Replies

let's trace the Huguenots, shall we. In france, under Francis I, France was tolerant of all religious views

however, what did the Huguenots do? In the affair of the placards they posted placards all over Paris and even on the bedchamber door of the king (a security breach that angered him and made him change his tolerance position) -- these placards were attacks on Catholics.

So, instead of discussing, the Huguenots went to attack the Catholic majority who until then were content to let them live and debate and discuss and debate. Incidently, until this time the Huguenots were increasing, like the Moslems in Bradford, but then they started to get shrill and wake people up with their attacks

This polemic was an attack and the Huguenots started this retaliation.This was in 1534

Next, came the French wars of religion in which the Huguenots conspired against the King. This, added to the previous attack meant that they now publically came to attack the conservative forces. The progressives of the Huguenots were the precursors of the Revolutionaires

The people who became Huguenots were primarily the urban elite, like our present-day New Yorkers who take a fad and they saw that this was a means to oppose the King, so Huguenotism became a political tool

A group of Huguenots tried to kidnap the Prince Francis II when his father died -- causing more antagonism.

Huguenots in 1560 attacked Catholic Churchs and destroyed properties in Rouen and La Rochelle -- thus the FIRST salvo was lobbed by the Huguenots. -- the Catholics retailiated with mobs at seeing their places of worship attacked and defiled by Huguenots

Next, in 1562-70, we have the wars -- now political-religious, so no, it was not a simple case of "persecution" --> The Huguenots were one side of a civil war, which they lost

Now, let's come to the juicy part, the St. Bart's day massacre -- this occured in 1572, 40 years after the first provocations by the Huguenots and 12 years after they started destroying Catholic Churchs (just like the Moslems in America they were quiet until their numbers grew)

now, King Charles XI was openly in favor of the Huguenots -- so a political moment. Hence the attacks on the opposing side

So, let's see in conclusion -- Huguenots first start their provocations in 1534, then in 1560 start attacking Catholic Churchs (with no provocation), then start their political support against the conservatives and start a civil war. After 12 years their side loses the civil war and yet they are still allowed to live and practise their faith (note this is the 1500s, not a nice time, yet they get this tolerance) -- but they still play political intrigues. So, one faction starts to attack and massacre the other faction

so, stop the entire "poor persecuted Huguenots" -- they brought it on themselves.

That's the Roman side of the story. If, for the sake of advancing a hypothetical I accept any of it as true, here are your salient points:

It was very "generous" of a French monarch to "allow" Christians to practice their own faith. [The Roman Church's history of generosity is well documented.]
When Christians defiled Roman Churches, they were not arrested by the "tolerent" monarch for the destruction of property, instead they were set upon, beaten, and murdered by Roman mobs.
The condign punishment for challenging the Roman Church in France was the outright murder of tens of thousands of Christians who "brought it on themselves."
Right.

Your silly "argument" puts me in the mind of a claim by I once read on a Roman Church message board that William Tyndale was not murdered by the Roman Church [yes, he was] and that his crime was not in creating an English language version of the Bible, but in creating an unauthorized version of the Bible: Just so. People pretending to have the authority over other Christians in matters of conscience encourage their extermination, and then claim they got what was coming to them. This is typical of the Roman Church, and its excusers persist to this day.