Your bizarre calumnies notwithstanding, the monasteries accumulated their wealth over centuries. They accumulated it by rents, purchase and deed of gift, and as honestly as anyone on this forum.
The Benedictine vow of ‘conversion of life’ is not a vow of poverty. Even if it was, their wealth would not be an excuse for theft.
You cheer the theft of justly-acquired property on a Conservative forum - nice way to out yourself. Obama can make you his Righteous Confiscation Czar.
The Anglican Schism was an excuse to steal immense wealth. The great estates of England were built upon that act of primordial theft.
I didn't deny they accumulated their wealth over centuries, so what have my "bizarre calumnies" got to do with that? You don't get to dismiss them by alleging they deny an obvious fact. Can you deny the accusations? I know the monks forced peasants off land to turn over to sheep pasturage. I've seen the documents.
They accumulated it by rents, purchase and deed of gift, and as honestly as anyone on this forum.
Only if the people on this forum are snake oil salesmen. Sure they had rents and purchases and gifts. Nothing wrong with that (although they didn't pay tax on them, which gave them an unfair economic advantage) But they also sold indulgences and falsified holy relics, and used their secular power to get what they wanted. I've seen their castles and their law courts. Power corrupts. It doesn't matter if it is wielded by kings or monks or senators.
The Benedictine vow of ‘conversion of life’ is not a vow of poverty. Even if it was, their wealth would not be an excuse for theft.
It is certainly a vow of simple living, if followed to the letter. Very few of them were following it to the letter though, certainly in the sixteenth century. And you keep on using this word theft. It's confiscation, based on them not doing what they were supposed to be doing.
You cheer the theft of justly-acquired property on a Conservative forum - nice way to out yourself. Obama can make you his Righteous Confiscation Czar.
No, I do not cheer the theft of justly-acquired property because I do not consider that it was justly-acquired, and certainly not justly-retained. That is the point of the argument I was putting forward. Your attempt to dismiss my argument by equating it to our modern day situation is quite reprehensible.
The Anglican Schism was an excuse to steal immense wealth.
That is a pretty bizarre calumny in itself. Of course some people (Henry especially) did very well out of the dissolution of the monasteries, but to say that dissolving a corrupt, decadent and certainly declining institution was solely an excuse to steal money is an insult of epic proportions to the honest convictions of a great many dedicated reformers. You can argue they were wrong, or even used by the people in charge, but don't deny them their belief by saying it was "all for money". It clearly wasn't. Enough of them put their lives on the line.