Now, That's Some Serious Intolerance!

By -
During the seventeenth century in England, dissenting Protestants (Adamites, Anabaptists, Barrowists, Behmenists, Brownists, Diggers, Enthusiast, Familists, Fifth Monarchists, Grindletonians, Muggletonians, Philadelphians, Puritans, Quakers, Ranters, Sabbatarians, Seekers, and Socinians*) were twice offered toleration, once by Charles II and once by James II, in a package deal that included toleration for Catholics as well. Both times they rejected the offer, preferring to be persecuted themselves than to see Catholicism tolerated.**

* -- Source: Wikipedia.
** -- Note to methodological individualists: by "they rejected the offer," I mean enough of them that the deal collapsed.

Comments

  1. PH10:37 PM

    But would it have led to toleration of the Douay Rheims Bible? If so, they made the right choice.

    (Just kidding... sort of. But happy 400th birthday to the King James Version, and long may it reign.)

    ReplyDelete
  2. gcallah11:56 AM

    "it really represents a triumph for rebellion and dissent."

    Wasn't that Satan's platform?

    ReplyDelete
  3. PH1:09 PM

    I guess the trick is to rebel against the right people.

    ReplyDelete
  4. scineram4:13 AM

    In what way can one reject an offer not to be prosecuted. How did they break the deal?

    ReplyDelete
  5. gcallah9:40 AM

    The kings were looking for support from balky Parliaments. They apparently consulted with dissenting and Catholic leaders in order to see if they would get on the kings side behind a tolerance deal with those terms. The dissenters apparent;y said, "Not if it includes Catholics!" My source is History of England from the Tudors to the Stuarts, Robert Bucholz.

    ReplyDelete
  6. gcallah9:45 AM

    "The kings were looking for support from balky Parliaments."

    Sorry, looking for support from others against balky Parliaments.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more