|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 335 days) Posts: 438 From: Tempe, Az. Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: A measured look at a difficult situation | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Another attempt at reorientation, which I also did in Message 27 where I got my concern nailed down to the difference between murder and legal military actions. Like the difference between murder and the death penalty, which I might point out Catholics seem to have a particular problem distinguishing since they are the ones out there with their candles protesting whenever there is an execution. The death penalty is of course Biblical too. You'd think it would be accepted at least for murderers.
But for this post I'm reorienting in a different direction. The original quote from me that Tempe used to get this thread going wasn't very complete but by its mention of Mexico it hints at the fact that my interest is not in Ireland or any national or political entity as such, it's in Catholicism versus Protestantism. Any particular national context will bring in complexities that confuse the issue, including alignments between the two religions for particular purposes, but the overarching concern I was pursuing is not confined to any national context. Catholicism has been implicated not just in the IRA and the Irish Rebellion but in the Croatian murders of Serbs and the Holocaust and the massacre in Rwanda and in persecutions of Protestants in Mexico and other Catholic countries, and in Inquisitional type tortures and murders that are hidden away in the bowels of Catholic institutions, Garibaldi having found evidence of that in dungeons in Rome in the 19th century, and a nun who escaped from a convent in the 1950s having herself been tortured, reported on horrible conditions in her convent before she mysteriously disappeared, and so on and so forth. Now maybe you can find instances of Protestant retaliation and Protestant misbehavior of various sorts but you aren't going to find this sort of thing among Protestants. It's a Catholic thing. You may all think it's over and done with too, a relic of history. I still have research to do on that and may post it on my blog rather than here. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Son Goku Inactive Member |
I can't believe Cromwell could have invaded if he hadn't been sent by some legitimate authority, that doesn't make sense. From the Irish point of view things are going to look different than from the English point of view and I'd rather just leave it at that.
First of all, I don't see how an invading army being sent by somebody gives them any additional legitimacy, virtually every army is sent by somebody, legitimate or not. Secondly, of course he was sent by somebody, the English parliamentary government. I don't think he randomly popped over for the laugh and a bit of fun. What I am saying is that the Irish lords had never sworn allegiance to the country of England, only to its monarch. Under Irish law, the new English government had no authority. The previous English kings were established in Brehon law, as the liege lords of all the major tuatha (translating to roughly "minor kingdom"). Ireland was under the law of England only indirectly via that law being the written will of their liege lord*. Remove the king and the status of that law becomes questionable. The parliamentary government just felt that it was entitled to anything the previous monarch owned. This has nothing really to do with an Irish vs an English point of view or Catholics vs Protestants. The authority of the Parliamentary government over England itself was contentious at the time, as shown by the fact that the monarch was eventually restored. *Several poetic epics were commissioned by Irish lords celebrating Protestant English monarchs and their legitimacy over the island. There was no real problem with rule by England, considering that the James I was entitled by Brehon law to the position of rd R (high king, the one entitled to tribute from all other kings).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
There was only ONE point concerning Cromwell's legitimacy and that is that he was not the leader of a murdering horde but was sent to put down a murdering horde. Cromwell is often vilified by the Irish, that's why I defend him. He was acting legitimately, the Irish Rebellion wasn't.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Son Goku Inactive Member |
Military action ordered by the reigning power is legitimate, that's ALL I said, that makes Cromwell's action legitimate.
I really think you must know very little about what Ireland was like at the time. I will provide some brief context for others. Ireland, as far back as we know, was governed by Brehon law. An (overtly) complex legal system encoded mostly in mnemonic poetry, as a judge* was required to know it by heart. Brehon law largely modeled all interactions via client-lord system, somewhat like feudalism. The client gave tribute and came to war for the lord, who in return provided stability, threw parties and festivals and presided over court trials, along with the poet-judges. Virtually everybody in the country was both a client and a lord to somebody else, in a ridiculously convoluted system of contracts, oaths and bonds. Often, to simplify things, a collection of second cousins all living within a fixed region was abstracted as a single legal entity, known as a tuatha. Again tuathas could be clients and lords to each other. The only people with no lords over them, were the heads of the most powerful Tuatha in each of the five provinces. Theoretically, Irish law allowed for a final lord over these provincial lords, the so called High King of Ireland (rd R na hireann), however nobody in history ever satisfied the legal requirements for this position. When Elizabeth I conquered Ulster, the Ulster provincial lord and his family surrendered and fled, as did all other provincial lords and the sub-provincial lords beneath them, in an event known as "The flight of the Earls". This left only the third-rank of nobility, all of whom accepted Elizabeth I as their liege lord. English law was accepted as being her written decree. In return, the leaders of Irish tuatha became members of the English peerage, entitled to their own land as English lords. Elizabeth left a number of settlers across the country and administrative staff in the bigger English colonial towns. There was no real military presence. Protestant settlers were often directly rules by the pre-existing Irish nobility. Then much later, the English king was executed and a new government lead by Cromwell took over England. The Irish lords were not oath bound by Cromwell or his government and essentially had to be reconquered and dispossessed. It was only then that Ireland passed to the rule of England, not the English King. *The professions of judge and poet only separated in the 11th century. Basically a poet took a type of undergraduate degree, after which he/she was a Bard, a poet-songster in essence, who composed poetry for parties. Following this he/she could take a doctorate of sorts making him a judge and high poet. A high poet could write poetry about history, genealogy, e.t.c. and command a higher fee. Eventually these to doctorates could not be taken together, and the Bard had to choose one career path. Edited by Son Goku, : No reason given. Edited by Son Goku, : My wife corrected me! A tuatha was second cousins!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Son Goku Inactive Member |
There was only ONE point concerning Cromwell's legitimacy and that is that he was not the leader of a murdering horde but was sent to put down a murdering horde. Cromwell is often vilified by the Irish, that's why I defend him. He was acting legitimately, the Irish Rebellion wasn't.
He was often vilified by Royalist English people as well. You are saying that Cromwell was justified in acting as a retaliation to violence against his people, i.e. the Protestant settlers. To be honest I'm not really arguing that he was unjustified in coming to their defense, from that perspective one can argue he had a just cause. What I am saying is that he was not in any sense legally justified by any legitimate "government of Ireland", only the English monarch had pre-existing authority and there was certainly no English army "already there", just the descendants of Elizabethan settlers. I am only saying that Cromwell essentially conquered the country, he was not a representative of its legitimate government. Whether his reasons for conquering were morally legitimate or not is a separate question. Edited by Son Goku, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
OK. That's a judgment I can't make but I'll leave it to you.
This discussion has gone WAY beyond the topics of interest to me, such as Message 27 and Message 91. Irish history is NOT my interest. Not that it wouldn't be interesting in itself if I had a few months to devote to it and any reason to devote them. I refuse to let Cromwell be treated like some kind of criminal, that's all. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member (Idle past 164 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
So might makes right?
I guess we can only expect as much from a worshiper of Yahweh. All the best. The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer. -Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53 The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286 Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member (Idle past 164 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
I beleive the proddies may have burnt a few Catholics in their time.
So called 'witches', too. And let's not forget the denomination of abortion clinic destructivatorz. Faith, have you heard of selective attention? All the best. The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer. -Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53 The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286 Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Actually I don't think any Protestants burnt any Catholics, Larni, not for being Catholics that's for sure. I think they might have guillotined a few in England for treason against the crown at one time or another though. If you have evidence to the contrary please post it, otherwise you are just slinging false accusations.
And the Protestants executed a grand total of 19 witches before other Protestant clergy put a stop to it. Compare that with hundreds at least, possibly thousands, that were put to death in Europe by the RCC. Plus Jews and Muslims and atheists. Inquisition you know. Of course most of their victims were Protestants, some fifty millions. One abortion clinic bomber that I know of, acting on his own and not under any Protestant papacy. Have there been more? Do get your facts straight. Thank you. Selective attention? Have YOU heard of false moral equvalences? Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Gosh and here I thought I was describing the most standard of standards of legitimacy. Hm. Of course it would be if it was anybody but me saying it. Hm?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
I think they might have guillotined a few in England for treason against the crown at one time or another though Faith, we both know that James IV personally oversaw torture trials dozens (perhaps more than 100) people suspected of being witches because he blamed some storms that ruined one of his voyages on witches. Remember how you told us you were going to look into whether those people were actually witches? How did that research go?Je Suis Charlie Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Sorry I don't remember it but I'll take your word for it, so you may add that number on the Protestant side of the ledger of shame.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Just looked up estimates of numbers of witches killed in Europe under the RCC. Some say millions, even twenty million estimated by Voltaire, and so on. That's in this article that is all about how many were martyred by Rome. Makes a hundred executed by a king seem rather small.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: On what research do you base this claim of only 19 witches executed by Protestants ? I can assure you that the number is far higher.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Heathen Member (Idle past 1283 days) Posts: 1067 From: Brizzle Joined: |
You know nothing.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024