Christians in India again - Orissa.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Heraclitus

Covert or die and that is all you have to say?

Yes. I just can't be arsed to care any longer.

Originally posted by Heraclitus

Especially since Christianity was in India long before British rule in fact long before Muslim rule! Those Christians are as much proper Indians as Hindus or Sikhs.

They might be, for all I know.

This is probably a reaction to the actions of Christian missionaries, not native Christians.

Nowadays, beyond a point, I don't give a crap. Everyone sucks.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Oerdin
. Remember the Genetics in Europe thread? Genetically the Irish and British are 80% the same

Which explains a lot, seeing as we're both about 98% similar to chimpanzees.

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by aneeshm
Nowadays, beyond a point, I don't give a crap. Everyone sucks.

You aren't a ubernationalis anymore?


Nihilism is a bad place to be, I recommend some Neitzcshe to clear that up.

[Heresson]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Again, where do you get this idea that the majority of the English population were pro-Roman Catholic by the time of Elizabeth's reign?

Not pro-catholic, but catholic by default. I believe the masses in general were silent.

When Mary restored Roman Catholicisim as the state religion there were widespread rebellions throughout England. There were no comparable rebellions when Elizabeth signed the Act of Supremecy and the Act of Conformity. Why? Because the majority of people in England supported Protestant ideals.

Jean Grey? Well, both girls, Liz and Mary, were excluded from the line of succession. Of course there were revolts. Liz was legitimate successor of Mary, though, so her accession must have been quieter.
Protestant ideals... silly. Protestantism might have been popular among nobility, and especially the part of nobility that grew rich by stealing church property, but it doesn't mean protestants were a majority.

The Act of Supremacy and the Act of Conformity both passed the House of Commons with large majorities.

Bah, during Mary's reign it was quite contrary. And Elisabeth did use pressure and other tricks.

Seriously, what why would they not desire these changes?
'

Most of Europe didn't want these changes.

I think history shows that's not always the case. For example, the Union outnumbered the Confederacy by 2 to 1, but it was the Confederates who opened fire on Fort Sumter.

And they were 100% right, unionists moved to fort Sumter without ANY authorisation and didn't want to leave.

Israel was clearly outnumbered by the Arab alliance surrounding her in 1968, but she attacked first.

Because otherwise it would have been attacked. It was a preemptive strike.

Prussia was outnumbered by Austria and her allies in the 18th century, but Frederick declared war first.

Ist Silesian war - You must be kidding. Austria was at the lowest point possible. No army, no money, no allies. Saxony and Bavaria, supported by France, wanting to cut her into pieces. Frederick had a complete advantage.
Later on Frederick still wasn't really outnumbered by Austria, but his lands were smaller. He declared was because he knew Maria Theresa wants to start a war to regain Silesia. Preemptive strike again.

Oh, and I might point out that Anglicans consider themselves to be Catholic. They profess their faith in one Catholic church at every service. It's just that we don't believe that we need to have a Pope.

catholicism without a pope is like France without Paris. Pope was the most (or one of the most) influencial people in the church since its beginnings.

And, lets be honest: that's a silly excuse for Henry wanting to have new women and divorce from Katherine.

[Heresson]

Originally posted by aneeshm

This is probably a reaction to the actions of Christian missionaries, not native Christians.

"They are converting our neighbours! Horrible! We must burn our neighbours's houses, loot their property, kill them or re-hinduise them!"

[Heraclitus]

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Heresson


"They are converting our neighbours! Horrible! We must burn our neighbours's houses, loot their property, kill them or re-hinduise them!"

I wasn't talking about conversion, but about a lot of the other things they do.

[Heresson]

for example?

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Oerdin


All four of the UK national groups are pretty much the same damn thing with slightly different accents. Remember the Genetics in Europe thread? Genetically the Irish and British are 80% the same which is more then just about any large state in Europe. The only reason Ireland really had an independence movement was over religion and even then it took hundreds of years and was only partially successful. In all likelihood Ireland would be better off today if they'd just stayed in the union.

I'd hope they're more than 80% the same. Chimps and Humans are genetically more than 95% the same. If the Irish and the British are only 80% the same then one group must have devolved into sea slugs.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Heresson


Not pro-catholic, but catholic by default. I believe the masses in general were silent.

You really need something to back this statement up. Protestant ideology was widespread throughout the more modern parts of Northern Europe.

Jean Grey? Well, both girls, Liz and Mary, were excluded from the line of succession. Of course there were revolts. Liz was legitimate successor of Mary, though, so her accession must have been quieter.

Jane Grey was selected by Edward as his successor, but because Mary's claim to the throne was stronger by tradition Mary was placed on the throne. Jane Grey only lasted 2 weeks, there was no revolt on her behalf. I'm talking about the rebellions in 1554.

Protestant ideals... silly.

Are they really? Take a look at Vatican II. It enacted most of the reforms, worship in the vernacular, greater participation of the laity, adopted by Elizabeth's Church of England. I believe the abolition of phony relics and indulgences came even earlier. Are you calling your own Roman Catholic Church silly? OK, here goes right back at you..... Papish superstitions!!!!

Protestantism might have been popular among nobility, and especially the part of nobility that grew rich by stealing church property, but it doesn't mean protestants were a majority.

Where do you get this idea? Did you get it from an objective history source or was this taught to you by your church?

Bah, during Mary's reign it was quite contrary. And Elisabeth did use pressure and other tricks.

Uh, the Act of Supremacy and the Act of Conformity were introduced and passed during Elizabeth's reign. Mary re-imposed Roman Catholicism by royal decree, whereas Elizabeth re-established the Church of England by consent of Parliament. The two acts both passed the House of Commons easily. The Act of Supremacy initially had problems passing the House of Lords due to protests by bishops placed there by Mary. There were a number of ecclesiastical seats in the House of Lords vacant, they were vacant because Mary had executed the pro-Protestant bishops, so Elizabeth filled them back up with pro-Protestant bishops and her acts passed.

You don't really know very much about the history of England, yet you presume to 'pontificate' about what the English people wanted during this period. Why is that?

Most of Europe didn't want these changes.

You mean like after St. Bartholomew's Day in France, or the Blood-Bath of Thorn in Poland, or the Inquisition of Spain, or the Albigensian Crusades in France? Yes, I imagine that most of Europe didn't want to be killed by their Catholic majesties.

And they were 100% right, unionists moved to fort Sumter without ANY authorisation and didn't want to leave.

We won't quibble over your apparent sympathies with slavery, nor your contempt for legally purchased property, but nevertheless the CSA at the time was overall outnumbered by the USA.

Because otherwise it would have been attacked. It was a preemptive strike.

Maybe it would have been, or maybe the Arab states thought they could isolate Israel by closing the Suez Canal and the Gulf of Aqaba. Regardless Israel was the smaller and should not have attacked according to you said in your earlier post.

Ist Silesian war - You must be kidding. Austria was at the lowest point possible. No army, no money, no allies. Saxony and Bavaria, supported by France, wanting to cut her into pieces. Frederick had a complete advantage.
Later on Frederick still wasn't really outnumbered by Austria, but his lands were smaller. He declared was because he knew Maria Theresa wants to start a war to regain Silesia. Preemptive strike again.

I was thinking of the Seven Year's War, when Prussia faced an alliance of Austria, France and Russia.

catholicism without a pope is like France without Paris. Pope was the most (or one of the most) influencial people in the church since its beginnings.

So you're saying that if you aren't Parisian you're not French? I think that the people of Lyons, Orleans, Rouen, Marseilles, etc., etc. would disagree with you. Catholicism is a faith, a belief in the unity of the Church under Christ. The Pope has nothing to do with it. You may believe different, that's your priviledge.

And, lets be honest: that's a silly excuse for Henry wanting to have new women and divorce from Katherine.

Henry wanted an heir in order to avoid a repetition of the War of the Roses. Silly? Silly is believing that every cathedral in Christendom managed to obtain a piece of the one true cross. Silly is believing that you can buy your way into heaven. Silly is requiring people to come to church every Sunday to sing hymns in a language they don't understand, listen to prayers in a language they don't understand, listen to preaching in a language they don't understand and yet think that you're teaching them to be Christians.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Heraclitus

Actually Thomas Cranmer and Edward VI moved the Church of england towards a more Protestant ideology.

Anglican singing is more like this;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_LfvZVwCOI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8QcpfiU3YA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUf7ebcApEw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKohs2LdCwo

[aneeshm]

OK, for thousands of years, these same Christians live perfectly peacefully, when the state was officially Hindu, and based on Hindu laws and customs and everything.

During British rule, missionary activity was discouraged as being bad for business, and these Christians had no problems.

Now, however, that radical missionaries arrive, in significant numbers, there is a problem.

Don't you think there may be some correlation?

[Heresson]

Originally posted by aneeshm
OK, for thousands of years, these same Christians live perfectly peacefully, when the state was officially Hindu, and based on Hindu laws and customs and everything.

During British rule, missionary activity was discouraged as being bad for business, and these Christians had no problems.

Now, however, that radical missionaries arrive, in significant numbers, there is a problem.

Don't you think there may be some correlation?

So the problem is that the missionaries appear?
OMG it should be banned.

[Heresson]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
You really need something to back this statement up. Protestant ideology was widespread throughout the more modern parts of Northern Europe.

city elite, people rich enough. Not the common folk.

I'm talking about the rebellions in 1554.

caused by political reasons - Mary's unpopular marriage to the spanish king?

nsurrections broke out across the country when she insisted on marrying Philip, with whom she was in love. The Duke of Suffolk once again proclaimed that his daughter, Lady Jane Grey, was queen. In support of Elizabeth, Thomas Wyatt led a force from Kent that was not defeated until he had arrived at London. After the rebellions were crushed, the Duke of Suffolk, his daughter, Lady Jane Grey, and her husband were convicted of high treason and executed. Elizabeth, though protesting her innocence in the Wyatt affair, was imprisoned in the Tower of London for two months, then was put under house arrest at Woodstock Palace.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_I_of_England

Are they really?

That's not what I referred to. I believe protestants were on no higher ground than catholics. And used lie and deceit to fight catholicism. So did catholics.

Where do you get this idea? Did you get it from an objective history source or was this taught to you by your church?

I got this idea from university lecture, a passage about Netherlands, that it was a century or so before protestants really became a majority in Netherlands... There were new, protestant, elites, but it took time to actually convert the populace. It seems completely logical to me. That was the case with other religions as well.
For example, when Poland elected Sigismund Vasa, it got ultracatholic ruler, why the gentry was in large part protestant... but it took him and his successor over a century to make Poland a catholic country.

Uh, the Act of Supremacy and the Act of Conformity were introduced and passed during Elizabeth's reign. Mary re-imposed Roman Catholicism by royal decree, whereas Elizabeth re-established the Church of England by consent of Parliament.

Edward's religious laws were abolished by Mary's first Parliament in the Statute of Repeal Act (1553). Church doctrine was restored to the form it had taken in the 1547 Six Articles.

Mary also persuaded Parliament to repeal the Protestant religious laws passed by Henry VIII. Getting their agreement took several years, and she had to make a major concession: tens of thousands of acres of monastery lands confiscated under Henry were not to be returned because the new landowners created by this distribution were very influential. This was approved by the Papacy in 1554. The Revival of the Heresy Acts were also passed in 1554. Mary also started currency reform to counteract the dramatic devaluation overseen by Thomas Gresham that had characterized the last few years of Henry's reign and the reign of Edward VI. These measures, however, were largely unsuccessful.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_I_of_England

Wikipedia claims she got parliament's approval for her religious policy...

You mean like after St. Bartholomew's Day in France, or the Blood-Bath of Thorn in Poland, or the Inquisition of Spain, or the Albigensian Crusades in France? Yes, I imagine that most of Europe didn't want to be killed by their Catholic majesties.

uh, You are aware that protestants did exactly the same?
Protestants were killing catholics, converting them by force, taking catholic property for themselves, banning catholics from the states they took posession of etc.
the situation of protestants in catholic countries was bad, but much better than situation of catholics in protestant countries.

but nevertheless the CSA at the time was overall outnumbered by the USA.

don't you see a difference between a majority and a minority on one side, and a weaker and a stronger state on the other? And canfederacy wasn't outnumbered 40x times, as christians in India.

Maybe it would have been, or maybe the Arab states thought they could isolate Israel by closing the Suez Canal and the Gulf of Aqaba. Regardless Israel was the smaller and should not have attacked according to you said in your earlier post.

Again, it's not a matter of minority/majority thing, and Israel was stronger militarily than all its neighbours, despite being smaller.

I was thinking of the Seven Year's War, when Prussia faced an alliance of Austria, France and Russia.

Preemptive strike. Frederic wanted to fight the war in austrian posessions, not his.

So you're saying that if you aren't Parisian you're not French? I think that the people of Lyons, Orleans, Rouen, Marseilles, etc., etc. would disagree with you.

You know exactly what I mean, but I'd like to tell it otherwise: being catholic without a pope is like being USA citizen, but denying the president and congress authority. It's simply a revolt.

believing that you can buy your way into heaven. Silly is requiring people to come to church every Sunday to sing hymns in a language they don't understand, listen to prayers in a language they don't understand, listen to preaching in a language they don't understand and yet think that you're teaching them to be Christians.

protestant bias

[germanos]

Originally posted by Heresson


city elite, people rich enough. Not the common folk.

I got this idea from university lecture, a passage about Netherlands, that it was a century or so before protestants really became a majority in Netherlands... There were new, protestant, elites, but it took time to actually convert the populace. It seems completely logical to me. That was the case with other religions as well.

It was most probably a crappy lecture.
The rise of protestantism was not an elitist movement. First of all it was the clergy that still formed the elite in late medieval societies. Sure, their postition as such was challenged by the upcoming merchants, but they were to be a new middle-class, not elite. Whealthy, sometimes very wealthy, but by all means they would meet very stiff opposition to let them become part of the establishment.
Secondly, in the Netherlands the protestants held their services in the open field (so called ' Hagenpreken', I couldn't find an English translation), hardly an act that the elite would consider, they should have had big mansions to keep these ' private' matters.

If anything, AFTER the reformation the protestants became the new 'elite'. That it took some time before the majority of the population would have 'converted' says little about the origin of the movement. I do wonder though how your lecturer could have been so confident, as I'm pretty sure there were no pollters going around asking people whether they considered themselves catholics or protestants.

uh, You are aware that protestants did exactly the same?
Protestants were killing catholics, converting them by force, taking catholic property for themselves, banning catholics from the states they took posession of etc.
the situation of protestants in catholic countries was bad, but much better than situation of catholics in protestant countries.

You've got to be kidding. I'll reply from a Dutch perspective.
Long before the reformation catholism had shown it's merciless persecution of 'heretics'. It's not that they were suddenly less vigourous when it came to lutherans, calvinists and what-have-you.
While certainly too many catholics suffered a horrible fate during the reformantion, state-policy in general was pretty meek when it came to the catholics themselves. Sure, churches were confiscated, lands were confiscated and money taken. But monestaries were mostly left alone, and the people there could stay. No new nuns or monks were allowed, so they would simply shrink as time progressed.
From the very beginning of the Dutch Republic they surely tried to make life difficult for the catholics. Their services were banned from public life. But since the whole protestant struggle has been closely tied to freedom of expression (yes, read: religion) within no time catholics held their mass at attics and the like. Known to many, disturbed by none.

Protestants had much more to fear in catholic lands then vice versa. A simple peasant in catholic lands could easily face the stake if he was considered a heritic. There was no such penalty for a catholics in the Dutch Republic. I'm pretty sure that you can't find a single catholic that the Republic sentenced to death simply because of his faith, nor for practicing it.