Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tom Clarke who wrote (67658)	12/21/1999 2:03:00 AM
From: Grainne	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

I agree that the Catholics cannot be blamed for all the witch burnings, Charlie. But I have seen historical lists of the victims of the Catholics specifically, organized by town. I am a little too tired now to go and do anymore Internet research. This topic has been discussed here before, but my web links are out of date and disappeared and so I am not armed with as many facts at the moment as I would like to have.

To: Tom Clarke who wrote (67658)	12/21/1999 6:05:00 AM
From: nihil	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

There is a severe definitional problem. Many heretics were burned at the order of the RC Church and many of them were also accused of witchcraft. Joan of Arc is the most famous of them (and the most innocent). The Protestant mobs mostly burned old women who had supernumery nipples and other witch marks. They seldom bothered with theology. In England, for instance, heretics were burned and witches were usually hanged (as in Salem, Mass). Of course, Jean Calvin was a blood-thirsty tyrant and had Michael Servetus burned for non resident heresy. In my opinion, there is not a shred of difference between the Catholics and Protestants. Neither had any truth in them. They were cruel, irrational, hateful tyrants. Were all of them burned to cinders it would only be retributive justice. While I've always admired Archbishop Cranmer as a guileful, slinking, submissive piece of stink whose sycophancy led him to the pyre, and Sir (St) Thomas More for his rigid unbending tricky principles that led him to the block, both of them had condemned witches and heretics to death, and neither of them (with their master) was worth the shot and powder required to blow them to hell.

To: Tom Clarke who wrote (67658)	12/21/1999 2:19:00 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Just reading Peter Ackroyd's excellent biography of Sir Thomas More. More very much wanted to burn Protestants. I haven't finished it, my recollection is that he didn't get to. One might argue that More's execution was self-defense, in a way. At least his anti-Protestant zeal was silenced. Lest I be misunderstood, I don't think More should have been executed, but I am getting a better understanding of why he was. I haven't really studied the issue, weren't most people tortured and excuted by the Inquisition and the Reformation because of heresy, not witchcraft?