So, you think the Spanish Inquisition was bad?

Question

So, you think the Ku Klux Klan and the Spanish Inquisition are bad?

So do we, but...

Put the Numbers in Perspective

More people are killed by Islamists each year than in all 350 years of the Spanish Inquisition combined. (source)

Islamic terrorists murder more people every day than the Ku Klux Klan has in the last 50 years. (source)

More civilians were killed by Muslim extremists in two hours on September 11th than in the 36 years of sectarian conflict in Northern Ireland. (source)

19 Muslim hijackers killed more innocents in two hours on September 11th than the number of American criminals executed in the last 65 years. (source)

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/index.html#Attacks

Answer 1

Modern historians have long known that the popular view of the Inquisition is a myth. The Inquisition was actually an attempt by the Catholic Church to stop unjust executions.

Heresy was a capital offense against the state. Rulers of the state, whose authority was believed to come from God, had no patience for heretics. Neither did common people, who saw heretics as dangerous outsiders who would bring down divine wrath.

When someone was accused of heresy in the early Middle Ages, they were brought to the local lord for judgment, just as if they had stolen a pig. It was not to discern whether the accused was really a heretic. The lord needed some basic theological training, very few did. The sad result is that uncounted thousands across Europe were executed by secular authorities without fair trials or a competent judge of the crime.

The Catholic Church's response to this problem was the Inquisition, an attempt to provide fair trials for accused heretics using laws of evidence and presided over by knowledgeable judges.

From the perspective of secular authorities, heretics were traitors to God and the king and therefore deserved death. From the perspective of the Church, however, heretics were lost sheep who had strayed from the flock. As shepherds, the pope and bishops had a duty to bring them back into the fold, just as the Good Shepherd had commanded them. So, while medieval secular leaders were trying to safeguard their kingdoms, the Church was trying to save souls. The Inquisition provided a means for heretics to escape death and return to the community.

Most people tried for heresy by the Inquisition were either acquitted or had their sentences suspended. Those found guilty of grave error were allowed to confess their sin, do penance, and be restored to the Body of Christ. The underlying assumption of the Inquisition was that, like lost sheep, heretics had simply strayed.

If, however, an inquisitor determined that a particular sheep had purposely left the flock, there was nothing more that could be done. Unrepentant or obstinate heretics were excommunicated and given over to secular authorities. Despite popular myth, the Inquisition did not burn heretics. It was the secular authorities that held heresy to be a capital offense, not the Church. The simple fact is that the medieval Inquisition saved uncounted thousands of innocent (and even not-so-innocent) people who would otherwise have been roasted by secular lords or mob rule.

Where did this myth come from? After 1530, the Inquisition began to turn its attention to the new heresy of Lutheranism. It was the Protestant Reformation and the rivalries it spawned that would give birth to the myth. Innumerable books and pamphlets poured from the printing presses of Protestant countries at war with Spain accusing the Spanish Inquisition of inhuman depravity and horrible atrocities in the New World.

With love in Christ.

Answer 2

I don't know if numbers are the right way to evaluate an evil.

In college, we used to argue who was more evil: Hitler or Pol Pot. Hitler killed more people, but Pol Pot killed a higher percentage of his country's population. But it's foolish to do this.

Some Catholics have committed evil acts, Muslims have committed evil acts as well. Same for Hindus, Jews and Atheists.

I think rather than looking for evil people, we ought to strive to be good.

Answer 3

So very true.  It's a shame that so many liberals can't think for themselves, they only repeat what their loony left leaders tell them.

Answer 4

so you have to put a numeric value on people being killed? is one person killed OK? how about two? how about ten thousand? 20 thousand? how about 500,000? when does the exact numeric value of people being killed make it OK?you know that is the most inane argument i have ever heard. i have heard the Holocaust was not that bad cause NOT THAT MEANY PEOPLE DIED?  no one is arguing that the Islamic terrorist are killing people but to sit back and decide that it is OK.  besides how do you know how Meany people died under the Inquisition?. they like the n**i operated in secret. no trails. no next of kin notified. again how do you place a numeric value on a human life?  i am not saying that this is a sporting event which needs a instant grade. what i am saying is all such events and people that kill in mass is to be abhorred and looked at with utter contempt.  he said thou shalt not kill. what he did not say is it is ok to kill as long as you only keep the killing below a mere 500,000 people. for the last five thousand years since the Sumerian exile of Israel,people have killed in mass all those different from their selves, now there is darfur . is it OK to kill those Africans? no. and so far as the Islamic militants killing more people today. well in case you have not noticed there are more people ALIVE today than all of past history.  so how do you judge the the terror of the long night? is it ok to kill two,three,four,5,000?when do you say enough?  i say unto you that so as you have done unto the least of these so have you done unto me. one or one million it is never right to have the strong prey on the weak.