Posted on 04/04/2002 8:16:05 AM PST by denydenydeny
The fact is that the Arabs have had their Muslim Martin Luthers and John Calvins. One was the 18th-century Mohammed Wahhab, founder of Saudi Arabia's austere version of Islam called Wahhabism. It's funny — the press often refer to Wahhabism as "puritanical" without noting that the Puritans were, well, Protestants.Actually, a very good case can be made that Wahhabi is the Islamic version of Calvinism. Calvin himself certainly adopted his own brand of sharia when his principles ruled 16th century Geneva.
Both are versions of the faith which are rather unattractive to nonadherents, and perhaps as a result both are often willing to use force to compel obedience to their respective beliefs.
Indeed, a good definition of an Islamic fanatic would be one who favors the imposition of sharia and its application to non-Moslems. The Wahhabi certainly qualify.
One interesting point: The Islamic Conference, many of whose members undoubtedly support sharia in their homelands, met in a city where it is not in place.
-Eric
Jonah has been tremendous lately. Anyone know if he is Jewish, and devoutly so or not?
And the missing piece of the puzzle is that these "Islamic Calvinists" are backed by an immense amount of money, thanks to Saudi oil. The Saudi plan is to Wahhabize (to coin a word) all of Sunni Islam.
Not a very accurate statement.
Again, no offense to our Catholic friends, but these practices by Protestants were carried out for only a brief period during the middle of a revolution. Catholics (not all, but some!) burned heretics and books for centuries, before and after the Reformation.
As far as I know, only one heretic was burned by Protestants. That is Michael Servetus, who was burned by the Calvin-dominated government of Geneva. It is interesting that he was on the lam from France, where he had been sentenced to burn by ... Catholics!
The burning of Servetus created such a furor that it pretty well put an end to the practice by Protestants. Other than witches, of course.
For instance, Queen Mary of England burned hundreds of heretics. When the Protestants regained power, they didn't burn Catholics. (They did hang, and occasionally quarter, them. but that was for treason, not being Catholic. Although being Catholic was often viewed as almost treason.)
The modernist version of history was mostly written by children of the Enlightenment, who hated the Catholic Church and, rightly or wrongly, considered Protestantism as a better candidate for liberal modernization.
No, this column is largely accurate and to the point. There are many virtues in Protestantism, but the instrumental use of Protestantism by modernists is not one of them. That leads to the National Council of Churches and all those idiot scholars in Middle Eastern Studies departments.
Or maybe a Slayer. *g*
Who did Cromwell burn at the stake for being a Catholic, or in his terms a heretic?
I'm not saying Cromwell was always a nice guy, but he didn't burn heretics.
I believe Jonah also ignores the fact that the Catholic Church in its present form has been very strongly influenced by its need to compete with Protestantism. It would be a very different Church, and ours would be a very different society, if the Reformation had not occurred. Monopolies are bad, in religious settings at least as much as in commercial ones. They're bad for the monopolists as well as for those forced to use their services.
No, he just dispossesed and oppressed Irish Catholics. Saying the Mass was a crime. "Heresy," "treason," and "Catholic" were synonymous.
SD
Agreed.
But Jonah was specifically stating that Protestants reinstated heretic-burning, which was dying out among Protestants. This is an untrue statement.
The post was not about whether Protestants were always nice people. It was about whether they routinely burned heretics.
It's a little like modern witches, who constantly talk about the witches burned at Salem. In fact, no witches were burned in MA. They were hung.
If you start comparing stories of general oppression, Catholics and Protestants have both oppressed each other when they got the chance. Each group shows an amazing ability to obsess about their side's victimhood, while ignoring or rationalizing those oppressions they committed. In this they have a lot in common with radical Muslims.
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.