provide balance. This request was denied

>>138206697
Revisionist history

>>138207371

>Revisionist history

Claims without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.

The church itself sanctified her.