Can a Pro-Life Activist Defend The Inquisition?

Last Days Watchman ^ | Julio Severo

[juliosevero]

Can a Pro-Life Activist Defend The Inquisition?

By Julio Severo

The answer to the title of this article is: Of course not! I, for example, have never defended any kind of Inquisition, and if someday I will do it, obviously I will have to abandon the pro-life fight, because it makes no sense selectively to condemn a genocide and support another.

Pope John Paul II, author of the encyclical “The Gospel of Life,” was a pro-life champion and he did not defend the Inquisition. On the contrary, he had the honesty to ask forgiveness for what the Inquisition and its agents were.

The defense of the Inquisition, for any Christian who considers himself pro-life, is so shameful that the only option left to its defenders is to deflect the debate to other details that flee from the essential question.

Three hundred years ago, Jonathan Swift, in his “Gulliver’s Travels,” used the example of a cow, and how a malicious neighbor might, with the help of a dishonest lawyer, say that the animal belonged to him, not to Gulliver. The method is simple: instead of focusing on the central topic of who really the cow belongs to, the lawyer will make the judge digress into details consuming time and energy: how old the cow is, how its pasture is, what its size is, etc.

In the end, victory comes by fatigue and a heap of digressions.

There have been a number of digressions in response to my Portuguese article “A inquisição, o papa e o suspiro de alguns católicos conservadores” (The Inquisition, the Pope and the Yearn of Some Conservative Catholics).

The major digression in the issue of the Inquisition and a pro-life identity came with this comment:

In the subject of the history of the Inquisition, Julio is completely illiterate. The Protestant Reformation, in England, killed in a few months more people than the Inquisition did in four centuries.

Obviously, this comment did not respond to the main question in my article: How can those who defend the Inquisition fight against abortion?

Or, to be more precise: How do they want to fight the culture of death of socialism, homosexuality and feminism when they feel comfortable with the culture of torture and death of the Inquisition?

I do not mention the identity of the comment author in order to make it clear that I am attacking stances and ideas, not people. Moreover, the author is a man I respect, in spite of differences. I respect greatly his wife too, a very considerate woman. Yet, for literary convenience, I will call him in this text just Jack Man.

Sometimes, it is preferable not to mention real names to avoid embarrassment and personal attacks. In the case of his comment, Jack Man did not have this care, and many of his followers have interpreted his comment as a carte blanche to post aggressive messages both in my Facebook and in other forums, not sparing expletives and adjectives such as “antichrist.” Some said, “The master has spoken, so shut up!” At least, the axes, sickles and hammers were only in very heavy and ugly words. (I’m already accustomed to this, coming from the Protestant Left, whose more common weapons are expletives.)

It is in a moment such as this that I give thanks to God that there is no more the Inquisition, because if there were, this rabid pro-Inquisition mob would come up to me with real axes, sickles and hammers to lynch me much before the tribunal of the holy office were able to pick me, judge me and condemn me to death by burning.

One of the strong Catholic reactions to my questioning if the identity pro-life can join the defense of the Inquisition was:

Seeing Julio Severo defaming and denigrating the Inquisition, I notice that he is an ignorant or acts in bad faith. If he is ignorant, he may still learn. If he acts in bad faith, he deserves to be execrated. Anyway, what he said does not offend me. I think that what is much more serious is that those who have an obligation to defend the Inquisition are shamed by it.

This explicitly pro-Inquisition Facebook comment could be seen as an isolated case, but it was “liked” (or signed) by some Midia Sem Mascara columnists.

If they want to accuse me of “defaming” and “denigrating” communism and its atrocities, I humbly accept this “shame” — which for me is a great joy.

If they want to accuse me of “defaming” and “denigrating” Nazism and its crime of the Holocaust, I humbly accept this “shame” — which for me is a great joy.

In a similar way, if they want to accuse me of “defaming” and “denigrating” the Inquisition, I humbly accept this “shame” — which for me is a great joy.

They can also add that I “defame” and “denigrate” the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF). This is the largest organization of contraception, abortion and sex education in the world. Its founder, Margaret Sanger, came from an Irish Catholic family, and before the rise of the Soviet Union, she already preached feminism, socialism, abortion and anarchy. Her greatest opponent was evangelical Anthony Comstock.

There is a parallel between the Inquisition and IPPF. Both have varied torture tools. While the Catholic Inquisition tortured and killed presumably only adults, IPPF uses medical instruments to torture and kill babies: saline injection, partial abortion, dismemberment and decapitation.

Tony Man (not his real name, because he is a friend of Jack Man and wants to remain unnamed), calls IPPF “Planned Parenthood Inquisition.” He has this to ask to those who love and defend the Inquisition: They want babies Protestants to be aborted or merely tortured and killed after birth?

Following the excellent reasoning of Tony Man, I wonder: What about if IPPF had Vatican approval, as the Inquisition had, then it could kill only Protestant babies and other “heretical” babies?

For Tony Man and for me, it is very simple: if you can excuse or defend the Catholic Inquisition, what prevents you from condoning or defending the IPPF Inquisition?

The pro-abortion guy can coolly upbraid you: “Your Catholic Church had the Inquisition and we have IPPF. Leave us with our genocide and you stay with yours.” But, on both sides, there is denial, although in the Catholic side the pope has already asked for forgiveness. So the insistence of defending the Inquisition only exposes its defenders to ridicule.

The only difference between the Inquisition and IPPF is that one has a Catholic title and the other does not. Is this then the reason that those who defend the Inquisition condemn IPPF? But what moral ethics have the Inquisition defenders to attack IPPF?

The fact that there are Catholics today defending the Inquisition indicates only a reality: apostasy.

Tony Man brought to my knowledge that Malachi Martin, the well-known late Catholic theologian, was an adviser to two popes. Martin said in mid-1990s:

* The smoke of Satan is in the Vatican.

* The Catholic Church has come under the control of Satan.

* That the situation is irreversible.

* That both Pope Paul VI (in the mid-1970s!) and later John Paul II said that it cannot be reversed or even halted by anything man can do.

* That the only way to understand the Third Secret of Fatima, which Malachi Martin was allowed to read (most Catholics trust and revere that apparition) is to accept that the Vatican, the Roman Catholic hierarchy and almost all the Catholic laity in the world, are apostate.

* That Catholicism as we know it, as a religious institution, is spiritually dead and that this is God's will!

These comments by the late Rev. Malachi Martin, gathered by Tony Man through a Martin’s sermon, might explain perfectly why some Catholics who attack a genocide (abortion) are comfortable with another (the Inquisition).

According to Tony Man, looking carefully at the Protestant churches and their institutions in the Western countries, Rev. Martin also said that all of them are apostate. The exception is Protestant churches in the poorest nations of Africa, Asia and Latin America.

It is healthy to face reality, as Martin did. As an evangelical, often I go in the opposite direction of other Protestants, who see Vatican as the Great Babylon described in Revelation 17. Rev. David Wilkerson, an Assembly of God minister and the author of the best-selling “The Cross and the Switchblade,” said that Babylon the Great is America. I agree with him.

Encyclopedia Britannica, in its 11^th edition which I used as the source for the Inquisition in my Portuguese article, is rejected by pro-Inquisition Catholics, because they prefer their own baseless books to an encyclopedia of one hundred years considered by pro-family groups as more reliable than modern encyclopedias. Even so, the pro-Inquisition Catholics close themselves in their denial, even after the pope had already asked for forgiveness. Encyclopedia Britannica also makes a correct description of the Holocaust. Do we have to accept the Nazi version only because the side guilty of crimes does not accept the official version?

Catholic denial, with its pro-Inquisition supporters, is no different from other historical denials, including Nazi and communist.

Is there a revolutionary mindset operating in these affinities? Deniers should answer it.

If I were an evangelical denier, I never would denounce what America, formerly a Protestant power, has been doing to impose abortion and the gay agenda on the world. In addition, I have also denounced the major role of America in the strengthening and funding of the persecution of Christians around the world. It is a sad reality, but truth is truth and it cannot be concealed. To deny, hide, varnish and cripple information about persecution of Christians is a practice of revisionists and other revolutionary mindset agents.

In the Catholic case, Pope John Paul II has already asked for forgiveness. Why then insist on denials and defense of religious genocide?

It makes no sense Catholics attacking a genocide (abortion) and being comfortable with another (the Inquisition).

Leone Lins, a Brazilian who read my original Portuguese article, understood this point. She said, “Until now, I don’t understand the fuss about this article. As I see it, Julio Severo says that those who defend the atrocities perpetrated by the Catholic Inquisition over the centuries have no moral ethics to say that they are against communist genocides. I agree with him.”

Let us return now to the comment by Jack Man, which shunned this central problem:

In the subject of the history of The Inquisition, Julio is completely illiterate. The Protestant Reformation, in England, killed in a few months more people than The Inquisition did in four centuries.

I will not try to respond to this comment which fled from the vital subject, because Jack Man judged me “completely illiterate.” The answer then comes from my friend Michael Carl, an Anglican Episcopal priest and WND journalist.  His response to me was as follows:

Your Catholic critic is confusing the English Reformation with the English Civil War, much of which was between the Protestant Roundheads (Parliamentarians) and the mostly Catholic Cavaliers who supported the king, mostly Catholic because the kings were the Scottish Catholic Stuarts.

There were more Anglicans killed during the brief reign of Catholic Mary Tudor, after the death of the puny Edward. This is the one nicknamed “Bloody Mary” (which is the origin of the cocktail of the same name) because she had Lady Jane Gray and other Protestant Anglicans executed.

There were also other deviations from the central topic. Some Catholics have tried to refute my Portuguese “A inquisição, o papa e o suspiro de alguns católicos conservadores” by appealing to a supposed “Protestant Inquisition.” Such “Protestant Inquisition” exists only in Catholic books. Searching Encyclopedia Britannica, 1911 edition, I have found nothing on “Protestant Inquisition.” But I have found abundant material on the “Catholic Inquisition.” Anyway, even if there were a “Protestant Inquisition,” never in my blog or in my Facebook I have praised or suggested such Inquisition for Catholics.

This article was written in response to some Catholics who have for a long time, under my silence and the silence of many other evangelicals, been praising the Inquisition and, worse, implying that we, evangelicals, deserve it. Do these Catholics want to praise the Inquisition? They are free to do so. They want to say it publicly (as a Mídia Sem Máscara columnist did) that evangelicals are modern “Cathars,” who were considered by the Catholic Inquisition as worthy of torture and death? They are free to do so.

However, they can never say they are fighting the culture of death, because within the culture of death is not only communism. It is also, whether they accept or not, the Inquisition. Do they want to defend life? They cannot then defend the Inquisition. It is not impossible to do so. I have Catholic friends who do not defend the Inquisition. By defending the Inquisition, there is nothing that separates them from defenders of IPPF, the Holocaust and communism. What unites them — the slaughter of the innocents — is stronger than what divides them.

There is no difference between defending IPPF and the Holocaust and defending the Inquisition. But there is a vast difference between fighting against abortion and defending the Inquisition.

Having reaffirmed the main point of my anti-Inquisition and antiabortion stance, let me explain that the Catholic Church does not save. The Evangelical Church also does not save. Who saves? Only Jesus Christ.

But according to Tony Man, Jack Man thinks that the only salvation for Latin America is the Catholic Church. So his involvement in pro-life coalitions with Protestants has only one objective: to help the Catholic Church in a supreme role of spiritual and social salvation for all.

Unfortunately for Jack Man, the Catholic Church in Brazil and other Latin American nations is deeply involved in the Marxist Liberation Theology. Especially in Brazil, the largest Catholic nation in the world, no church has been so involved in the establishment of socialism than the Catholic Church has, because of massive apostasy through the Liberation Theology. So it has no salvation, even for itself, and you do not need to be a Malachi Martin to see it.

It is no wonder: any church, Catholic or Protestant, which thinks that it can bring salvation to this world, will commit atrocities. The Inquisition and pervasive socialism in Brazil are just two examples.

To salve people, not apostate Catholic or Protestant institutions, God is pouring out His Spirit in these last days.

“And in the last days it shall be, God declares, that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams; even on my male servants and female servants in those days I will pour out my Spirit, and they shall prophesy.” (Acts 2:17-18 ESV)

With this Spirit, Jesus’ followers will be able to be victorious over the homosexualist, pro-abortion, socialist Beast, its image, and the number of its name (see Revelation 15:2).

Portuguese version of this article: Um ativista pró-vida pode defender a Inquisição?

Source: Julio Severo in English: www.lastdayswatchman.blogspot.com

Recommended Reading:

United States: between Gayland and Mohammedland

A Charismatic Response to “The Growing Crisis Behind Brazil’s Evangelical Success Story”

Anthony Comstock: the first pro-life activist in the modern history 

[Billthedrill]

Surprise and fear. Our two weapons are surprise and fear.

[marron]

Let me try again...

We can argue whether this was a good policy or not. In point of fact though it was a reform, it had its own problems that we know about...

Mainly if you're one of the ten thousand.

[fidelis]

The Truth About the Spanish Inquisition

More articles

[Alas Babylon!]

"A picture is worth a thousand words..."

[Jack of all Trades]

and ruthless efficiency...

[Seraphicaviary]

My understanding of the Inquisition is the stated goal was a molehunt, not genocide.

Common Jews were not targeted, and had nothing to fear. All those brought before the Inquisition were officials in the Spanish government, because the king wanted only Catholics in official positions. Still, there never is a reason for torture.

The Church did not condone the torture. You had a situation similar to the Vietnam war where local officials acting in the name of the Church went off the deep end, but it was not a general policy of the Inquisition. The Church is still responsible because it put them in that position, and that is why the pope apologized.

There is a huge difference between saying torture happened during the Inquisition and saying it was the purpose of the Inquisition. Even during the Inquisition, those brought forth preferred the Church courts to the State courts, because they had better rules of evidence and had a better chance of getting out unscathed.

Also, the difference between the Holocaust and the Inquisition is in the original documents that survive from the times. No serious researcher depends on an edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica as their source because it is subject to editorializing. The original documents trump any encyclopedia or a stack of PhD opinions, and the original documents do not bear out the Inquisition as a death campaign against the Jews.

Indeed, the Holy Office in the Vatican today is the inheritor of the responsibilities of the Inquisition. The whole point, and the only point, is to determine who is Catholic and who is not. Torture is not part of the program.

[Billthedrill]

And a fanatical devotion to the Pope. Among our weapons...I'll come in again.

[hosepipe]

Uh...how was the Inquisition *genocide*, exactly?

---

Actually it wasn’t genocide it was “religiocide”...
Ever read Fox’s Book of Martyrs?..

Here-—>> http://www.ccel.org/f/foxe/martyrs/home.html

[Claud]

Mainly if you're one of the ten thousand.

Who were executed by the STATE.

[Claud]

Folks we can blather on about generalities all day. But here's an actual transcript of an actual trial before the Inquisition, that of St. Joan of Arc on the 28th of May 1481:

"for these causes, as hardened and obstinate in thy crimes, excesses and errors, WE DECLARE THEE OF RIGHT EXCOMMUNICATE AND HERETIC; and after your errors have been destroyed in a public preaching, We declare that you must be abandoned and that We do abandon thee to the secular authority, as a member of Satan, separate from the Church, infected with the leprosy of heresy, in order that you may not corrupt also the other members of Christ; praying this same power, that, as concerns death and the mutilation of the limbs, it may be pleased to moderate its judgment; and if true signs of penitence should appear in thee, that the Sacrament of Penance may be administered to thee. "

See what happened there? The Bishop excommunicated Joan..turned her over to the government, and prayed that it might moderate its judgment (probably insincerely).

You want to debate this, learn what you are debating first.

[metmom]

Would really like to see her numbers on this claim.

Me too.

I see you have no replies yet.

[marron]

Who were executed by the STATE

When they light up the fire under your feet, that will be a comfort I'm sure.

Jesus Christ was executed by the state.

Again, if you want to make the point that people are human, and that the totalitarian instinct runs deep, I'm not going to argue with you. If you want to point out that other religions and other movements have used force and intimidation to squelch dissent, you are very right. If you want to point out that in other times and other places it was good catholics getting torched, rather than good catholics doing the torching, then go for it. There probably are plentiful examples to choose from.

If you want to make the point that, all things being equal, getting torched by the state for your beliefs is not that unusual in the overall scheme of things, this last century proves you right.

If you want to make the claim that the guys doing the torching did so under the urgings of the Holy Spirit, or that the ones who turned them over to the state to be torched did so in obedience to the Holy Spirit, then no. Don't go there.

Hostility between Christian sects is, to me, tragic, but it was baked in early back when dissenting could get you killed. Thank God, and I mean it, that religious dissent between Christian brothers these days nets you some snarky comments on an internet board. You wouldn't believe it sometimes to read the commentary, but we actually (mostly) like each other. There was a day, though, when it wasn't like that.

[Dqban22]

“I am I and my Circumstances”, Ortega y Gaset

There is a deep discrepancy and polarization regarding the Catholic Inquisition; an event which is probably one of the most hated events in the history of mankind. In stark contrast, the Protestant Inquisition is never mentioned, much less condemned. We must distinguish between what is myth and what is reality. Historical events as complex as the horrors committed 500 years ago in the name of religion, must not be judged through the ethical and moral standards of our times, but rather they should be analyzed in accordance with the prevailing norms of the times in which they occurred. There is not defense for the Inquisition, either Catholic or Protestant. But these events should be approached analyzing the circumstances prevailing at the time with an auto-critical attitude, leaving preconceived ideas behind. Today we recoil in horror remembering the Holocaust or the “rape on Peking”, but, Would be accepted uncritically today the total obliteration of Dresden, an open city with no military or strategic value, by incendiary bombs, or the nuclear attacks to Hiroshima y Nagasaki?

THE SPANISH INQUISITION VS. THE PROTESTANT

The Inquisition was established in Spain in 1242 and was not formally abolished until 1834. His strongest activity is recorded between 1478 and 1700, during the reign of the Catholic Kings followed by the Hapsburgs. In terms of the number of executed, the studies by Heningsen and Contreras 44,674 causes open between 1540 and 1700, concluded that stake in the burned 1346 people (less than 9 people per year throughout the Empire).

The British Henry Kamen, known non-Catholic scholar of the Inquisition Spanish, has calculated a total of some 3,000 victims over its six years of existence. Kamen adds that “it is interesting to compare the statistics on sentences to death of civilians and inquisitorial tribunals between the 15th and 18th centuries in Europe: for every one hundred death sentences handed down by courts, the Inquisition issued one”.

The wars of religion in Germany and France lasted for more than one century and there were hundreds of thousands of deaths. The Inquisition was created by the Kings of Spain to avoid that you happened the same.

Sir James Stephen calculates that in 300 years there were in England 264,000 sentenced to death for various crimes. About 800 per year (more than two per day).

Martin Luther, founder of Protestantism: in 1525 preached the nobles: “to kill wound, decapitate, disgorge as many famers you can” Happy if you die in it, you die in obedience to the word divine”. More than one hundred thousand peasants perished.

In Protestant Saxony, blasphemy was death penalty. Calvin sent burning Servet (Catholic physician who discovered the circulation of the blood, and who were eliminated by “counter” to the Bible with such discovery) and many others.

In Germany, more than 100,000 witches were burned. Even children of seven years and the dying elderly. A single judge burned in 16 years 800 witches (an average of 50 people a year).

In 1560 the Scottish Parliament decreed death penalty against all Catholics.

Here are some articles of the English code for Ireland:
“Catholic teaching to other Catholic or Protestant shall be hanged.”

“If a Catholic acquires land, all Protestant has the right to deprive him.”

“Perpetual banishment to every Catholic priest; those who evaded it, are half hanged but kept alive and then dismembered”. What followed?

The Calvinist communities of Paris, Orleans, Rouen, Lyon, Angey at general synod in 1559, enacted death penalty to the heretics.

Do you not know that United States owes its foundation to Puritans fleeing religious persecution in England?

The Spanish Inquisition was not free of the ideas of his time, and participated in general cruelty. But you keep in mind the following points: According to American historian, Philip Wayne Powell (Tree of Hate), “barely more than one hundred persons were executed in Spanish America as a result of Inquisition action during its some 250 years of formal existence.” (31 by the Tribunal of Lima, 47 in Mexico and 3 in Cartagena de Indias, Colombia).

Stark contrast with the Protestant persecution of Catholics in Elizabethan England (in 70 years) where were tortured and executed 130 Catholic priests and 60 laymen, or a total 250 killed by the state if one includes those dying in prison.

The last execution of the Inquisition was finally carried out in Spain on July 26, 1826. According to Ernst Schafer, a German Protestant researcher, the number of Protestants in Spain condemned to death in 300 years, from 1520 until 1834, was 220; of them, only 12 were burned.

You see: does not touch nor to one per year. What happens with the image of the Inquisitor stood in front of endless rows of pyres with doomed? It becomes that he is lying.

[Alamo-Girl]

I don’t have a clue why a pro-lifer would defend the inquisition.

[Dqban22]

In the Spanish Inquisition, it was responsible for religious offences or heresy, blasphemy, bigamy, and other specific crimes against the faith, committed by Catholics of birth or converted from other religions. Neither the Jews nor the Muslims fell under the jurisdiction of the Inquisition. The penalties imposed by the Inquisition were applied by the civil authority, while the ordinary civil courts dealt with civil and criminal offenses.

When a person was denounced by two witnesses began an investigation without them knowing it, including its past, its reputation, its predecessors, their businesses, and partners. If evidence were “clear, certain and specific” (were required the concurrence of the three) that could be certain the charges, then began the process. Then it was cited to the Court or else be arrested him if there was danger that could run away.

It could only remain prisoner if (1) five witnesses, with satisfactory evidence, testified against him. (2) If had decided by common agreement the Bishop, the inquisitors and the Prosecutor, after investigations, which had wrapped heresy in the case; (3) by Decree of the Bishop, under certain conditions. In all cases the approval of the Supreme Council was needed until he could a defendant being arrested. Finally, two doctors had to examine the mental state of the accused.

The prisoner had to receive a view of your case within three days of his arrest. They were then submitted to a judge swearing to tell the truth. Are you reported the charges raised against him, evidence and is urged him to confess and be reconciled with the Church. If the accused refused, then received another view in ten days. Still given another chance if it remained stubborn. After that last chance began the interrogation.

Torquemada’s instructions were that the inquisitors had to be “cautious, and charitable”, looking for nothing more than the truth. During the interrogation should be present as defenders of the reo two Clergy, not members of the Court. After four days read them his statements and the defendant could make any clarification and are granted many new views he requested.

When he finished the interrogation, the Prosecutor presented their evidence to inquisitors, asking his judgment in accordance with the law. Then read you to the accused, from beginning to end, the accusation, with a pause at each article so that the accused could replicate, while a notary took note of their bowel movements.

If he was poor, was assigned to the defendant, a lawyer paid by the Holy Office. If he chose not one determined, then the court appointed one well prepared and great reputation who would defend him with great zeal, loyalty, impartiality and good faith.

The defense counsel had access all minutes them of the trial, could rebut charges of the Prosecutor wings, dismiss witnesses, request new information or new views, and had full access to the accused, which in turn could also see copies of the process, although the names of the witnesses were omitted. The defendant could, however, appoint all his enemies and all those who might have a motive to harm him, things that the Inquisitor took into account.

Unfortunately, torture was normal in those times and, despite all the falsehoods against Torquemada, he tried to limit it and mitigate its, clarifying that it should not be used as a means of punishment but to obtain absolute proof of something that had already been tested more than reasonable doubt. The accused had to have been contradicted in serious matters being evident bad faith, and evidence of prevailing witnesses.

If you came to the conclusion that you should resort to torture, a doctor would examine it to determine if their physical condition could bear it. A doctor had to be present and had to suspend torture if the doctor so ordered.

Catholics who were tied to the legs of four horses during the reign of Elizabeth I and James I of England, were not offered no legal protection. Times of great barbarity were when attached to a monarch English the privilege of the divorce by the beheading of his wife.

The British historian Henry Kamen, known scholar non-Catholic of the Spanish Inquisition, has calculated a total of some 3,000 victims over its six years of existence. Kamen adds that “it is interesting to compare the statistics on sentences to death of civilians and inquisitorial tribunals between the 15th and 18th centuries in Europe: for every one hundred death sentences handed down by courts, the Inquisition issued one”.

[Dqban22]

correction

The British historian Henry Kamen, known scholar non-Catholic of the Spanish Inquisition, has calculated a total of some 3,000 victims over its SIX HUNDRED years of existence.
Kamen adds that “it is interesting to compare the statistics on sentences to death of civilians and inquisitorial tribunals between the 15th and 18th centuries in Europe: for every one hundred death sentences handed down by courts, the Inquisition issued one”.

[YHAOS]

“I know a few who might try.”

I don’t. But, being aware of the multiple facets of human nature, there can be no doubt that they are out there. They should carefully study the fate of the German People, in the immediate post WWII.

[YHAOS]

“totalitarian tendencies run deep.”

I would argue the contrary. “Totalitarian tendencies” (extreme hostility to contrary thought) represent the most shallow reaction imaginable.

[Harmless Teddy Bear]

Could you kind of sum up what you are trying to say?

Because I tried to read your article and I have no idea what the heck you were trying to convey.

[YHAOS]

“all I have to do is get you taking (talking?) for 15 minutes on the Trinity and I can pretty much guarantee you will say something heretical.”

I am a Protestant. My very existence is, itself, heretical. Talking not required.

I am not in the habit of thinking in terms of heresy. Per instructions, I leave decisions about heresy to a higher authority. Do not misunderstand. I have thoughts about heresy, but I do not seek to inflict others with those thoughts. Nor do I think to punish others who hold thoughts contrary to my own.