Who was Oliver Cromwell?

[RobHom]

I think his point is that everybody hates everybody…or something like that. If his point is different I’ve somehow managed to miss the subtlety.

You did pick up on the “subtle” message…

 

[RobHom]

…or considering that he doesn’t say anything but merely post links, maybe he’s one of those bot programs…

No, I’m not a bot… I just prefer to post links rather than do a ton of cut and paste. I figure if someone “really” wants to know the information…they can click on it and get the “whole enchilada”.

Or are you referring to dosdog…?

 

[RobHom]

If you are referring to dosdog…at least he’s gotten around to posting some “salient” information…at least some that I find interesting now. Apparently he’s a person of few words…

 

[Montalban]

No, I’m not a bot… I just prefer to post links rather than do a ton of cut and paste. I figure if someone “really” wants to know the information…they can click on it and get the “whole enchilada”.

It’s good for people to back up their claims with evidence, but simply posting links is in effect to say “Go research it for yourself” (implying the person’s not done this)

Or are you referring to dosdog…?

I thought he was referring to dosdog.

 

[Montalban]

If you are referring to dosdog…at least he’s gotten around to posting some “salient” information…at least some that I find interesting now. Apparently he’s a person of few words…

And even fewer his own.

The whole point of these fora (so I thought) was for people to give debate on their own understanding - it’s not a scholastic site seeking people to submit a paper. However we do occasionally require people to back up their claims with evidence.

 

[rr1213]

No, I’m not a bot… I just prefer to post links rather than do a ton of cut and paste. I figure if someone “really” wants to know the information…they can click on it and get the “whole enchilada”.

Or are you referring to dosdog…?

dosdog

 

[RobHom]

It’s good for people to back up their claims with evidence, but simply posting links is in effect to say “Go research it for yourself” (implying the person’s not done this)

I post the links because often times the explanation greatly exceeds the character length of posts allowed. And I will admit that sometimes I tire of the pedantic “repetitively redundant” manner some people ask the same question with out ever paying a lick of attention to the answers they are given…or evidently looking at or reading information presented to them. To me it seems they have not done any research…but want others to do it all for them.

I have no problem pursuing a link and reading what is there. I would expect, apparently wrongly, that others might actual put forth a little effort…no?

 

[dosdog]

And even fewer his own.

The whole point of these fora (so I thought) was for people to give debate on their own understanding - it’s not a scholastic site seeking people to submit a paper. However we do occasionally require people to back up their claims with evidence.

I am not going to debate personal opioins nor do i care what your opionion is - you dont like it stay out of my threads - that goes for you too RR

 

[rr1213]

I am not going to debate personal opioins nor do i care what your opionion is - you dont like it stay out of my threads - that goes for you too RR

I don’t think I’m the only fellow who is wondering what the point of this thread is. The title is “who was oliver cromwell” and your first post was paragraphs of information about Cromwell. Ok, what do you want to discuss about Cromwell? The you follow with post after post of links showing that various religious groups hate and persecute each other. Ok, so what do you want to discuss about this truism?

 

[Montalban]

I am not going to debate personal opioins nor do i care what your opionion is - you dont like it stay out of my threads - that goes for you too RR

Ouch!

Yes, I’ll just accept your wave of quotes and not debate you

 

[Zooey]

I have:shrug: no idea where this thread is supoosed to be heading.

I do have an opinion on Oliver Cromwell: He was the 1600s edition of Adolf Hitler.

Frankly, if I had had the misfortune to live in his times, I probably would have thought he was the antichrist.
May all his :crying: unfortunate victims rest in peace.

 

[Montalban]

Cromwell was nothing like Hitler, even compared to other 1600s figures.

 

[Kaninchen]

Compared with the Thirty Years War (a roughly contemporary set of events) between various permutations and combinations of Catholic and Protestant forces in Central/Northern Europe, the whole English Civil War and Commonwealth era pales into relative insignificance in the awfulness ratings.

 

[Montalban]

Compared with the Thirty Years War (a roughly contemporary set of events) between various permutations and combinations of Catholic and Protestant forces in Central/Northern Europe, the whole English Civil War and Commonwealth era pales into relative insignificance in the awfulness ratings.

I totally agree. Magdeburg suffered far more than did Drogheda -at least if you were a civillian, that is!

 

[Contarini]

The only good thing about Oliver Cromwell is that he made Britain into a Republic, which unfortunately didn’t stick. Otherwise, the man was a tyrant and religious fanatic.

Is there any chance of getting you to question your assumption that “making Britain into a Republic” is a good thing and has no links with tyranny and fanaticism?

What kind of “republic” is it that is in fact a military dictatorship?

In my opinion neither a monarchy nor a republic is morally superior. What matters is whether the rulers, whoever they are, are subject to the law. Monarchy, being hedged about with all sorts of customs and traditions and having very specific rules for who could become the monarch, has in my opinion checked tyranny at least as often as it has fostered it.

Edwin

 

[rr1213]

Is there any chance of getting you to question your assumption that “making Britain into a Republic” is a good thing and has no links with tyranny and fanaticism?

What kind of “republic” is it that is in fact a military dictatorship?

In my opinion neither a monarchy nor a republic is morally superior. What matters is whether the rulers, whoever they are, are subject to the law. Monarchy, being hedged about with all sorts of customs and traditions and having very specific rules for who could become the monarch, has in my opinion checked tyranny at least as often as it has fostered it.

Edwin

I prefer the governmental system that best protects democratic principles and human rights. In most cases, that would be a representative republic with strong Constitutional checks and balances (e.g., the USA). In some cases, a constitutional monarchy has also been successful in this regard (e.g., UK, Canada). IMHO, though, these constitutional monarchies have been successful in promoting democratic principles and human rights in spite of, not because of, their monarchial status. There is nothing democratic about a hereditary monarchy and, today, such monarchies can be called democratic only to the extent that they remain figureheads and real power is welded by a democratically elected parliment.

Nonetheless, I’ll agree that a republic in and of itself is no guarantee that it will be democratic or will respect human rights. Indeed, the worse offenders of human rights in the 20th Century were republics (e.g., Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, the PRC, Pol Pot’s regime in Cambodia, and, to a lesser extent, Fascist Italy and Fascist Spain, etc.)

 

[Montalban]

I prefer the governmental system that best protects democratic principles and human rights.

So Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom, oh, and Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Holland, and Belgium aren’t good at maintaing their democracies and principles of human rights?

In most cases, that would be a representative republic with strong Constitutional checks and balances (e.g., the USA). In some cases, a constitutional monarchy has also been successful in this regard (e.g., UK, Canada). IMHO, though, these constitutional monarchies have been successful in promoting democratic principles and human rights in spite of, not because of, their monarchial status.

Our founding fathers here in Australia saw NO DISTINCTION between having rights and being part of a monarchy, after-all they CHOSE to remain part of the monarchy. They set up the constitution with a monarch in mind as a gaurantee of those rights; a monarch not subject to immediate poularist whim.

And we were one of the first nations in the world to give women the vote, and to have voting by secret ballot.

There is nothing democratic about a hereditary monarchy and, today, such monarchies can be called democratic only to the extent that they remain figureheads and real power is welded by a democratically elected parliment.

There’s no one claiming that the monarch is democratic - except insofar as the monarch remains monarch because the people haven’t toppled her. However having a non-democratic element is not new to us. Our judiciary is not elected. Sure, they’re appointed by parliament, but that’s taking the decision out of our hands.

Nonetheless, I’ll agree that a republic in and of itself is no guarantee that it will be democratic or will respect human rights.

Exactly, most of the world’s nations are republics; North Korea, Libya, Iraq (under Hussein), Iran, etc.

When was the average citizen first allowed to vote for the President of the USA?

 

[rr1213]

So Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom, oh, and Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Holland, and Belgium aren’t good at maintaing their democracies and principles of human rights?

I’d already mentioned the UK and Canada. Both these nations, and the others mentioned, are Constitutional Monarchies. They are certainly free societies and democracies, but vis-a-vis their monarchial status this is only because they are monarchies where the King and Queen have no real power. Democratic rule is excercised through their parliaments and other legislative bodies, not through their heads of state. If, instead, they should give true power to a hereditary monarch then they would cease, in proportion to the power conveyed, to be a democracy.

 

[rr1213]

Our founding fathers here in Australia saw NO DISTINCTION between having rights and being part of a monarchy, after-all they CHOSE to remain part of the monarchy. They set up the constitution with a monarch in mind as a gaurantee of those rights; a monarch not subject to immediate poularist whim.

That’s good. What power does Queen Elizabeth hold in Australia apart from merely ceremonial power? What about the power of her designee in Australia? What real power does he hold?

 

[rr1213]

Our judiciary is not elected. Sure, they’re appointed by parliament, but that’s taking the decision out of our hands.

Here in the US our federal judiciary is unelected as well. That’s the proper approach because the judiciary is supposed to apply the law and not be subject to the whim of the populace, as are the legislative and executive branches. Of course, the executive branch is supposed to be less responsive to popular whim as well but that is no longer the case anymore. Judicial appointments in our states are mixed, some judges are elected and some are appointed by the elected officials (normally the legislature).