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?
As a Church Historian I can only encourage Christians, especially Protestants, to actually research Church History. Anyone interested in Foxe should probably look here for starters: http://www.hrionline.ac.uk/foxe/index.html
It takes some effort to be knowledgeable, but it is so much better to have a clue than to be gullible and clueless.
Fox's writing here is a bit of historical historiography--he wrote over 350 years ago. Like virtually any history of his day, of course he is obviously biased...standards of history as a science had yet been written. Of course we as conservatives still see notorious bias both in history's first draft (the media) and in history text books and courses used in schools.
However, beyond Fox there are numerous and widespread historically reliable accounts that the medieval and renaissance Roman Catholic church did indeed surpress the vernacular bible, and ruthlessly persecuted and killed individuals and groups who for one reason or another didn't toe the official church line on any number of subjects (often SURPRISE...those issues, like corruption of the curia, or threatening fund-raising (see "indulgences")involved money and/or political power...)
You can say the Church didn't kill anyone...technically almost true...however judging one (or hundreds and thousands ) heretical and turning him over to the state (to burn alive) makes them as culpible or more as the high priests of Jerusalem turning Jesus over to Rome while chanting, 'crucify!' (the original word "outlaw" applied to heritics, and meant they were "outside the protection of the law" meaning anyone, especially local rulers, could imprison, torture or kill them, without penalty)
There is a reason why freedom of religion was so important to the (overwelmingly Protestant) founding-fathers of America--they were only a few generations away from the raging religious wars of Europe--which sprang up after the Catholic Counter-Reformation, and its highly intolerant Council of Trent declaration.
Until Roman Catholicism as a whole (not just the Vatican itself, which to a large extent has...) faces up to its history of persecution, corruption, and intolerance--focused on other Christians especially, will there ever be enough reform to reunify the Church.