Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!laura
From: laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton)
Newsgroups: net.religion,net.religion.christian
Subject: Re: A Voice in the Wilderness (quote at end)
Message-ID: <5205@utzoo.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 11-Mar-85 01:22:51 EST
Article-I.D.: utzoo.5205
Posted: Mon Mar 11 01:22:51 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 11-Mar-85 01:22:51 EST
References: <431@terak.UUCP>
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Lines: 69

I have done a rather extensive survey of the biographies of the
inquisitors. I did not find that they were evil men who consciously
used Christianity to justify the atrocities that they desired to
commit. On the contrary, I found that they were sincerely convinced
that The God of the Old and New Testament was engaged in a struggle
against the forces of evil. They were committed to their faith and their
side of the struggle and they unquestionally believed that heretics
and pagans were in league with the Devil in a cosmic battle of Good
versus Evil with ``men's souls'' as the prizes.

I get the distinct impression that David Jayakaran is more interested
in the reputation of Christianity (we wouldn't want the name of the
religion to be associated with those horrid inquisitors) rather than
the excesses of religious zeal. To say the least, I do not find this
comforting. If they come to my door to lock me up in an asylum (oops,
double speak prefers that one calls them mental institutions, or
better mental hospitals, or hospitals for the desturbed) I may remember
that according to David Jayakaran these people aren't ``real Christians''
but I would much rather that the ``real'' ones kept the ``false'' ones
from my door in the first place.

	This, I suppose is the real difference. There is no way that
I would talk about Salem witch burnings. Nobody was burned at Salem,
since the special court conviened in Salem tried to follow British
law. Burning, under English Law in 1692 was reserved for treason
and treason alone -- both ``high'' (rebellion against the king) and
``low'' (murdering one's husband). To be burnt as a witch in England
one had to be convicted of using witchcraft either to murder your
husband or to attack the sovereign. Witchcraft, per se was a hanging
offense -- not that all convicted witches were hung in England,
either, as England was relatively merciful compared to other
countries at that time.

Nor would I describe it as the killing of innocent (women) citizens. 20
people were put to death (hung) and 2 ``died in prison'' -- one of whom, was
crushed to death. Those put to death were not, for the most part, citizens --
slaves, transients, beggers, cripples and other ``people of poor repuation''
bore the brunt of it.
(There is some doubt as to whether there were *any* citizens in
Salem in 1692. The English government was in the process of
examining and questining Salem's very constitution -- and had
suspended its ability to function autonomously. This is why a
special court was convened -- not, as some have argued, out of
religious fervour, but simply because there was no court at that
time. Without the special convention, the accused, both those
found innocent and those found guilty would have to wait in prison for years
until their case could go to court. Since they had to pay for their stay
in jail, innocent or guilty, this would bankrupt the innocent.)

In any case, I would never, even with a smiley face, ask ``can I
go watch''. In 1968 a witch was burned outside of Mexico City, and
in 1970 one was stoned to death in Nicaragua. These are the last 2 cases
I know of, but there may be others.

In any case, I still do not know what to make of:

	Honey, you better believe it's coming.  It may shock you who will be
	called the heretic.  Not you, but people like me.  So rest easy, it'll
	pass ya by.

Is this a joke? Or does he think that I am so lacking in compassion that
I would think that it is marvellous that people are coming to kill
and torture him for his religious convictions? Or is he welcoming
this since he considers ``real Christians'' to be the ones that have
undergone martyrdom? Any way I slice it I don't get it -- so ``resting
easy'' I am not...

Laura Creighton
utzoo!laura