Lord Gaspard de Coligny

1. 1124 words not counting the family tree diagram or memory comments 2. I searched the term Coligny 3. The articled was titled Gaspard de Coligny 4. There was no disambiguation link 5. There have been approximately 500 changes 6. The first change was made September 7, 2003 7. The last, November 22, 2008 8. There were approximately 56 external links 9. There were 10 references to additional reading I went looking for more information about Lord Goligny after reading the St. Bartholomew Massacre. The assigned reading gave no background and I unclear why this person was sought out specifically and murdered. The article itself was helpful, but not interesting. It gave the very dry details of his "growing up", you know, who his parents were, where he lived, who he married, what he did for a living, but it gave no real insight to why he chose the religion he did, what he did that made him a leader of significance, and why the Queen may have encouraged his death, other than he was a protestant leader and she was staunch catholic. Maybe this lack of detail is just the way history was recorded, the bare minimum, or what was one person's inpretation of relevant information, but I'd like more humanistic details.

Forced control equals chaos

I've read this week's reading twice and still come off thinking, this was the same old same old. Power was constantly changing hands based on who could mustar the most strentgh at any one time. But the followers did not seem loyal. Take Cromwell. Although he "ruled" for quit a while, it would seem that he was supported out of fear, not by loyalty of commonality in belief. As soon as he died and his son took over, things immediately began to change again. The people of parlament who first thought him their savior jumped at the chance to regain power once he had passed on. I do not believe James I, Charles I, or even Cromwell acted on a desire strength their country through peace, but instead were simply seeking power or to get their way. Charles the II and Queen Elizabeth on the other hand recognized this and tried at least on the surface to compromise with the members of parlament and to show their subjects, whatever their religious preference, at least tolerance. I admired Queen Elizabeth's pep talk to her troups and the showing of her commitment to her country. If you talk the time to read a little about her life, she did much to put the well being of her country before herself. And her country thrived.

We choose who we are

"Christian faith has appeared to many an easy thing; nay, not a few even reckon it among the social virtues, as it were; and this they do because they have not made proof of it experimentally, and have never tasted of what efficacy it is." I had to read Luther's writing a couple of times to put this statement, along with his comment on things effecting the physical body but having no bearing on the soul, and his statement about freedom and duty all together. But he is so right. There are examples throughout history of people who suffered much physically but would not alter they conviction. Aristole we read about early. Another example is Joan of Arc. I've become a great admire of who she was and what she did. And I think she fits Luther's ideas of Christianity not being easy, a Christian man being the most fee but also the most duty bound. Christianity not an easy thing. In our reading alone we should be able to recognize that following a conviction is not an easy thing. Many many people were persecuted for their religious beliefs. Such was so at the time of Christ. I've aready mentioned Joan of Arc. The Jews. The Mormons. The Quakers. These persecutions included being driven from the homes, torture in hopes of a recant of their beliefs, and often time death. Freedom: Many might ask, how is there freedom in such persecution. I believe, from personal experience, that when we follow our convictions there is freedom in not having to worry about what decisions we are going to make. By having a conviction many decisions were made before the need arises. Take for example, I decided many years ago that I would not drink alcohol. My basis doesn't matter. So when approached about it as a teenager, I found no difficulting in saying no. I didn't have to worry or stress about what the other person might think of me or "what should I do" sort of thing. It provided a great freedom and peace. And although a choice about alcohol may seem insignifant to some, it definitely wasn't life threating, although it does remove the chance of killing myself or someone else because I was drinking and driving, the same principle applies. When I am convicted to an idea or principle, freedom from distracting choices or alternative ideas is inherent. Duty to others: Someone who professes Christianity becomes duty bound to his fellow being. You know, the golden rule sort of things. If I believe you are my brothers and sisters under God, then I am duty bound to treat you a certain way and to protect to from others who would treat you otherwise. It makes me be a better and involved person in every aspect of my life. A better parent, a better neighbor, and thus a better citizen. So while from last week's reading I was disappointed that Luther's enthusiam for his beliefs lead him to do some things I don't believe were in line with the very beliefs he professed, we are all human and all have our failings, he did have it right.

Doomed To Repeat

"Those who do not study the past are doomed to repeat it." For being such a famous saying, people sure haven't paid much attention to it. With the exception of the new ideas being religiously based instead of politically, does this all sound a little too familiar. I don't quite like your way of thinking, so I'm going to tweak it a little, and in the end, if you don't like it and adhere to it, I'm going to persecute and likely kill you. This way of thinking is how we started the course, in early Rome, and more that 2000 years later, we're still reading the same thing. And the really sad thing, 500 years later, it's still going on. Not necessary the killing part, but even here in the good old USA we persecute each other through words and actions because of a difference in beliefs, religious or political. This whole election process has shown us that. Personally, I'm greatful for new ideas. What wonderful discoveries we would have missed without them. But why do some people carry them so far? I only knew of little of the Martin Luther reform and respected what he did. But after this weeks reading, I'd have to say I waiver a little. The same with John Calvin. While I agree with some of each of their thinking, both seemed to have carried it too far. Which I feel is a hypocracy of anyone who claims a belief in God. If we believe that faith and good works is what Christ taught, how can we in the name of religion persecute and kill each other? And yet they did, and we do. The number of people who died from the black plague was mind boggling, but the number of people killed in the name of religious is unfathumable. Hundreds here, thousands there, leaders, followers, and everyone in between. I don't deny the good that has come from it. We have a country founded on religous freedom, with many different religious that all have some foundation based on these reformations. But if we don't also see falicies we have learned nothing. Remember, those who don't study history are doomed to repeat it. We mustvbe more tolerant in allowing people to worship how, where, and what they may. We must quit getting offended so easily. We must lose the thinking that my way is the only way. And although church and state must stay seperate, they can work side by side in nurturing tolerance and protection.