Take, for instance, this little bit of nonsense: "The Albigenses were a people of the reformed religion, who inhabited the country of Albi."
Reformed religion?
THEY WERE NOT CHRISTIANS ! They were dualists. Dualists cannot be Christians. They scorned marriage, having children, and practiced a form of ritual murder/suicide called the "endura".
Does Foxe discuss any of that?
"They were condemned on the score of religion in the Council of Lateran, by order of Pope Alexander III."
More like they were condemned on the score of "anti-religion" since they preached a gospel of extinction and murder.
Or how about this gem of "missing-the-point"?:
"In the year 1524, at a town in France, called Melden, one John Clark set up a bill on the church door, wherein he called the pope Antichrist."
Oh, you mean he was a delusional nut?
"For this offence he was repeatedly whipped, and then branded on the forehead."
Not by the Church he wasn't. By the state -- and maybe not even for a "religious crime" but for disturbing the peace.
"Going afterward to Mentz, in Lorraine, he demolished some images, for which he had his right hand and nose cut off, and his arms and breast torn with pincers."
So the state punished him horribly for vandalizing beloved religious art that was probably on public display in the local cathedral or church? And the problem is...? This was in 1524 right? Rick-burning got the death penalty in England and elsewhere why would we be surprised by this nut's punishment?
"He sustained these cruelties with amazing fortitude, and was even sufficiently cool to sing the One hundredth and fifteenth Psalm, which expressly forbids idolatry; after which he was thrown into the fire, and burnt to ashes."
Oh, in other words, he fell even further into his madness, lost all grip on reality and made such an annoyance that the state finally executed him?
The State? So how exactly does this respond to D.L.'s article?