John Calvin was America’s ’Founding Father’ [Presbyterian Rebellion Day]

Christian Telegraph ^

[Cronos]

Finally, discussing the traitorous Huguenots, did you know that the name is derived from the term applied in France to those conspirators (all of them aristocratic members of the Reformed Church) involved in the Amboise plot of 1560: a foiled attempt to transfer power in France from the influential House of Guise?

So, just like the Dim elite they wanted to replace government with their own police state

The huguenots were the rebels against conservatives, with attacks on Churchs in 1560 and an attempt by CAlvinists to kidnap the King Francis II

[BlueDragon]

But what victims died in that first "starting point" which you yourself pointed towards, you know the Affair of the Placards" but some Huguenots?

My comment concerning "bloody hands" was speaking directly and solely to that very incident, and none other.

You said "they started it" pointing to an exact point which you claim they did so. Were any other than Huguenots injured or killed THERE, at that precise juncture?

At that point, those particular Huguenots had not harmed anyone that I know of.

Now later, back and forth provocation and bitter retribution went back and forth for quite some years. I never have pretended it did not. But it continually seems as if you believe I did, or was attempting to? Good GOD it is SO difficult to communicate with hyper-sensitive hyper-defensive Catholics on this forum!

Sometimes, I don't know why I bother, but I sure-as -shooting see why so many other freepers (Catholic & non-Catholic alike) give this ghetto a wide berth.

[Cronos]

as I said -- discussing the traitorous Huguenots, did you know that the name is derived from the term applied in France to those conspirators (all of them aristocratic members of the Reformed Church) involved in the Amboise plot of 1560: a foiled attempt to transfer power in France from the influential House of Guise?

So, just like the Dimocrat elite they wanted to replace government with their own police state

The huguenots were the rebels against conservatives, with attacks on Churchs in 1560 and an attempt by CAlvinists to kidnap the King Francis II

[BlueDragon]

You're talking to yourself, Cronos. You are not engaging in discussion with me at all. Looks like you could have a few dozen threads covering all the stuff you've been bring up.

Sorry, good bye.

[Cronos]

Good GOD it is SO difficult to communicate with hyper-sensitive hyper-defensive Calvinists who think of Calvin as “the liberator” — ha ha! that’s a joke...

[Cronos]

BlueDragon: get a real hate-them-Calvinists-they-are-the-cause-of-all-ills hatefest going? --> not the cause of all, but quite a few --> here's one for you APARTHEID IN SOUTH AFRICA: CALVIN'S LEGACY?

..involves the assumption, by the Boers, that they were a chosen people of God...

Since the non-whites were obviously damned,.. the natives must naturally take a subservient role in society.

[BlueDragon]

Sorry for the previous ping, Alex. I mistakenly thought this was your thread.

[BlueDragon]

You forget who you are talking to. I'm not a Calvinist. As far as the penchant to continually list charge of crime against him though, perhaps you might consider how he learned the "total control freak" act, from the very best.

It wasn't until I stepped away from the keyboard for a while that something dawned upon me... It looks like you had the big gun indictments all pasted up, ready to fire away. Not talking to me at all. Hey, thanks for the pleasant chat...

[Cronos]

And yet i am talking to you and showing you how the facts in your post are utterly wrong. You got it wrong about the Spaniards v/s Frenchies :0-)

[Cronos]

The discussion with you is simple and encapsulated in post #96

how much of this was purely religious and how much of it was purely political? the Spanish have no love for the French even then -- and the French were trying to muscle in on what Spain considered THEIRS, the Americas

your statement should read French Protestants and the Spanish Catholics

Secondly, note what you yourself posted , launching a surprise dawn attack on the Fort Caroline garrison --> an attack on a garrison. This was war

Thirdly, Philip II of Spain was a Catholic king who hated Protestants is overly simplistic. Protestantism never spread in Spain or Italy due to cultural reasons. The austereness didn't ring a bell and also the Papacy was considered close enough to "be one of their own".

Where was Philip threated by Protestantism? In the Netherlands where there was the 100 years war in which the Flemish (Dutch and northern Belgians) were fighting to be separated from Habsburg domination. The differences were political, regional, cultural and by accepting calvinism, it added another separation between the two peoples.

But did you read it?

[Alex Murphy]

Sorry for the previous ping, Alex. I mistakenly thought this was your thread.

No offense taken, BlueDragon. And if there were, forgiveness has already been served :)

[Titanites]

Hey! Hold on there a second buddy.

I'm not sure where you get the impression that I'm your buddy.

Those statements which you are trying to characterize as what I offered as "history", were in answer to a question YOU asked

Some people just can't help themselves when asked rhetorical questions.

I never said that they were, yet even with only grabbing from that convenient source, it's far better than than what you yourself bring in establishing points key to your "version of truth" which is by and large sophistry and opinion, backed by wind.

It's not my "version of the turth". I avoid using Wikipedia as a source of history. However, this "wind" is from your "convenient source" which you have proclaimed as far better than what I've used:

In the meantime, the Spanish, who had long maintained a claim over Florida, had made preparations to find and oust the French from Fort Caroline. In early September Pedro Menéndez de Avilés, newly appointed adelantado of Florida, landed to the south of Fort Caroline and established the settlement of St. Augustine.

Jean Ribault took his fleet south to pursue Menéndez on September 10. Learning that the majority of the French men at arms were gone from Fort Caroline, Menéndez ordered his infantrymen to march 40 miles north to Fort Caroline, during a hurricane. On 20 September, the Spanish captured the now lightly defended French settlement; 140 men were immediately put to death. In the eyes of the king of Spain, the acts of piracy committed by former residents of Fort Caroline made the entire settlement a dangerous nest of pirates and heretics.

The Facts:

1. France and Spain were at war.

2. Spanish ships and settlements in the area were being plundered by pirates, at least some of which were Huguenots.

3. Florida was a territory claimed by Spain.

4. French Huguenots built a garrison in Florida.

5. At least some of these Frenchmen were known to be pirates.

6. The Spanish King charged Menéndez with removing the French garrison.

7. The Spanish were victorious over the French. Menéndez was successful in his mission and the French never returned to build another fort.

8. The story that this was simply a Catholic massacre of humble Huguenots only trying to practice their faith is a fairy tale.

[Cronos]

is a fairy tale.

Fairly common occurence in BD's posts. I put it down to lack of reading of history and in other cases, lack of reading of the Bible.

[BlueDragon]

Fairy tales, Cronos? And then you, (as has Titanites all along during this exchange) add additional insult? Where do you two get off?

Perhaps your beef is with historians, among them U.S. Park Service historians whom publish information as;

"...Having lost most of their food and weapons in the shipwreck, they did surrender. However, when Menéndez then demanded that they give up their Protestant faith and accept Catholicism, they refused. 111 Frenchmen were killed. Only sixteen were spared - a few who professed being Catholic, some impressed Breton sailors, and four artisans needed at St. Augustine.

Two weeks later the sequence of events was repeated. More French survivors appeared at the inlet, including Jean Ribault. On October 12 Ribault and his men surrendered and met their fate, again refusing to give up their faith. This time 134 were killed. From that time, the inlet was called Matanzas -- meaning "slaughters" in Spanish."

Here's a portion of memoir of the events, written by a Catholic priest present at the slaughter of Ribault and his men at Matanzas, which counting the attack on Ft. Caroline, was the third and final repetition of the same barbarity, the fulfillment of the orders given by Philip II as the expressly stated reason for the voyage of Menendez, which was to kill all Lutherans found in Florida.

...Immediately the general sent him back to his countrymen, to say they must surrender, and give up their arms, or he would put them all to death. A French gentleman, who was a sergeant, brought back the reply that they would surrender, on condition their lives should be spared. After having parleyed a long time, our brave captain-general answered, "that he would make no promises; that they must surrender unconditionally, and lay down their arms; because if he spared their lives, he wanted them to be grateful for it; and if they were put to death, that there should be no cause for complaint." Seeing that there was nothing else left for them to do, the sergeant returned to the camp; and soon after he brought all their arms and flags, and gave them up to the general, and surrendered unconditionally. Finding they were all Lutherans, the captain-general ordered them all to be put to death; but as I was a priest, and had bowels of mercy, I begged him to grant me the favor of sparing those whom we might find to be Christians. He granted it; and I made investigations, and found ten or twelve of the men Roman Catholics, whom we brought back. All the others were executed, because they were Lutherans and enemies of our Holy Catholic faith. All this took place on Saturday (St. Michael's Day), September 29, 1565.

I, FRANCISCO LOPEZ DE MENDOZA GRAJALES, Chaplain of His Lordship, certify that the foregoing is a statement of what actually happened.

FRANCISCO LOPEZ DE MENDOZA GRAJALES.

And here's a small excerpt from; NARRATIVE OF Don SOLIS DE LAS MERAS, brother-in-law of Don PEDRO MENENDEZ DE AVILES, Adelantado of Florida, translated from BARCIA, "Ensayo chronologico para la Historia General de la Florida," Madrid, 1723.

"...They replied, We are satisfied with your statement, and begged as a favor that he would give them some ships to take them back to France. The Adelantado said that he had no ships to spare but he would do so willingly, and if he had some to spare, if they were Catholics; that he had recently sent one to Fort San Matteo (Fort Carolin), to bring the artillery; one to St. Domingo, with the women and children he had captured; and one with dispatches to Spain. The Frenchmen then begged the Adelantado to let his people remain with him until he could furnish them with ships and provisions to take them back to France, as there was then no war between the two nations, and the Kings of France and Spain were friends and brothers.The Adelantado replied that this was true, but that, as they were Lutherans, he looked upon them as enemies, and would wage war against them with fire and sword, whether on sea or land, for the King; "as I have come here to establish the Holy Roman Catholic faith in Florida..."

source; Extraits de l'histoire coloniale de la Floride et de la Louisiane

additional source;Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography/Gourgues, Dominique Chevalier de

[PieterCasparzen]

I put it down to lack of reading of history and in other cases, lack of reading of the Bible.

Cronos, please permit me to offer some constructive criticism. You actually made a post that equated Calvinists with jihadis. You've made all sorts of accusations on this thread which, to me, distort the history of my own ancestry as well as America's history. I can only surmise that you're trying to defend Roman Catholicism but have gone a bit overboard. I restrain myself from answering on this thread as I'm sure many others do, since the time required to successfully refute posts is simply more than the typical person has available. But of course on the other hand one feels compelled to respond to outlandish remarks so readers can see valid refutations.

On this thread it appears that you desire to live in a country that is totally Roman Catholic, that all non-Roman Catholic Christians represent an evil scourge to be eliminated from America. If this is the case, you should move to the Vatican, a nation that is both Church and State, and entirely Roman Catholic. As you know, here in America, we do not have a single, official state Church, a national American Church that is synonymous with the American civil government. Here in America, the civil government and the Church are two different entities. As far as a Church having dissenters who break away and form their own Church, resulting in a multiplicity of Christian denominations, well, the U.S. Constitution does not grant the U.S. civil government any right to force people to belong to any specific denomination. In America, people are free to form their own Churches and congregations according to their conscience. Clearly the framers sought to avoid the upheaval that happened in Europe when government and Church were one and the same, so the Constitution was written such that the Church can not usurp the government's role in society and the government can not usurp that of the Church.

I don't have time for reading this let alone responding to every post, I don't think many others do and, IMHO, it clogs FR and the internet with confusion and misrepresentations as opposed to filling it with engaging and edifying content.

While theological debate is wonderful, and debates about history are wonderful - and even debates about the history of theology are wonderful - you'll notice that I refrain from berating Roman Catholics for massacres of my ancestors. I refrain from calling them heretics. I refrain from calling evangelicals heretics. I refrain from a lot of things. And this is not to my credit; it is nothing to boast of, of course, it's simply the bare minimum of public discourse. These days it seems impossible to have a discussion on the internet about religious matters without people resorting to impoliteness and vile accusations. IMHO, posters of accusations should look inside themselves and consider where the accusations are coming from. If a poster is defending the truth of their doctrine, the truth of their doctrine should not need to be defended in such a manner.

Grace and Peace, may the Lord guide us in our thoughts, words and actions.

[Titanites]

And then you, (as has Titanites all along during this exchange) add additional insult? Where do you two get off?

There is no need to make it personal.

Through the discussions I have never denied there was a religious component to what happened. However, religion was not the primary factor. You can’t deny the role the French military played. In fact, Menéndez took advantage of Ribault being away from the French garrison at Fort Caroline to place an attack on Menéndez. Menéndez was victorious, which I’m sure irks some, and he showed mercy on the non-combatants and those who were Catholic. From the Florida Department of State:

Menéndez arrived in 1565 at a place he called San Augustín (St. Augustine) and established the first permanent European settlement in what is now the United States. He accomplished his goal of expelling the French, attacking and killing all settlers except for non-combatants and Frenchmen who professed belief in the Roman Catholic faith.

The French were threatening the shipping lanes and other interests of the Spanish and the King of Spain wanted it stopped. In your first post to me on this thread you started throwing around the word slander because I mentioned pirates from Fort Caroline. I’ve already shown you from one of your own preferred sources that soldiers from Fort Caroline were pirates who attacked Spanish vessels in the Caribbean.

Once again, as I’ve stated numerous times previously, I don’t deny there was a religious component involved. The Catholics thought the Huguenots were heretics. Do you not think the Huguenots thought the Catholics were heretics? I do deny that religion was the primary factor for why the King wanted the French removed from Florida. And the evidence I’ve posted supports that. To spin this as a Catholic massacre against humble Huguenots simply building a church in Florida is misleading, at best. All I’ve been doing is refuting this deception. I can’t help it if that messes with your preconceived ideas.

[Alex Murphy]

Here's a portion of memoir of the events, written by a Catholic priest present at the slaughter of Ribault and his men at Matanzas, which counting the attack on Ft. Caroline, was the third and final repetition of the same barbarity, the fulfillment of the orders given by Philip II as the expressly stated reason for the voyage of Menendez, which was to kill all Lutherans found in Florida.

Well, imagine that!

[BlueDragon]

Thank you. And my apologies to you also, for not having been able to display the same fine spirit which you have, and did on this thread before my own original comment here.

[Hacksaw]

John Calvin was America’s ’Founding Father’

lol

[Gamecock]

The point of this article is the foundations of out Republic were first put forth in Geneva.

Those principles took a few centuries to fully develop.

The fact is that any nastiness conducted by the leaders of Geneva were learned from Rome, who had mastered the art of persecution quite well during the Middle Ages. Can anyone say Inquisition?