The conflict between Protestant and Catholic is a parade of falsehoods grounded upon wildly inexplicable causes and fabrications. Seemingly a man (or woman) was able to preserve himself (or herself) from the gallows by mere token utterance of fidelity for which naturally there was no proof whatsoever. The end game was to convince either the people of England, the King or the Pope of Rome that you swayed this way or that. Where necessary for perceived maximum benefit both sides were played contemporaneously by yet further imaginary logic. In short it was all a subterfuge designed for control of Parliament and the public coffers. The British blatantly confirmed that in the event of conflict, neither side was prepared to move and both were prepared to suffer the consequences of appearances at whatever cost.
The casuistic method was popular among Catholic thinkers in the early modern period, and not only among the Jesuits, as it is commonly thought. … By the mid-18th century, “casuistry” had become a synonym for specious moral reasoning. However, Puritans were known for their own development of casuistry. A British encyclopedia of 1900 claimed that it was “popularly regarded as an attempt to achieve holy ends by unholy means.”
We have become so accustomed to meaningless political tripe that certain among us have willingly accepted the putative “reality” of spineless entertainers like Donald J. Trump who undoubtedly captures as well the equally hidden agenda of certain of the “masses” to further ignite the percolating fuel of the groundlings.
There was among the English a strong conviction that the Roman Catholic, where the interests of his religion were concerned, thought himself free from all the ordinary rules of morality, nay, that he thought it meritorious to violate those rules if, by so doing, he could avert injury or reproach from the Church of which he was a member. Nor was this opinion destitute of a show of reason. It was impossible to deny that Roman Catholic casuists of great eminence had written in defence of equivocation, of mental reservation, of perjury, and even of assassination. Nor, it was said, had the speculations of this odious school of sophists been barren of results…The inference popularly drawn from these things was that, however fair the general character of a Papist might be, there was no excess of fraud or cruelty of which he was not capable when the safety and honour of his Church were at stake.
Thomas Babington Macaulay. “The History of England, from the Accession of James II — Volume 2.”
This esoteric religious drivel is too tarsome for any other than the leading actors to fathom. What if anything is proven to count again and again is not the faintest thread of logic but rather the convincing persuasion of performance. The spectacles range from architectural wonders to fashion novelties and some absurdities of activity (“baptism” in a river, buying confessions, burning of incense and quarterly drama re-enactments). The complexity of religious hype has become so tangled and incoherent that the confused masses have abandoned any hope of comprehension and opted instead for the lesser punishment – heaven including its numerous toll booths approaching the Pearly Gates.
Why do you hate the Irish? I don’t know, we just always have! That in a nutshell is the substance of years of conflict and argument arising from what is conveniently characterized as religious differences (basically fictional theses contrived to sustain animosity and currency whatever it may be). There is naturally a connection to power and money in the process. Like Trump, the various religions will tout whatever is necessary to maintain the appearance of propriety. And while we marvel at the codswallop that is the rationale, Trump and similar promoters maintain that precious balance upon the pinnacle of obscurity and confusion.
While it is easy to defer one’s reasoning skills for the seemingly innocuous advantage of spiritual release and foment, the necessity doesn’t begin to legitimize the product as anything other than an analgesic. Our so-called spiritual leaders are still nothing more than snake charmers and entertainers overall. To equate their palliative remedies with insight of any worth is as misleading as attributing eureka to THC.