3767 04 The Trial of Sir Thomas More The Great Trials of World History and the Lessons They Teac

[@charlesfaure1189]

A murderer murdered by another murderer. More got a better death than he gave to people who disagreed with him re religion, and thus a better death than he deserved.

[@namenameson9065]

Moderns don't understand religion. What are secular values based on? Do you believe in abstract concepts like Equality? Well, what basis is there for that? A mathematical concept where two figures are of equal value? But what in nature is equal? Are you and I as individuals equal? Surely we have unequal views on the subject of religion, which I view as something more than a superstitious belief, but an all encompassing worldview that expresses itself in the real world in real ways. Religious views competing is about a clash of fundamentally different ways of living, and most importantly, people with different values and goals. England leaving the Catholic fold back then may be viewed as comparable to Brexit today, the reasons for which are complex, and the full consequences may take time to unfold and understand. You may not think yourself to be religious, but your condescention tells me you are.

[@sstuddert]

@@namenameson9065 More had people burned alive until they died because they disagreed with him. Is that acceptable to you? Do you suppose that is something _Christ_ might have sanctioned?

[@namenameson9065]

@@sstuddert Lots of people were doing that back then. Applying modern standards to the past is one of the most dishonest arguments one can make. The point is the principals he represented for the time. He, like so many martyrs throughout history, stood against the whims and impulses of mans worst instincts. And after he was executed, a lot more people were burned alive for disagreeing with the regime.

[@sstuddert]

@@namenameson9065 I'm no fan of Henry VIII or his government, so I don't see what point there is in trying to convince me that it was a brutal regime: I already believe that, and in any case that fact doesn't exonerate More. As for the whims and impulses of man's worst instincts, do you think, perhaps, that a historically contingent tolerance for the burning of heretics--which More rather _enthusiastically_ participated in--might fall under that category? You can't say that More stood against the moral caprice of man's worst instincts but then defend More by appealing to that very same caprice.

[@namenameson9065]

@@sstuddert I'd say it depends on the kind of heretics! In our modern era, we have enemies trying to subvert our countries from without and within. Some of em, if not burned alive, shouldn't be allowed to do what they're doing. In the context of the time, it may have been a similar situation. Poltics, power, intrigue, etc. War hasn't changed so much.