A measured look at a difficult situation

Cover up? I thought I was saying I'm sorry I wasn't clear. But I DID mean "grand total" FOR SALEM, I certainly had no other context in mind.I'll get back to Scandinavia eventually.

I must say it is really really weird to have someone insist I didn't mean what I said after I've confirmed it over and over. Do you think you are omniscient or something?(ABE: Man it would be dangerous if YOU were an Inquisitor. Wow./ABE)I said what I said because I thought Larni had the Salem trials in mind because that's what people always have in mind. Silly I guess but that's the truth.abe: I don't know if the numbers in that article are "inflated." They are all over the map, that's for sure, but there are lots of estimates in the millions nevertheless. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I've been looking over that Wikipedia article you linked. What a joke, PK. It goes back and forth in time, some of it referring to time before the Protestant Reformation, and nowhere does it identify the persecuting entity, nowhere. It also says there were other trials of witches in the American colonies without giving any details or source of information. The names in their chart identified for America were ALL hanged in Salem.THAT ARTICLE IS PATHETIC. Find something better or give it up.

Plaisted covers quite a lot of sources, and lists his References at the bottom too.

What I don't "like" is being given information like this without any kind of explanation, description, historical facts or a source.Please provide.

I've seen descriptions of Catholics herding Protestants naked into the snow to die of cold and starvation, and I've seen descriptions of military action to quell the rebellion. Attacks on anybody by ordinary Protestants I haven't seen. If you are going to claim they exist you need to quote a source with link.And the term "Loyalist" really doesn't convey anything to me.abe: Tried a bit of research and came up with some snark, no real history. Got history?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You say there were Catholics "murdered" under Henry 8th and Edward 6th but what I've found says they weren't murdered, they were executed for various kinds of treason or offending the king or whatnot, at least in the case of Henry the 8th, not for being Catholic: executions There was something called the Prayer Book Rebellion under Edward 6th but I got impatient trying to follow the Wikipedia article about it. I gather the rebellion was by Catholics and was put down by the forces of the King, which doesn't sound like a massacre to me.The Irish Rebellion remains the best description of an actual massacre, where the Catholics herded the Protestants out to die.

You say there were Catholics "murdered" under Henry 8th and Edward 6th but what I've found says they weren't murdered, they were executed for various kinds of treason or offending the king or whatnot, at least in the case of Henry the 8th, not for being Catholic: Tudor executions There was something called the Prayer Book Rebellion under Edward 6th but I got impatient trying to follow the Wikipedia article about it. I gather the rebellion was by Catholics and was put down by the forces of the King, which doesn't sound like a massacre to me.The Irish Rebellion remains the best description of an actual massacre, where the Catholics herded the Protestants out to die for no reason other than that they were Protestants. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Larni, I already saw that page and I just can't get through it. Please produce something direct to the point I'm trying to make, a quote perhaps.The question is whether Catholics were killed for BEING CATHOLICS or for some other reason. Please find that kind of information. What I read at the link I gave was that Henry executed people for various reasons having to do with his wanting to be free of the RCC restrictions on him but that they WERE reasons, such as treason or resisting his orders or some such. Also that very large number is questioned.In any case I'm trying to keep the focus on murders of innocents, people who haven't done anything except believe what they believe, nothing against the king etc. Far as I've found Henry was punishing people for opposing him and his desires, that is not punishing Catholics for being Catholics.The Prayer Book Rebellion is very unsettling though. I don't see why they had to kill that many people over a dispute about what prayers to use. But that's also not, strictly speaking, murdering Catholics for being Catholics, it was for a violation of the law. I know you may find this unconvincing but I have been trying to hold to this distinction all along. The machinations of monarchs may be reprehensible in many ways, but that isn't the subject here. You need to show them killing Catholics simply because they ARE Catholics and not for a breach of law.What I'm trying to keep in focus is killing people for believing what they believe about Christinaity. Bloody Mary executed people for simply being Protestants, and so far nobody has shown me that any Protestant monarch executed Catholics for simply being Catholic, there was always another reason, and treason was the usual reason, since there were many Catholic attempts to assassinate Protestant monarchs.Instead of just accusing me as usual please consider that what I'm saying here IS what I've been arguing all along and that you need to find a case of Protestants killing Catholics for being Catholics, period, if you want to prove me wrong.Thank you.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Executions by any Pope against groups of dissenting Christians are executions by the RCC and I've said this before many times. The leaders of the Protestant Reformation considered the Waldenses and many other groups that had separated from the RCC in earlier years to be with them in spirit and murdered for their protestant beliefs. There were many such groups, Bogomils come to mind but many others than that. Foxe's Book of Martyrs includes all such groups back to the earliest years as victims of the RCC.
'

My argument about Henry is that he didn't have Catholics put to death for BEING CATHOLICS, but for various breaches of law, for treason, for opposing his view of things or whatnot, but not for simply being Cqtholics. We know for sure that the Spanish inquisition put people to death specifically for NOT being Catholics, for being Jews or Muslims or witches or Protestants. That is not what Henry did.

Your source only covers the Spanish Inquisition, and it doesn't even mention witches which was supposedly your reason for posting it; mine uses whatever information was available for every known case of RCC persecutions anywhere. How can there be any comparison? But Plaisted's source, Llorente, for the Spanish Inquisition, in his Chapter 4, is called by someone else "unusually accurate" and there is more than one source given in any case.He's a computer expert and that makes him unable to deal with statistics? That and your argument that his sources are all "anti-Catholic" which may not be true anyway, are ad hominem arguments. Why should they be any less trusted than your pro-Catholic source? Bias is bias.Besides, Plaisted gives MANY sources and compares them with each other, all you've got is one guy. If all that is available is estimates then that's all that is available. The estimates have been carefully considered.

I'm exhausted with all this, Tempe, I just can't deal with another long post about historical factors that have nothing to do with what I'm trying to argue here.Where did the Guardian get that sketch of the herding of Protestants in the Irish Rebellion if there really was no massacre?If Ireland "won the war" after Cromwell's invasion, fine, then they became the authority. What is your point here? That wouldn't change Cromwell's previous legitimacy or the murder of innocent Protestants in the rebellion itself. But you are asking ME to determine Cromwell's legitimacy based on a different account of events than I'd encountered. All I can go by is what I've already taken note of and posted on. Cromwell wouldn't have acted without authority, that makes no sense.And I didn't say they weren't cruel, a military action is still legitimate in a way the Irish Rebellion was not. And really, I don't see why you feel it necessary to keep arguing against this. But that is really not fair, Tempe, I'm just trying to keep a particular point on the table. As I kept saying I would probably consider all that excessive, even cruel, but MY point is only that it was a legal response to illegal violence. PLEASE keep this in mind. I'm sure I could sympathize a lot with the effects of that law but it's not the subject here and I don't want to lose the subject. I'm not interested in just ANY transgressions, I'm focused on legal versus illegal, the violence promoted by the RCC against Protestants. What governments do can be just as bad but they aren't punishing people just for their beliefs but for specific illegal actions. This IS an important distinction. Please stop the accusations.

You seem to have found an instance of what I've been asking for, but now I'm too tired to think about it.

Well I'd made the point long long ago that the Reformation leaders included all previous dissenting groups with persecuted protestants.