|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 363 days) Posts: 438 From: Tempe, Az. Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: A measured look at a difficult situation | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
And the earlier Papal Inquisition of Pope Innocent III and Pope Gregory IX was hundreds of years before the Protestant Reformation.
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.Faith simply can't claim either as examples of Roman Catholicism oppressing Protestants. '
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
The Spanish Inqusition was not a part of the Catholic Church. It was an office of the Spanish Crown. So the same argument you have for Henry holds for the Spanish Inquisition. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
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.
And...you have the nerve to talk about forcing people to starve to death, yet all you can say about the million who starved because of Royalist actions during the Great Famine is that it may have been a bit heavy-handed. I find it amusing how easily you are able to forgive Protestant transgressions, but not Catholic ones. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
You seem to have found an instance of what I've been asking for, but now I'm too tired to think about it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9197 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2
|
Told yah
Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Well I'd made the point long long ago that the Reformation leaders included all previous dissenting groups with persecuted protestants.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
Faith will claim anyone deemed heretic before the Protestant reformation, were in fact Protestants, so therefore they qualify as examples. Then I guess the pagan Saxons that worshiped Saxon gods were actuall Protestants, and slain by Charlemagne for being Protestants. "The Massacre of Verden, Bloodbath of Verden, or Bloody Verdict of Verden (German Blutgericht von Verden) was a massacre of 4,500 captive Saxons in October 782. During the Saxon Wars, the Saxons rebelled against Charlemagne's invasion and subsequent attempts to christianize them from their native Germanic paganism. The massacre is recorded as having occurred in what is now Verden in Lower Saxony, Germany."Massacre of Verden - Wikipedia It would appear that Hindus are also Protestants. "Religious persecution took place by the Portuguese in Goa, India from 16th to the 17th century. The natives of Goa, most of them Hindus were subjected to severe torture and oppression by the zealous Portuguese rulers and missionaries and forcibly converted to Christianity"Forced conversion - Wikipedia
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
It really helps to read in context, believe it or not. The groups the Reformers identified with were CHFRISTIANS who dissented from Rome. Good grief you guys will say anything crazy, won't you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9512 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8
|
Just another irritating aside here Faith.
You've now added Irish history to the long list of stuff you know nothing at all about, but are nevertheless convinced you are right about. Nothing particularly new here I suppose, after all you know more than all the world's scientists about geology, biology, molecular biology, evolutionary theory, palaeontology, physics and astronomy. To name only the few I can remember. Also from memory, there ain't an awful lot in the bible about Irish history so it's a bit puzzling to an amused observer why the hell you bother to make such a damn fool of yourself. You do know that protestants are human too? Of course you do, you're an expert on everything. Also, you should look up how many people were guillotined in the UK and Ireland. Ever. Just a detail but it does rather give away your cluelessness. Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I guess all you guys can do is accuse accuse accuse. It must be a lot easier than thinking.
I don't care how many were guillotined, what is of interest, as I've said a million times so far, is WHY they were guillotined. My claim is that the RCC puts people to death simply for disagreeing with their beliefs, but governments, unless they are doing the RCC's work as the Spanish Inquisition was, and Bloody Mary was, don't execute people unless they've done something against the state. This is really not hard to understand, it just takes a LITTLE TINY BIT of brain power. Irish history is simply not my concern. This thread was started to answer a particular post of mine that became a big discussion about Irish history but my interest was only in the fact that the RCC murders people for not sharing their beliefs. You can see this in the IRA and in the Irish Rebellion too, where there is no cause other than that the victims were Protestants. I also mentioned Mexico and I don't know a lot of Mexican history either. I could also mention Croatia and I don't know a lot of Croatian history either. And could mention the Holocause, where the RCC also played a role. And Rwanda and other places where it was the RCC that instigated massacres and murders. While I can't say it NEVER happens I CAN say that by and large Protestants don't do that, and Protestant governments don't either. If they execute Catholics it's for things like trying to assassinate the king. Again, this is really not hard to understand, just paying attention a little, followed by a little exertion of thought, a very little, should do it. What's amazing is that you all keep accusing me of things I'm not arguing as if you didn't know how to read. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9197 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
But Llorente does not support the figure of millions. From your source.
quote: Serious historians dismiss even this figure as ridiculously high.
quote:THe Spanish Inquisition, Cecil Roth page 123 The Spanish Inquisition - Cecil Roth - Google Books quote:The Spanish Inquisition, Henry Kamen page 280 quote:The Spanish Inquisition A.S. Turberville page 112 Seems no one in historical field trust Llorente. He Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
So Henry Kamen is the only valid historian on the subject?
In any case I'll have to come back to this later. Please remind me if I forget.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Son Goku Inactive Member |
quote:This has already been covered, he was sent by the Parliamentary government and again I must say it is irrelevant if somebody sent him or not in deciding whether he had the authority to attack. He didn't have the authority under the English Royal government that had existed until the death of Charles I and he didn't have that authority under the Irish Confederate government that was actually ruling the country. I don't think anybody has said Cromwell came for no reason, so I'm not sure what doesn't make sense to you.
quote:It's fine not to be concerned about Irish history, except for the fact that the 1641 rebellion is a historical event that occurred in Ireland. You earlier commented that the term Loyalist conveys little to you, and you are now saying that Protestants were killed for nothing other than being Protestants. Here is where not caring about Irish history leaves you without the relevant context. In Ireland the Protestant vs Catholic conflict is mostly an ethnic one, not a religious one. "Protestant" was a sign of a British settler who had taken native land, most Catholics in Ireland did not care about the religious differences, but the ethnic group. There isn't much recorded violence against the French Huguenots who settled along the South and in Dublin for example. They were Protestants, so why did they escape this violence? Why did many of them partake in the 1798 rebellion? The leader of that rebellion, a rebellion that engaged in direct attacks against English Protestant strongholds was a Huguenot. Other Protestants groups, the Huguenots, the Dutch Protestant ethnic group living in Wexford, were never really attacked. Why was this if it was just "Catholic vs Protestant"? It's because "Protestant" meant a recent English settler. Even in the 1641 rebellion it wasn't so simple:
"Wikipedia" writes: The motivations for the popular rebellion were complex. Among them were a desire to reverse the plantations; rebels in Ulster were reported as saying, 'the land was theirs and lost by their fathers.[21] Another motivating factor was a sharp antagonism towards the English language and culture which had been imposed on the country. For example, rebels in County Cavan forbade the use of the English language and decreed that the original Irish language place names should replace English ones.[21] A third factor was religious antagonism. Translating from the Gaelic wikipedia page (ir Amach 1641 - Vicipid):
Wikipedia writes: That said, the rebellion failed, but it continued as an ethnic conflict, between native Cathloics on one side and English and Scottish Protestant settlers on the other. Edited by Son Goku, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024