The religious history of the Reformation is a lot more complicated than the simple minded "Calvanists versus Catholics" view of Conservapedia,
e.g. why, after 1650, was the Presbyterian church supporting Charles II against Cromwell?
“You are entitled to your own faith and own opinion, but not your own history or facts. Charles I never tried to impose Catholicism on anyone including the Scottish Puritans. His crimes against the Puritans was in not more forcefully imposing the Reformation on the Catholic Scots. He was executed because he lost a civil war in which nearly 5% of the English population was killed. “
The information I posted was obtained from Conservapedia and is not my personal opinion.
Charles I’s persecution, and actual war against, the Scottish puritans is well documented.
If Cromwell overreacted or if his army committed war crimes, I’m not defending that. However, it should not be alleged that he just went about killing Irish Catholics without provocation. It was a war, and just like the war we are in now, innocent people get killed.
The religious history of the Reformation is a lot more complicated than the simple minded "Calvanists versus Catholics" view of Conservapedia,
e.g. why, after 1650, was the Presbyterian church supporting Charles II against Cromwell?
That is not what the Conservapedia says. Carles I was an Anglican in good standing. The events you are referring to are known as the Bishops Wars in which the central issue had to do with the authority and powers of the crown. Charles I sought to impose an episcopalian system of church government for Scotland (with bishops), and the Scottish Puritans desired a presbyterian system of governance (without bishops).
The charges that Charles I was "too close to the Catholics" was a charge against his royalist activities. The crowned heads of Europe were largely Catholic and Charles sought to more closely identify with them. Charles married a Catholic (Henrietta Maria of France whom he had never actually met) over the objections of parliament giving ammunition to his political opponents. He further fueled this claim failed to militarily intervene to protect the French Huguenots, who were themselves were the political equivalent of the English anti-Royalists.