See releated threads:
Protest Songs [review of "Les Huguenots", an opera about the St Bartholomew Massacre]
HISTORY OF THE HUGUENOTS
The Huguenots - their faith, history, and impact.
FOX'S BOOK OF MARTYRS, CHAPTER IV, Papal Persecutions
Posted on 08/21/2011 4:55:48 AM PDT by HarleyD
King Charles IX of France, under the sway of his mother, Catherine de Medici, orders the assassination of Huguenot Protestant leaders in Paris, setting off an orgy of killing that results in the massacre of tens of thousands of Huguenots all across France.
Two days earlier, Catherine had ordered the murder of Admiral Gaspard de Coligny, a Huguenot leader whom she felt was leading her son into war with Spain. However, Coligny was only wounded, and Charles promised to investigate the assassination in order to placate the angry Huguenots. Catherine then convinced the young king that the Huguenots were on the brink of rebellion, and he authorized the murder of their leaders by the Catholic authorities. Most of these Huguenots were in Paris at the time, celebrating the marriage of their leader, Henry of Navarre, to the king's sister, Margaret.
A list of those to be killed was drawn up, headed by Coligny, who was brutally beaten and thrown out of his bedroom window just before dawn on August 24. Once the killing started, mobs of Catholic Parisians, apparently overcome with bloodlust, began a general massacre of Huguenots. Charles issued a royal order on August 25 to halt the killing, but his pleas went unheeded as the massacres spread. Mass slaughters continued into October, reaching the provinces of Rouen, Lyon, Bourges, Bourdeaux, and Orleans. An estimated 3,000 French Protestants were killed in Paris, and as many as 70,000 in all of France. The massacre of Saint Bartholomew's Day marked the resumption of religious civil war in France.
History ping...
My father's middle name was Bartholomew and my grandfather was anti-Catholic, although he married an Irish girl, he forbad the family from entering a Catholic church. This may have been in part shaped by the experiences of his grandfather who commanded a Police precinct in New York during the July, 1863 draft riots, mainly fueled by Irish immigrants.
In before the *Yeah but the Protestants.......*
LoL...
Throughout history, ruthless and or desperate people have seized upon 'otherness' to rally towards desired goals. The deeper the emotion, the more force it generates and for that religion is hard to beat!
This is what our FOUNDERS were thinking when they penned the FIRST AMENDMENT clause for FREEDOM OF RELIGION! They saw the history of the state-mandated religion and these abuses and made it clear that our government would have no such thing for our country. It is the recent generations of illiberal de-constructists who have turned it into "Freedom from Religion"!
Funny, you never hear very many Gaspards in the roll calls at kindergarten these days
My father told me we were from the Huguenots (Merrill), but did not talk of the persecution. Out family came over in the early 1700s. I suspect it was because of the religious persecutions common in those days.
My father told me we were from the Huguenots (Merrill), but did not talk of the persecution. Our family came over in the early 1700s. I suspect it was because of the religious persecutions common in those days.
Joan of Arc saved France from the English, then turned her over to the English to be burned at the stake (after all sorts of interrogation and trials of course). Now France claims her as a national hero.
Ever hear of Nicholas Martiau? I’ve read that half the english speaking people in the world are related to him. One of his descendants was George Washington.
There is a stained glass window in the New-York Historical Society's library on Central Park West depicting Louis XIV revoking the Edict of Nantes. (I think the king is running his sword through it.) I assume the founders of the society were linking their family histories to the diaspora that act caused.
See releated threads:
Protest Songs [review of "Les Huguenots", an opera about the St Bartholomew Massacre]
HISTORY OF THE HUGUENOTS
The Huguenots - their faith, history, and impact.
FOX'S BOOK OF MARTYRS, CHAPTER IV, Papal Persecutions
>”They saw the history of the state-mandated religion and these abuses and made it clear that our government would have no such thing for our country. It is the recent generations of illiberal de-constructists who have turned it into “Freedom from Religion”!”
Yes, as they also did not mean this meant the official institution of atheistic secularism, which has effectively been the result.
The fact is by not allowing such things as any sanctioned prayer by teachers,m etc it sends a message to the country that we do not see ourselves in need of help from a Creator, or deem anyone more than man worthy of our gratitude. Thus it officially fosters agnosticism or atheism.
One can argue that not allowing state sanctioned prayer means we recognize the state has no business in that, but you cannot separate the state from a basic belief system and practices, and in a Democracy the people will decide what that is.
And in America the Christian faith was it, and in the general sense the Gov., including the writers of the 1st Amendment, overall sanctioned it, and which was reflected in courts and schools for a long time.
And by censoring churches from endorsing candidates within the church itself via 501(3)(c) (voluntary but basically needed) then it seeks to silence not just gov. from positively speaking about religion, but religion from speaking about government, contrary the 1st Amendment.
Yet this means of establishment does allow that the people may choose to officially sanction atheism, and with officially sanctioned secularism - which is intolerant of official sanction of the general Christian faith - then it has. And which functionally serves as religion in determining an ever morphing morality, to our collective hurt. http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/RevealingStatistics.html#TABLE
Excerpts from:
Christ the King : Lord of History
by, Anne W. Carroll, pages 244-251.
Philip was crowned king of Spain in 1556. … In thanksgiving to God, Philip began the construction of a monastery-palace in honor of St Lawrence … This building symbolizes Philip’s character strong, unostentatious, centered on Christ. It contains his “throne”—a simple canvas stool under a painting of the Crucifixion, and the magnificent basilica where he would slip in quietly to pray as he bore the great burdens of his office. …
[After Philip’s wedding] Philip took his gentle, lovely wife [Isabel of Valois] home, leaving France under the rule of Francis II and Mary Stuart, assisted by the Guises.
Calvinism had made strong headway among French aristocrats (though the majority of the ordinary French people held to the Catholic Church), as nobles saw the new religion as a means of wresting political power from the crown and from the Catholic nobility. With Henry II dead and a weak, young king on the throne, the Huguenots (French Calvinists) under the leadership of Admiral Coligny saw an opportunity to seize power. In March 1560 came the shadowy plot known as the Conspiracy or Tumult of Amboise, in which certain Huguenots—probably with Cecil’s connivance and with the support of Calvin himself, who had said that it was lawful to slay those who hindered the preaching of Calvinism—attempted to kidnap Francis and murder the Guises. They hoped to control Francis and influence him to be Calvinist. The plot was uncovered and the head of the Guise family, Duke Francis, moved against the ringleaders.
Furious at the failure of their plot, and encouraged by Cecil, who urged them to make good use of “their pen and weapons,” the Huguenots began the Wars of Religion in France, sweeping the country with a wave of diabolical anti-Catholic atrocities during 1561 Churches were devastated; nuns and priests were scourged and killed; the tombs of saints were violated. At Montpellier the Huguenots sacked 60 churches and killed 150 priests and monks. The famous monastery of Cluny, from which had come the great reform of the Church in the tenth and eleventh centuries, was looted. All that remained of two of France’s most famous saints, Irenaeus of Lyons and Martin of Tours, was thrown into the Loire River, the incorrupt body of St Francis of Paola was taken from its tomb, dragged through the streets and burned.
By this time, Francis II had died; and Catherine d’Medici, Henry II’s widow, was ruling in the name of the young Charles IX. …
Catherine would wield power for thirty years, manipulating her children as so many pawns on a chessboard, seeking power for herself and her family, putting personal gain ahead of the rights of the Church.
Catherine was already well-practiced in defying the Church Forced into a political marriage at 14 (to further Francis I’s ambitions in Italy), she had felt her position threatened because she had borne no children after ten years of marriage. Prayers and pilgrimages had not relieved her barrenness. So she turned from God to a power she felt could get things done more efficiently witchcraft and devil worship. On January 19, 1544, Francis was born, and Catherine bore a child a year for the next decade.
But no one can defy the laws of God without eventually suffering the consequences. And the consequences for the children Catherine bore were frightening to behold: Francis, dead before he was 17, his brain half-rotted away; Isabel, a loving and loyal wife to Philip, but dead in her early 20’s; Claude, crippled from birth and welcoming her death at 27; Louis, Jean, Victor, all dead within a year of their baptisms Charles, insane and dead at 24; Hercule, stunted and misshapen, dead at 30; Marguerite, so beautiful that men traveled hundreds of miles simply to look at her, yet never able to bear children and pursuing a life of immorality with terrible energy until she grew old and sick and ugly and returned to the God her mother had forsaken; Henri, greedy, perverted, assassinated in his 38th year.
No one can sin except through his own free will choice, but sometimes the innocent suffer because of the sins of others. Catherine’s children were responsible for their own souls, but each one of them suffered because of their mother’s sins. And so, tragically, did France.
Following close upon Calvinist gains in France, Cecil begin stirring up trouble in the Low Countries (also known as the Netherlands, or Holland and Belgium). William of Orange, who took favors from Philip and promised loyalty, plotted against him behind his back with Cecil and Coligny. The Protestant nobles were against Philip for religious reasons primarily, but they also wanted political freedom and complete control of the wealth of the Low Countries. In 1566 a group of the noblemen came before Margaret of Parma, Philip’s governor in the Netherlands, with insolent demands. One of her companions said, “Don’t be afraid of these beggars,” so the next time they came dressed in rags. Their rebellion is therefore sometimes called the Revolt of the Beggars. Margaret was willing to consider such of their requests as were reasonable and Philip himself had made concessions, but they were not willing to compromise: they wanted Spain and the Catholic Church out of the Netherlands.
On August 16, 1566, the great cathedral of Antwerp was gutted by a Calvinist mob. They began by smashing the statue of the Blessed Virgin Mary that had been carried in solemn procession the preceding Sunday; they chopped off the heads of statues of Christ with axes and transfixed other images and pictures of Christ with swords; they assaulted a great old crucifix, which displayed the two thieves between whom Christ was crucified, leaving untouched the thieves, but hacking the form of Christ to pieces. They smashed stained glass windows and the great organ, and stole and defiled the vessels and plate. From Antwerp the destruction spread all over the Low Countries, until in the incredibly short time of six weeks the churches in more than 400 towns and villages had been sacked. In Antwerp alone more than 25 churches were devastated in the one terrible night of August 16-17. …
Meanwhile in France, Catherine d’Medici, who of course had sent no aid in response to the Pope’s call for a crusade against the Turks, was becoming fearful that the Huguenots were gaining too much power over Charles, as her son came to rely more on Coligny and less on his mother. On August 22, 1572, Catherine tried to have Coligny assassinated, but the assassin failed and only wounded hint Catherine now feared that her son would find out her involvement in the assassination attempt. So she deliberately provoked Charles—whose mind was unbalanced—into an insane rage, so that he ordered the murder of all the Huguenot leaders in Paris. Catherine and Henri of Guise, Duke Francis’ son, drew up the list. On August 24, the feast of St. Bartholomew, soldiers of the French king systematically struck down the Huguenot leaders. But having unleashed the violence, Charles and Catherine were unable to stop it, and the soldiers ran wild, killing nearly 5,000 Huguenots, including women and children, in what is known as the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre. This atrocity gave the Calvinists further anti-Catholic propaganda, though Catherine had ordered the killings not for the sake of the Church but to increase her own power.
Christ the King : Lord of History
by, Anne W. Carroll
A replay to the 1928 presidential election when Al Smith was greeted by tens of thousands of the Klan in Oklahoma would provide suitable backdrop.
If one looks at the real history of the same people who lead to the Junkers and Prussian sensibility that outlined German history from 1870 to 1945
let's trace the Huguenots, shall we. In france, under Francis I, France was tolerant of all religious views
however, what did the Huguenots do? In the affair of the placards they posted placards all over Paris and even on the bedchamber door of the king (a security breach that angered him and made him change his tolerance position) -- these placards were attacks on Catholics.
So, instead of discussing, the Huguenots went to attack the Catholic majority who until then were content to let them live and debate and discuss and debate. Incidently, until this time the Huguenots were increasing, like the Moslems in Bradford, but then they started to get shrill and wake people up with their attacks
This polemic was an attack and the Huguenots started this retaliation.This was in 1534
Next, came the French wars of religion in which the Huguenots conspired against the King. This, added to the previous attack meant that they now publically came to attack the conservative forces. The progressives of the Huguenots were the precursors of the Revolutionaires
The people who became Huguenots were primarily the urban elite, like our present-day New Yorkers who take a fad and they saw that this was a means to oppose the King, so Huguenotism became a political tool
A group of Huguenots tried to kidnap the Prince Francis II when his father died -- causing more antagonism.
Huguenots in 1560 attacked Catholic Churchs and destroyed properties in Rouen and La Rochelle -- thus the FIRST salvo was lobbed by the Huguenots. -- the Catholics retailiated with mobs at seeing their places of worship attacked and defiled by Huguenots
Next, in 1562-70, we have the wars -- now political-religious, so no, it was not a simple case of "persecution" --> The Huguenots were one side of a civil war, which they lost
Now, let's come to the juicy part, the St. Bart's day massacre -- this occured in 1572, 40 years after the first provocations by the Huguenots and 12 years after they started destroying Catholic Churchs (just like the Moslems in America they were quiet until their numbers grew)
now, King Charles XI was openly in favor of the Huguenots -- so a political moment. Hence the attacks on the opposing side
So, let's see in conclusion -- Huguenots first start their provocations in 1534, then in 1560 start attacking Catholic Churchs (with no provocation), then start their political support against the conservatives and start a civil war. After 12 years their side loses the civil war and yet they are still allowed to live and practise their faith (note this is the 1500s, not a nice time, yet they get this tolerance) -- but they still play political intrigues. So, one faction starts to attack and massacre the other faction
so, their proponents ought to stop the entire "poor persecuted Huguenots" -- they brought it on themselves.
the Huguenots after doing their persecuting of Catholics, got retaliation, then they went to England and many to South Africa where they were among the racists enforcing Apartheid.
Many came to the US and Germany as well.
In England and Germany they were Calvinists in non-Calvinist lands, but no "persecution". In the US they were one of many and no, no "persecutions". In South Africa they were one of the folks doing the persecutions and in Northern Germany they enthusiastically participated in the Kulturkampf.
what persecution did they face once they left France?
As shown above (and one can check the facts for oneself), the Huguenots were the one who bit the hand that fed them, then launched the first attacks, started a civil war and then lost
They were like the Moslems in present day France -- slowly starting, making nice noises, but then attacking Christian churchs and finally starting a civil war.
They lost, tough luck --- the losers in the 1500s were not given much graces, yet they were allowed to stay with the same acts of tolerance AFTER losing politically. Yet they continued supporting political intrigues and there was a political massacre.
The Huguenots were on the losing side, so they got killed like the Catholics in England or in Scandanavia.
It was the 1500s, a pretty barbaric time
The mass killings of the Huguenots were done at the hands of rioters in a pogrom after it was learned that the Huguenots were conspiring with the English to stage a coup and facilitate an invasion. It is never healthy to conspire against a sitting king. After this, one branch became the persecutors in South Africa, another branch, many would have joined the KKK (I'm not implying all by any means, but many)
these guys slapped the King that was supporting them, and silently stood grew and then became a threat, first attacking Churches, committing acts of sacrilege (when their numbers grew to 5-10% like the Moslems) and then launching civil war.
The Huguenots were on the losing side, so they got killed like the Catholics in England or in Scandanavia.
It was the 1500s, a pretty barbaric time
The mass killings of the Huguenots were done at the hands of rioters in a pogrom after it was learned that the Huguenots were conspiring with the English to stage a coup and facilitate an invasion. It is never healthy to conspire against a sitting king.
Well yeah, if you want to compare mass murder to jay walking. Lighten up. I love Catholics. We hard working God Fearing Americans, protestant, Catholic, and Jewish, must together oppose the marxist elitists.
:’) Thanks Tainan.
I fully agree with you. Posting this one incident from 400 years ago when there were social and political causes mixed in (as much as religious) is one of the left's ways of attempting to split us up.
That two political factions attacked each other 400+ years ago has no relevance to us today.
did you notice that the media has tried hard to ignore the World Youth Day in Spain where nearly 2 million young Christians came to show their enthusiasm for Christ? This goes against the left's agenda that "God is dead" and they wanted to keep it quiet. Of course there were the usual gay supporters protesting that the pope said marriage is between one man and one woman that cannot be broken, and the media tried to light on that, but it only came out showing the gays as the attackers.
ROTR is correct -- we should all together remember our real enemies today.
Thanks for the Ping!
The Huguenots were the mainstay of the functioning of the State in France- the managers, accountants, and planners ( it’s that Protestant work ethic thing) many were highly trained trained gold and silversmiths, and other artisans. The massacre and the flight of the Huguenots are believed by many to be one of the underlying causes of the French Revolution.
Many Huguenots escaped and fled to the New World and to Russia, then to America. Carl Fabergé and Paul Revere come to mind.
Comparing the Huguenots to Muslems is despicable.
In the 1500s, they were nicey,nice, quietly growing. In france, under Francis I, France was tolerant of all religious views -- but the H's got into the mood to bite the hand and this is illustrated in "the affair of the placards" in 1534 which directly challenged the king's authority and even security
These went on to attack the then tolerant majority in France -- again, just like the Moslems do now
in 1560, the H's were the ones who started the first destruction of ancient Churches -- note the first salvo was started by the Huguenots
Now, 40 years after the first confrontation by the Huguenots the St. Bart's massacre occurs -- 40 years after the country had been infiltrated by these people and who 25 years after the affair of the placards had started attacking Churches
these Huguenots then played the political game supporting the old enemy -- the English against France
They acted then just as the Moslems in France are acting now.
Yes, we generally got the better Huguenots to America, however the ones who went to South Africa perpetuated apartheid and the ones who went to Prussia reinforced the Prussian militaristic regime which went on to perpetuate such atrocities as the Kulturkampf and the forcible re-organization of Germania into a Prussian influenced Germany that went on a straight Prussian trajectory up until 1945...
Secondly, the various actions of those H's have no influence on the descendents of these folks -- just as no doubt most of us have the blood of various conquerors, defeated, tyrants, saints, sinners etc.
Thirdly, the actions of the H descendants in Prussia have no relation to the morality of descendants in America today -- these were 5th/6th or more distant cousins 4 - 5 times removed.
Lol
In after the "Yeah but the Protestants....."
Why am I not surprised?
Predictable as the sunrise.
The Huguenots didn’t “infiltrate” France. They were French, Français de souche who were enlightened by the Reformation. Read a good history of the Reformation, then come back, minus your anti-Protestant bias and ignorance.
"...polemic was an attack"
"...attacked Catholic Churchs and destroyed properties..."
That anyone in the Roman Catholic community could possibly equate placards, arguing, and even destroying property with the slaughter of humans is remarkable. Although it is almost assuredly in doubt, even if what you claimed were completely true, that you would conclude the Huguenots "brought it on themselves" discloses much about Rome's deep need for props and its absence of understanding faith, alone. No wonder the Reformation got traction.
Real reform, the heart of the Huguenot message, meant that reliance upon human anything, is a return to Law, a slavery promoted by Rome (read the Catholic historian excerpt), but despised by the Apostle Paul (read Galatians, Romans, Acts). Rome clung to self-reliance, in spite of claims they acknowledge Augustine's victory over Pelagius and have since morphed that into a reliance upon Rome.
The trust which the Holy Spirit creates in the soul of an elect believer recognizes grace as an unmerited favor which removes the need for anything...except Jesus. Rome, on the other hand, kills for statues, bones, bricks and placards. Astonishing that they would admit it.
Second step they bite the hand of the government that was tolerant
Third step they destroyed Churches
Fourth step, they collaborated with the enemy of the state (a competing power)
They lost and got evicted -- that's what happens to those who are traitors to the nation.
However, that is besides the point, this was a historical article, not a religious one so please do not make it one
Historically speaking the Huguenots DID slap the hand of the government that had tolerated it, just as the Moslems do in France today
Historically speaking they did the attack the majority first and destroy Churches -- the first salvo so to speak
Historically speaking they did collaborate with the enemies of the nation and foment civil war
Do read up on the history of this time in France and the civil war that this caused. The Huguenots were one side of the civil war -- even worse, they collaborated with the ancienne enemy (England). They were hence traitors to the nation as well as fomenters of civil war.
They lost and got massacred, that's what happened in all times right up to the present.
This was a socio-political conflict with a religious dimension and this article specifically talks about the historical aspect (it IS from the History channel), so do look at this aspect.
FYI
In France today, Protestants are among the most prosperous, successful, and politically powerful people in France. It’s that darned Protestant work ethic thing.
The overwhelming majority of Americans are Protestants.
Almost all Evangelicals are Calvinists.
There are FReepers here who are Protestant, Jewish, and Catholic , Orthodox, Mormon etc. This trashing of different denominations and beliefs and comparing Christians to Islam is misplaced and doesn’t belong here.
Hey, we have (some) Catholics right here on FR who have called for a new Inquisition, and called for the destruction of our Constitutional Republic so as to replace it with a Catholic Monarchy. And they do so while claiming to be "conservatives" and that Protestants are the real "liberals".
IMO there's nothing at all astonishing about it. It's what they do and believe.
so, hence it was not religious but more regional
The reason for this myth in America is that many see countries as monolithically one religion, which is not correct:
you can see more details in post 523, the second map
|
Country |
Population (millions) |
Position as a nation-state |
|
British Isles |
3 |
Until the end of the 100 years wars, it seemed that England and France would merge under one king. When the English lost and were thrown out of Western France, that led to the consolidation of both England and France as nation-states with language unity. However, Scotland still was independent and the Welsh chaffed under English rule. Ireland is reduced to warring clans. |
|
France & low countries |
12 |
See above. France emerges as the strongest nation-state, but is really an empire with the northern, “French-speaking” population around Paris ruling over the southern l’Oil areas. The French had recently destroyed and conquered the Duchy of Burgundy
The low countries (Belgium, Netherlands) are part of Spain and remain so until 1600. These were once the capitals of the Holy Roman Empire (Bruges was once a center of trade) and hence have a larger population, more trade and commerce. Belgium is part of Holland until 1830 even though it is completely Catholic. In 1830 it fights and gets independence. |
|
Germany & Scandanavia |
7.3 |
No sense of nation-state until Napoleon and even then as nation-states like Hesse, Bavaria, etc. not as Germany (that only happens post WWI and more especially post WWII when Germans from Eastern Europe who have lived in EE for centuries are thrown out to Germany) Scandanavia has a stronger sense of nation-states, but the Swedes are in union with the Geats (Goths) and the Norwegians and Danes are in a union. The strongest nation-state is Denmark. Sweden is close but will not develop it until the 1600s. Norway is still tribal as is Iceland and Finland Switzerland is still part of the Holy Roman Empire and has no sense of a nation-state but is a loose confederation that have nothing in common except that they band together against common enemies. This will remain the state of Switzerland until Napoleon conquers Switzerland and creates the Helvetic Confederation (and then adds it to France!). Post Napoleon, there is consolidation, but Switzerland still has a large civil war and only gets some semblance of a nation state in the late 1800s |
|
Italy |
7.3 |
No sense of nation-state, but strong city-states. This is the most advanced “nation” in Western Europe, with an advanced financial system, manufacturing, strong in agriculture etc. Only it does not have a central government, which puts it in a bad position compared to France and Spain who interfere in the city-states. Italy is not united until Garibaldi in the late 1800s. |
|
Spain/Portugal |
7 |
Strong nation-states formed in opposition to the Moors. Not very advanced economically as this is still very agricultural. However, it is tied to the economically stronger Arab world and with the discovery of gold in the Americas, it will be the most powerful state for the 1500s -1680s until the rise of Louis XIV France |
|
Greece/Balkans |
4.5 |
Under Ottoman rule, strong sense of nation-state, but no self-rule. Highly advanced economies in Greece and Anatolia, arguably most advanced in all of Europe. Romania, Albania, Serbia, Macedonia, Montenegro and Bulgaria arespan> devastated by the Ottomans with many fleeing to the mountains. Agriculture, culture etc. severely decline. They are hit on two sides – by the Turks militarily and, because the Turks have a “millet” system where people of one religion are grouped together and the millet for all of these is Orthodoxy, the Bulgarians, Romanians etc. are kept under Greek Phanariotes. Hence their culture declines while Greek culture thrives. |
|
Russia |
6 |
Still expanding south and east, conquering the Emirates of Kazan etc. This is still a barbaric state and remains so until Peter the Great. It has a sense of purpose, but it’s purpose is Christianity as they believe they are the last Christian state and have a holy duty to push back the Moslems. Economic and scientific development is poor as the focus is on war and agriculture – life is too hard and land too vast to develop like Western Europe. |
|
Poland/Lithuania |
2 |
Consolidating nation-state, however, more based on a confederacy as there are 4 nations here: Poles, Lithuanians, Ruthenians (Ukrainians, Belarusians) and Jews. This mixed with 4 different religions (Catholicism, Orthodoxy, Judaism and Islam (Lipka Tartars)) means a very tolerant state – tolerance levels of these are not reached by Western Europe until the late Victorian era. |
|
Hungary |
1.5 |
Strong nation state of the Magyars in Magyaristan (we English speakers give them an exonym of Hungary while they call themselves Magyar). However, the Magyars (descendents of Finno-Ugaric warriors) are mostly ruling class and warriors, they import Saxons as merchants. The native Romanians, Slovaks, etc are kept as serfs. The state is one of war |
|
Bohemia |
1 |
Strong nation-state but at war with the Holy Roman Empire and Poland has given it a sense of insecurity. It will eventually be absorbed by Austria-hungary. |
Historically speaking the Huguenots DID slap the hand of the government that had tolerated it, just as the Moslems do in France today
Historically speaking they did the attack the majority first and destroy Churches -- the first salvo so to speak
Historically speaking they did collaborate with the enemies of the nation and foment civil war
Do read up on the history of this time in France and the civil war that this caused. The Huguenots were one side of the civil war -- even worse, they collaborated with the ancienne enemy (England). They were hence traitors to the nation as well as fomenters of civil war.
They lost and got massacred, that's what happened in all times right up to the present.
This was a socio-political conflict with a religious dimension and this article specifically talks about the historical aspect (it IS from the History channel), so do look at this aspect.
you are making it about religion TODAY when I also CLEARLY stated in my post number 30
the various actions of those H's have no influence on the descendents of these folks -- just as no doubt most of us have the blood of various conquerors, defeated, tyrants, saints, sinners etc.
Thirdly, the actions of the H descendants in Prussia have no relation to the morality of descendants in America today -- these were 5th/6th or more distant cousins 4 - 5 times removed.
No thanks. I despise people trashing other’s religious beliefs.
where exactly in this thread have I thrashed your or anyone else’s “religious beliefs” — please point out where
In post 37 you said that "it's that darned ... work ethic"
Now, in post 39 I proved that the entire "work ethic" attributed to one religious group is a myth.
Go and check out or compare Holland to Belgian Flanders -- both are essentially the same people and speak the same language, yet the Flemish are Catholic and in fact had and has more of this "work ethic" than the Dutch -- so perhaps this is actually a "Germanic work ethic thing"?
Even in Germany, the economically advanced German Rhineland is more Catholic than non-Catholic -- doesn't that prove that your statement about some supposed religious based work ethic is a myth?
In post 37 you said that "it's that darned ... work ethic"
Now, in post 39 I proved that the entire "work ethic" attributed to one religious group is a myth.
how exactly is this "thrashing other people's religious beliefs"? Are you saying that your statement about this myth of a religious group's work ethic is a "religious belief"?
Not just one competing power (the English) but with the Ottoman Turks as well. They apparently found the Muslims preferable bed partners to the Catholic Christians.
French Huguenots were in contact with the Moriscos in plans against Spain in the 1570s with plans for the Moslem-Huguenot alliance to undo the Reconquista and return Spain to Moslem rule
Strangely enough the same was repeated in Eastern Europe where the calvinists of Hungary actually fought on the side of the Turks at the Seige of Vienna in 1683.
Can you imagine that? if the Turks had won, then Western Europe would have been way open to them. Instead, thank God they were defeated by Catholic Austria with Poland. This started the Ottoman decline
The fact is by not allowing such things as any sanctioned prayer by teachers...
Given today's crop of "educators", it wouldn't be prayers the children would hear, it would be incantations, enchantments and spells.
Many evangelicals like to say that all Hell broke loose following the abolition of public prayers in the class rooms in the early 1960s, I submit that it was the removal of McGuffey Readers from the classroom.
FWIW, I recall a thread a couple years ago about Evangelical Christians being persecuted in Russia and EO posters were adamant in their defense of state controlled churches and argued since these Evangelical Christians weren't licensed they should be stopped from preaching The Gospel. Nothing has changed except the faces and technology.
Makes me wonder what happens when the French get truly fed up with their Muslim immigrants.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.