Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: You won't find me a Catholic appologist either; I am technically under a Papal ban calling for my death if Rome ever gains control of the USA.  I also do not consider Roman Catholicism to be biblical Chritianity. Larry You've been reading too many Jack Chick anti-Catholic tracts. I can't help it if you and Nightwatchman are ignorant.  If you aren't the same person, that is. Ask your priest if the anathema from Trent or the sentence against apostates pronounced at Trent have been revoked. Larry Most were revoked two year slater by Pius IV.  Care to be more specific? The only death penalty I have ever heard of in relation to apostasy was for people who induced others away from the Church.  Simply leaving the Church or deciding you did not believe ha salmost always led to mere excommunication - kinda like the Church saying, "you can't quite, your fired."

The anathema was never revoked for those proclaiming that salvation is by faith alone, with nothing added by works of obedience.  The Lutheran formula of an imputed righteousness accompanied by a forensic justification prior to any work or act by the human, which being a work of God and not man cannot be nullified or discarded by the object of the act, ie the human.
The death penalty for those that taught that the church of Rome is not the true church, and that publicly speaks against the Church and the Pope has not been revoked.  That is the one to which you refer.

Larry

Ok gonna inject.  

Um actually you cannot understand the inquisition without understanding the Rise of Islam and the Spanish Reconquista.

First this isnt America your talking about, its not the 20th century ect and it has to do with a whole lot more than religion.

Before the Prophet Mohaamed(SP) died he designated a man by the name of Abu Bakar as the first Caliph or as his successor.  After his death Abu Bakar was immediatly challenged by a relative of Mohaamed(SP) named Fatima and her husband Ali.   Well after the 2 great factions met in battle I think In Fallujha in Iraq, Abu Bakar was affirmed at the leader of Islam.  Now the present day decendants or Fatima and Ali's faction are today the Sheites and yep the battle is still on for them.

Any way Mohaamed chose well as under Abu Bakar Islam spread from lower asia all the way accross Africa and up through Spain until the armies of Islam where finally stopped by the Armies of Christianity under Charles Martell at Tours(I think it was 954).   Now as I understand it all thought Martell is called the Hammer of God the battle succeded in halting Islams advance, but just barely.

Now get the full picture.  Europe was invaded.   The dosile nations living in the aftermath of the fall of the Roman Empire barley scrapped up a decent army, to stop an army that was steam rolling the known world.

Now Spain was occupied by Islamic forces.  Some naturally embraced the new religion.   Others allthough not subject to inquisition where subject to islamic law.   Ya know Infadels.  As Islam was young and viberant im sure it must have been very tempting to convert and hard to remain Christian or Jewish.

Well the invasion and occupation was not forever unified either as over the next couple of hundred years Spain would see the reoocupation or liberation of areas by Christian forces as well as the fragmentation of the Muslim forces.   Often Christians fought with Christian and Muslims faught with Muslims some times more than with the other.

Well the road from Africa was still open and at one point the citizens of Al Andulas(Muslim Spain) which was rich in art and scholarship a true renesounce of the Islamic world grew more fearfull of invading Muslim Moores from Africa than they where of the Christians in the north.  

I believe there was an allience between the Muslims of Spain and the Spanish Christian Kindoms and the Moorish invasion was turned back.     But as seen in Yugoslavian in our time.  Where once there was a common enemy and goal, now the cultural memories of centuries of conflict would bring forth chaos.   The ball was now in the  Christians court and culminated in the elevation of Ferdinand and Isabelle as the catholic King and Queen of a unified Spain, after the last Muslim kingom of granada was conquered.    Well as Im sure you can imagine the Christain Spaniards viewed this time as payback.

Yugoslavia is a perfect comparison.  For almost 50 years Serb, Croate, Bosnian Muslim, Albanian, Slovenian all lived together.   The state put much effort into mixing the ethnic and religious communitees.  But after Tito died, the old fueds fueld by a cultural memory(which we dont understand in the US) ignited old battles into modern warfare, seemingly overnight.  And just like in Spain it was intense and mercilless.

Hay you say so why the Jews?  They did not conquer Spain or reconquer it?    Well its a historical fact that where there is conflict between Christiannity and Islam, Jews Suffer.   I believe for a couple of reasons.
1.  Jews where always foriegners in a foreign land.  No matter how long they lived there, there was always a schtettle or Jewish quarter.   Im not talking little Italy or China Town in the US we are used to diversity, and we still have problems.  Imagine states that dont pride themselves on freedom and diversity but ethnic nationalism.  
2. Like it or not when most of the european populations where still suffering from surfdom and could not even read.   Most Jews could read and write 2 languages and where free.   My grandmother spoke 7 languages when she came here and she was a peasant.
3. They where ethnic bystanders amist ethnic and religiously based conflicts.   Its not easy to be switzerland unless you have everyone elses money!!  This made them easy targets and automatically loyalty was questioned.   Remember if you lived in a kingdom you owed the king.
4. For centuries because of thier education and neutrality Jews made excellent merchants.  They easily made commerce between the varied states whether Christian or Muslim.   In some ways a beliegered and embattled populace might come to see this as profeting off of the conflict.   Not really but Im sure you can imagine the hysteria.

So it was bad and I personally dont know much about it.  But I think you need to take yourself out of our blessed nations history and grapple with such concepts as occupation, reconquiring, National ethnicity, religious, ethnic and political crusade and cultural memory to start to unravel the chaos.

Just my 2 cents

Quoted: In fact, Chritianity hasn't done too badly overall compared to the deaths imposed by all belief systems. i wonder how millions of american indians would answer that question? were they not slaughtered by those that called themselves christians? how about the millions of mayans, toltecs, aztecs and other idians of central and south america that were killed and enslaved by catholic conquistadors? i'll also wager that most of the guards at bergen-belsen went to church on sunday.

Sir I have to disagree withn you on these points.
It is estimated that 90% of the Indiginious populations in NA where killed by virgin soil epidemics.   That is when the Eurpoeans came with such diseases as small pox the local populations had little to no immunities and it decimated villages and even tribes.  Unfortunitly many times it was the missonieries who where the first on seen and the unknowing cariers.

But in fact your implication that Euorpean Christianity is reponsible for the denmise of the indiginious population is incorrect.   It is indeed a fact that the French colonial expeience was the most passionate in its missions and thier was infact the best experience with the native populations as the French for the majority of thier time did not widly colonize and did not seek to impose rule over the tribes but ally them.   Which is also why they lost the French and Indian war by the way.

The Spanish experience man I cant say anything but power and greed, power and greed.  Im not seeing any real church power here.

The English expreience is a little softer than the Spanish but still about nationalism and greed.  Infact you are so wrong about the spread of Christianity that if you study Native American history youll find it was more often the missionaries that stood up for the indians against the colonies or the US government.   Ya I know all about the Indian schools, my grandfather was taken away from his parents and put in the Catholic version.

Oh and as stated many Preists and Pastors like Deitrich Bonhoffer where jailed and exicuted for not putting the swazstika up ion thier churches.   The Nazi church worshiped Hitler.

Quoted: From MSN Encarta: "A.    Early Population   Scholars vary greatly in their estimates of how many people were living in the Americas when Columbus arrived in 1492. Estimates range from 40 million to 90 million for all of the Americas, and from 2 million to 18 million for the aboriginal population north of present-day Mexico. These figures are hypothetical; exact population figures are impossible to ascertain. Furthermore, the date of Columbus’s arrival was not necessarily the peak of the Native American population. Civilizations had risen and fallen before that time—the Hopewell culture, for example, flourished from 200 bc to ad 400 in eastern North America. Some anthropologists believe the peak occurred around ad 1200." Any number is a wild guess.

This is actually true.    The Adena, Hopewell and Mississippian societies are considered the pinicle of native culture on this continent.   They actually had large cities like there central and south American neighbors.   And yes they where almost exstinct by the time of Columbus.

Im gonna expound upon this.  Where did they go these mound builders and thier cities.   Well acheological studes have shown that these great cultures hed commerce stretching from mexico to the hills of New York.  How then did they fall?   Where they wiped out by the barbarian Indians who where later found by the European?!!!!!!!

Not!!   As opposed to what scientists some up until this century thought, the inhabitants of the great cities where the native populations.    There are reports of early Spanish explorers who found natives (Cherokee) I think still inhabiting the last of the smaller cities and still using the burrial rituals found in the great mounds.

Well why did they disappear?  Well I believe because of over population.  Ya see these cultures where on the edge of an agricultural revolution but thier poplulation grew faster than thier ability to support it.   The hunter gatherer patern of simply foraging for food gave way to restricted wandering(rotating from one specific hunting or foraging site to another on a seasonal or yearly basis).   Basic agriculture was develpoped as seen with the Iroqious people where corn, beans and squach crops where planted by hand and suplimented by hunting and forageing.   This allowed for larger popluations to be sustained.

But as seen in other parts of the world the North Amercian cultures never moved into full blown agriculture.   Domesticating and using animals to till the land and harvest as well as crop rotation and furtilization.    So at some point the growing cities could not be adequatly supplied with food.  Populations may have fluxuated for some time until people started to flee the cities in hopes of finding subsistance in the country.    Natures population control.  Populations grow until they outstrip the carrying capacity of the land.    Restricted wantering and basic agriculture allow some growth over and above usual limits, but without the addition of domesticaion, rotation and fertilization catastrophies such as draught and land over use are bound to happen until the population either dispureses or dies of famine.

I believe this is what happened and its not the only place this has happened.

Does anyone recall the name of the book used for the inquisition?  It was an instructional book of sorts and called by two words.  They both started with M.  I can't think of the name of it to save me.

"So, you won't confess?"

"Okay, give her the...COMFY CHAIR!"

Quoted: hell, the killing by 'christians' in spain started long before the inquisition...may 7, 1355...1200 jews killed...in one day in toledo, spain. anyone that says the spanish inquisition is 'kinder and more gentle' is the same kind of moron that would claim the civil war was not about about slavery. the inquisitian BEGAN by driving out jews and protestants and other non-believers...NOT muslims!!! by the 1200's, most of spain had been reconquered by christians (yeah, i know they hung on in grenada until 1492). it was begun by ferdinand and dizzybella (yeah, those wonder folks that bankrolled chris off to new idia) as a unification tactic that would make spain a catholic nation. Tomas de Torquemada, HIMSELF, is responsible for the execution of over 2,000!!! and take a guess at how many were tortured under just HIS orders...GO ON! GUESS! ah! those that would revise history!

Yes it probably started with the reconquista, infact I was putting forward that the Inquisition was the final chapter of the reconquista which is a major chapter in the struggle between Europe and the Middle East.   Sociallly, Politically, ethnically and religiously.

Oh and there where no protestants in 1200?   Not for another 300 years

Hay my browser did not go to the last page, can you tell.  Sorry if this has already been covered.

*** Oh but anyway  the point that is extremely pertinant !!!  Ya see for these cultures that have a culteral memory these things happened yesterday.
      Yes !!! Kind of like the Civil War Arguements!!  I think thats as close as the US gets to reliving history passionately.    The civil war in Yugoslavia is another example but more to the point in much of the Islamic world the reconquista, inquisition and the crusades happened yesterday.   So you can imagine how US troops in Bagdad to them seems like yet another chapter in the struggle against the infadel!!

Interesting huh?

Quoted: Do not to try to confuse GampyBob about his serious misapprehensions concerning Christianity. He's almost as old as the Hun and he gets quite cranky and irritated when you young whippersnappers remind him that he's losing it. Eric The(IfHeEverHadIt)Hun

Ill try harder to keep my lollypop off the key board and remeber he lives in Ohio too

Quoted: Does anyone recall the name of the book used for the inquisition?  It was an instructional book of sorts and called by two words.  They both started with M.  I can't think of the name of it to save me.

I believe your are thinking of THE MALLEUS MALEFICARUM

www.malleusmaleficarum.org/

Quoted: Quoted: Does anyone recall the name of the book used for the inquisition?  It was an instructional book of sorts and called by two words.  They both started with M.  I can't think of the name of it to save me. I believe your are thinking of THE MALLEUS MALEFICARUM www.malleusmaleficarum.org/

THAT'S IT!

I tell you, I don't believe there's any question that can't be answered in this forum.

ETH,
  you find one article that claims to disprove every bit of research conducted on the Spanish Inquisition and think it proves your point?

If I were to find one article that proved Kerry was a good guy and earned his medals, would you believe it?  I can easily find an article saying people and dinosaurs co-existed, would you believe that?  I can find an article saying aliens seeded the earth with life, would you believe that?

I'm more than happy to admit that the reputation of the Inquistion in general is overblown.  That is largely due to the actions of the Spanish Inquisition.   Unlike the rest of Europe it was under the control of the aristocracy and its behaviour largely depended on their attitudes.

Under a fair ruler (I use that term loosely, we would not consider many of them fair, but judged by the standards of the time) the SI could be relatively harmless.   Under a ruler with either a strong religious hatred or a need for money, the SI was used to inspire terror.

Unfortunately Spain had very few good rulers and the SI terrorized Spain for hundreds of years.  

the view of all but a few historians is that the SI killed 320,000 in ~3.5 centuries.   Compared to Hitler, Stalin, or Pol Pot they were amateurs, but that is still a lot of people.  BTW, those numbers are compiled from the records kept by the Inquisitors.

The article you posted flies in the face of other research done by equally reputable scholars.

Like anything in science, this will be hashed out by experts but unless the author has evidence to overturn everyone elses research, nothing will come of this.

Quoted: I also do not consider Roman Catholicism to be biblical Chritianity. i'm not going down that road...paging sgtar...paging mr. sgtar!

Why bother?  It would just be wasted words on fools.  I don't know a single Christian religion that did not come from the Catholic Church.  It's like telling my mother I refuse to believe I am here son even though our DNA match.


Sgatr15

Quoted: Quoted: I also do not consider Roman Catholicism to be biblical Chritianity. i'm not going down that road...paging sgtar...paging mr. sgtar! Why bother?  It would just be wasted words on fools.  I don't know a single Christian religion that did not come from the Catholic Church.  It's like telling my mother I refuse to believe I am here son even though our DNA match. Sgatr15

hehe yeah, I don't get that either.

Quoted: Quoted: I also do not consider Roman Catholicism to be biblical Chritianity. i'm not going down that road...paging sgtar...paging mr. sgtar! Why bother?  It would just be wasted words on fools.  I don't know a single Christian religion that did not come from the Catholic Church.  It's like telling my mother I refuse to believe I am here son even though our DNA match. Sgatr15

Um ya  thats a foolish statement for sure!   The Orthodoxy did not come from the Catholic church?   So now you know one.  

And saying simply that Protestant churches all come from Romes branch of Christianity makes them the same as Rome is like saying the US Is no different from Great Britain.  Same DNA Ya know.  Sounds foolish to me.  Please dont bother to waiste any more of your breath.

Orthodox is basically Catholic.  Andthe Protestant Church is a direct result of Father Luther, a Catholic priest who was out to reform the Church, not start a new religion.


Facts is fcats weather you like it or not.  Protestants, Mormons, Baptists, Calvinism, Evangelical, Luthern, LDS, and the rest ALL come from the Catholic Church.


SGatr15

Quoted: Orthodox is basically Catholic.  Andthe Protestant Church is a direct result of Father Luther, a Catholic priest who was out to reform the Church, not start a new religion. Facts is fcats weather you like it or not.  Protestants, Mormons, Baptists, Calvinism, Evangelical, Luthern, LDS, and the rest ALL come from the Catholic Church. SGatr15

Orthodoxis basically Catholic?   What a redicuals statement if as in Catholic Big "C" you mean Roman Catholic.   If you mean catholic small "c" which is latin for universal as in same history back to Christ and partaking in the creeds yes.    But the Orthodox church existed lang before the Bishop of Rome decided he was special and they never agree in his having any primacy.   So no the Orthodox church is not from or decended from Roman in any way.

And no sorry more to the fact Rome is a brancj that has many off shoots but the fact of the matter is the tree is Christ not the Pope and the purpose of the reformation ws to grow back to the main point of the faith that is Christ.   Back to the roots of the church which as stated was hundreds of years without a Pope or a primacy of the seat of Rome.  So the answer is again no.

Quoted: Orthodox is basically Catholic.  Andthe Protestant Church is a direct result of Father Luther, a Catholic priest who was out to reform the Church, not start a new religion. Facts is fcats weather you like it or not.  Protestants, Mormons, Baptists, Calvinism, Evangelical, Luthern, LDS, and the rest ALL come from the Catholic Church. SGatr15

I don't think anyone is denying that. To do so would be foolish.

However, to claim that any particular branch is more "Biblically Correct" is a matter to be based upon interpretation of Scripture.

The example cited above of the United States vs. England is an excellent one. No one can credibly deny that the United States was formed from Great Britain, but who can argue that WE are noe more free than THEM?

As to which branch of Christianity is "right", I hold few opinions, and most of them are to the tune of "THAT is definitely NOT Biblical". This is why I am a dedicated non-denominational Christian. I was raised Catholic, but there are a few things about Catholicism that I am uneasy with, but which future study and understanding may change my mind on.

I do, however, always find it discouraging when so many who call themselves Christian cast the most hateful words at each other over things of THIS world. You would think we'd be able to discuss these issues with a little more class and tolerance.

Quoted: I do, however, always find it discouraging when so many who call themselves Christian cast the most hateful words at each other over things of THIS world. You would think we'd be able to discuss these issues with a little more class and tolerance.

I agree with just about all of your post, this last line in particluar.  However, as a Christian of the Catholic faith it is hard  to carry on an rational debate when they believe you don't even belong in the hall (ie That Catholic's aren't Christians).


Know what I mean????



SGatr15

Quoted: And no sorry more to the fact Rome is a brancj that has many off shoots but the fact of the matter is the tree is Christ not the Pope and the purpose of the reformation ws to grow back to the main point of the faith that is Christ.   Back to the roots of the church which as stated was hundreds of years without a Pope or a primacy of the seat of Rome.  So the answer is again no.

What faith do you actually belong to?

Was it formed before or after the Catholic Church was formed?  Where did the initial members of this new faith come from?


SGtar15

In the 8th century Spain was ruled by "germanic" Barbarians called the west GOTHS. They were pagan and stupid and assholes altogether.

Wrong! In 711 (the time of the Muslim conquest of Iberia), Roderick (or Rodrigo in Spanish) was the CHRISTIAN, not "barbarian", monarch of the VISIGOTHS. In fact, Spain was fully Christian by the 4th century CE.

They then planned to invade France. They did so, and met Germanic Barbarians called the Franks, at Tours in 786

Wrong again. The Battle of Poitiers (the proper name for the Battle of Tours) occurred on 10 October, 732 and was waged by Charles (the Hammer) Martel - the CHRISTIAN King of the Franks.

catholic 'christians' were killing jews long before the 'official' start of the inquisition.

It is worth noting that Maimonides, the pre-eminent Jewish scholar whose Mishna and Guide to the Perplexed influenced the Christian Scholastics, such as Albert the Great, St. Thomas Aquinas, and Duns Scotus, was born in Cordoba, Spain in 1135. But he had to high tail it out of Cordoba to Cairo in order to avoid the persecution of both Jews and Christians by the Almohades Muslim sect.

ever witness a man...yes, a man, a human being...getting his tongue screwed to the roof of his mouth by a 'christian'? on orders from the 'church'??? bah! kindler, gentler my ass!

Here are pictures of some other "evil Catholics":





(BTW, Edith Stein was a Jewish convert who was executed at Auschwitz

ETH,
 your mistaken

The Spanish Inquisition was under the control of the Spanish Crown.   The dates vary because it was stopped, restarted and stopped again.

The dates agreed to by most historians are 1478-1808

On November 1, 1478  Sixtus IV empowered Ferdinand and Isabella with ability to apoint inquisitors.  This is almost universally considered the start of the Spanish inquisition.   What is the start date your source goes with?

Is your confusion that the Pope had approved the formation?  Ferdinand and Isabella controlled the inquistion in Spain, not the Pope.

King Joseph Bonaparte ended the inquistion in 1808
Ferdinand VII started it back up in 1814 but the Pope would only approve it if they renounced torture (most historians consider this the end of the Spanish Inquisition)
The Revolution in 1820 ended it (knock on wood) forever.

What does your source use for the end date?  P.s. it says 350 years in the article you quoted as well.   The number 3000 to 5000 killed sounds like the number killed under the Fray Tomás Torquemada.  

Quoted: Quoted: I don't think anyone expected it. NO ONE EXPECTS THE SPANISH INQUISTION!!!!!

Is there no end to the Monty Python quotes! Nudge...nudge...you know what I mean?

Quoted: ETH,  your mistaken The Spanish Inquisition was under the control of the Spanish Crown.   The dates vary because it was stopped, restarted and stopped again. The dates agreed to by most historians are 1478-1808 On November 1, 1478  Sixtus IV empowered Ferdinand and Isabella with ability to apoint inquisitors.  This is almost universally considered the start of the Spanish inquisition.   What is the start date your source goes with? Is your confusion that the Pope had approved the formation?  Ferdinand and Isabella controlled the inquistion in Spain, not the Pope. King Joseph Bonaparte ended the inquistion in 1808 Ferdinand VII started it back up in 1814 but the Pope would only approve it if they renounced torture (most historians consider this the end of the Spanish Inquisition) The Revolution in 1820 ended it (knock on wood) forever. What does your source use for the end date?  P.s. it says 350 years in the article you quoted as well.   The number 3000 to 5000 killed sounds like the number killed under the Fray Tomás Torquemada.

Thanks - you beat me to it.  I was going to have to *gasp* actually do some research.  I am far too lazy for that.  If I wanted to work, I have real work I need to get done .

Eric's confusion definitely explains his reaction to my earlier post.

ETH,
 you want me to refute "facts" you posted from one article.   Thats not how it works.  Your the one who says the historical record as we know it about the Spanish Inquisition is wrong.

The burden of proof is on YOU not me.  

I did a search for the article  you posted but couldn't find it.   If you wanted a scholarly discussion you should have done your research and made your own thesis paper.  I would be happy to discuss when you do that.

Till then your just cutting and pasting from web articles and thats not worth my time.

Lets take it from another angle.   We'll do away with all that pesky work of researching a thesis paper and I'll just ask:

What is your thesis?  What are you trying to say?

Is it that the SI is overblown?  I would agree.
Is it that only 5000 people died?  I would disagree.
Do you agree with the thesis of that article that the the SI has been totally mischaracterized and was a just and noble enterprise that has been treated unfairly by the history books? I would disagree very strongly.
Is it that the Catholic Church was behind the SI?  I would disagree.
Is it that the modern Protestant denominations share no responsibility with the Catholic church?  I would agree conditionally.   If you would agree that all muslims are not responsible for the crimes of specific muslims I would agree that all christians are not responsible for the crimes of specific christians.

Take an actual intellectual position and I can address that.  

Be very specific to timeframe as well since that seems to be so important to you.

Quoted: it is ALSO worth noting that the jewish population in spain, looked upon their muslin invaders as liberators when compared to the treatment they suffered under the catholic christians of spain. NEITHER the muslim nor catholic religion treated the jews as equals. guess WHICH religion treated them WORSE in spain???

Sir, with all due respect, I - a professor of History and Political Science at a major S. Florida university, beg to differ:

In 1053-1071, The Book of Usage written in Barcelona, defined the legal status and privileges of Jews. It put the protection of the Jews under the King, who would decide the punishment for anyone harming or killing a Jew. Castile has similar laws when created.

1085: Toledo captured on May 6 by Alfonso VI, "Emperor of all Spain". Joseph Nasi Ferruziel (called Cidellus)is Alfonso VI’s physician and nasi of all the Jews in the kingdom. He owns large estates in and around Toledo.

1086: The Christian advance obliges the Muslim kings of Granada, Seville and Badajoz to call to their aid the Almoravides ("those vowed to God"), recently converted fanatical Berbers of Africa. Their fanaticism sends some Jews and Christians to the north of Spain.

1130: School for scholars is established by Alfonso VII in Toledo, spreading ancient Greek as well as Arabic and Hebrew learning throughout western Europe.

1144: First case of "blood libel" (accusation that Jews use the blood of murdered Christian children in their ceremonies) recorded in England.

1151: The Almohades, another more conservative African Muslim dynasty who have displaced the Almoravides, retake Almaria. Jews and Mozárabes (Christians in Muslim lands) flee to the northern Christian kingdoms of Spain, or to African and the East, including Rambam. Christian kings in northern Spain use Jews as physicians, scientists, tax collectors, judges, diplomats and public officials.

1213-1276, reign of King James I of Aragon, who encouraged Jews from France and North Africa to settle in Aragon with land and property grants and exemptions from taxes. Many Jews were administers for the royal court, including the manager of the king’s personal property. Solomon and Bahya Alconstantini of Saragossa assist the king in his military campaign. Don Judah ibn Lavi de la Cavalleria becomes the royal treasurer and bailiff of Saragossa in 1257, and controls all crown revenues after 1260.

1215: Fourth Lateran Council institutes the "Badge of Shame", a mark that all Jews are required to wear to distinguish themselves from Christians, and decrees that Jews shall not be seen in public on Good Friday. Fernando III, with the archbishop of Toledo, appeal to the Pope on behalf of the Spanish Jews. The pope, Honorius II, suspends the decision.

1290: All Jews are expelled from England. Many move to Spain.

1306 - Jews expelled from France move to Barcelona and Toledo.

1478: The New Inquisition begins to seek out "marranos" (Jews secretly practicing Judaism after publicly converting to Christianity) and heretics by using torture on "conversos" or "New Christians".  (BTW, EricTheHun is correct: only Jews that continued to practice Judaism after publicly converting, "marranos", were persecuted. Those that were openly Jewish were left alone.)

and lastly, Christopher Columbus is believed to have been of Jewish ancestry.

Eric, the lack of control Rome had over the Inquisitors in Spain is well documented.  There was quite a power struggle there.  I don't have the inclination to search the net for "evidence" - but your POV is not that of most historians - either secular of Catholic.

Actually Im a Lutheran Pastor.

The original Christians where Jews.

And Yes I am saying the Orthodoxy did not come from BIG "C" Catholic as in Roman Catholicsm.   The Pope was only one of the original patriarch ans was not recognized as the head of the early church.  If yu read a history book you will find it was not until the 4th or 5th century that the Pope declared he was the head of the church and it was rejected by the other partriarchs.   So it was when  the Roman empire split into east and west as well as Western Christianity with the power  in Rome and Easten Christianity with the power in Constaninople.   But no Eastern Orthodoxy never recognized Rome as its leader and does not today either.

Like wise The reformation was a movement to remove Rome from the eqaution and return to the early church of Paul where yes there was no Pope.  So when Luther and the reformers broke from Rome they did indeed contact the other major ancient church that being the Ordthodoxy.

Hay find me one reference to the Pope in the new testiment?   Now I mean no disrespect to Roman Catholics, God bless and its a great tredition.  But no,  protestants trace thier DNA to Christ directly not to Rome.   I personally am a Jew by birth as well, was never a Roman Catholic.  Now as in catholic small "c" meaning universal yes we share some of the same universal treditions and understandings.

Quoted: www.bethelks.edu/services/mla/images/martyrsmirror/mm%20bk2%20p729.jpg ever witness a man...yes, a man, a human being...getting his tongue screwed to the roof of his mouth by a 'christian'? on orders from the 'church'??? bah! kindler, gentler my ass! you did know that some of the condemned to be burned to death would smuggle gunpowder in their mouths and in their clothing in hopes of a quicker death? all in the name of 'god'.

Hay Campybob every hear of the sand creek massicre?   Or any othe other attrocities commited by the United States on the Native Americans.   So that means all Americans are evil.   Had nothing to do with liberty.    And what about what white folks did not the blacks, so all whites are slavers?   Ya know its easy to make gross generalizations and impose corperate guilt on another group.  

How many have been torchured in the name of Liberty?  Freedom and justice?  Just because its been misused and  abused does not destroy the idea only the abuser.

Quoted: The Myth of the Spanish Inquisition by Ellen Rice "The Myth of the Spanish Inquisition," Ellen Rice is assistant to the editor of Catholic Dossier. http://www.catholic.net/RCC/Periodicals/Dossier/1112-96/article4.html Eric The(ReturningWithMore)Hun

Oh...well.... OK, if the Catholic church says they didn't hardly kill anyone during the Inquisition, well.... then.... they wouldn't LIE, now would they?

Quoted: The English expreience is a little softer than the Spanish

Rev, that statement is certainly not factual. Fr. Bartolome De Las Casas was an ardent defender of the rights of indigenous Americans and a critic of the Spanish crown's treatment of them in the 16th century. That is just the beginning.

If one examines the European attitudes toward African slaves in the "New World", it is the Spanish (and the French) who are the most benign - not the English or the Dutch (ie Catholics were generally kinder, if one can use that phrase regarding slavery, than were the Protestants).

Examples:

The Catholic church forbade the seperation of African families and recognized their marital status. This was due to a church edict that recognized them as having souls - the Protestants did not.

Spanish Florida, specifically the area known as Gracia Real de Santa Teresa de Mose, now Fort Mose near St. Augustine, was a safe haven for runaway slaves. There, they were allowed property and civil rights guaranteed by the Spanish Crown.

In the area of Amelia Island, there is a plantation called St. George's Plantation. There, in 1811, Zephaniah Kingsley, a white planter, married Anta Majigeen Jai, an African slave he had purchased in 1806. Zephania had several children with Ana (as she came to be known) and he gave her several hundred acres as her own plantation. The Spanish recognized her property and marital rights and even granted her additional land for her assistance in repelling US forces in 1817.

When the Americans annexed Florida in 1821, they rejected not only her property rights due to her race, but also her marital status to Zepaniah Kingsley. Thus, the Kingsley's moved to Haiti.

Quoted: Quoted: The BBC research shows that more men and women were executed by the guillotine of the French Revolution in one day than by the Spanish Inquisition during the entire 16th century. I'd like to see that evidence. Quoted: In the vast majority of cases, an Inquisition ended in absolution, penance, or a warning – not an execution. Eric The(SettingTheRecordStraight)Hun Yeah....AFTER they kicked the shit out of you. Couldn't be that bad. Eric, I've seen you defend the Crusades and now the Inquisition. Too bad we didn't have a time machine I think you'd have been much happier in barbaric times under a Christian theocracy. Back then when people didn't believe as the church said they forced them too.

Um I hope he states the Crusades stank for everyone.   And by the way Christendom did not start it.  It was started by the migration of the Muslim Turks in to the area.   Before that while under Christian domination of the Byzantene Empire it was peacefull.   Now thats another fallacy of the time that it was Christian against Muslim.   Nope it was chaos where Muslim faught Muslim, Christain faught Christian and both faught eachother.   Also all manor of evil such as selling children into slavery, kidnaping and sacking rival cities for profet took place.

Quoted: No, Mr. CampyBob, you continue to change the terms of the debate in every case.  You can't do that and have a rational discourse.  The article cited repeatedly stated that this referred only to the official Inquisition, and that there were vast differences between this and the SECULAR issues happening concurrently. Salem, MA was never about heresy or belief, but specific behavior.  The witness were perjurers, it had nothing to do with what  you imply id does, ie persecution for individual beliefes, nothing at all. All same same your other examples; you continue to insert bad behavior by religionists, and blame it on the religion. Classic Marxism is indeed a religion.  Leninism was as well. And I have no intention of debating Catholicism with anyone; I don't have the time or interest. Larry

Your disticntions between a 'religious' and secular inquistion are meaningless. Europe was essentially a theocracy with the Pope excommunicating leader who didn't toe the line. European heads of state rule by divine right as interpreted by Rome.

Atheism, as has been stated, is not a religion. 20th century revolutionary states were not atheists vs. christian, moslem, taoist, buddhist, etc. They were civil wars that oftentimes pitted the existing regime and its religious rationale for existance against the revolutionaries. Thus, the real battle was the agents of change "revolutionaries" against those wanting to maintain the status quo, the rulers and the religious.

I think there is way too much interchanging of "Spanish Inquisition" with just "inquisition."  The Spanish inqusition was by far the longest lasting and most well-known, but was not the only inquisition ever ordered.