Comment on ontologically evil human being
rumschlumpel@feddit.org 2 weeks ago
This is kinda cheating. He may have done whatever “declare the leader is a Taghut” means ("call the king a devil”, or something like that?), but he certainly did not use that word.
Do you have a more in-depth source on his deeds? His Wikipedia article seems to refuse to engage with this aspect.
A Taghut is someone who worships a deity other than the Abrahamic god. Christians would use the term idolater. It IS a stretch but Cromwell considered High Anglicanism (as advocated by Charles I) to be too close to catholicism which protestants considered idolatry. This was made worse by Charles I marrying a catholic. I can’t find a source where Cromwell specifically calls Charles I an idolator but he headed a socio-political movement that did.
I’ll get back to you with better sourcss later if I can especially regarding the other details. My partner was not appreciating my casual historical research during our movie lol
rumschlumpel@feddit.org 2 weeks ago
Thanks!
My websearches also indicate that many of the deeds ascribed to Cromwell weren’t necesarily his personal doing, e.g. christmas and theater were already banned when he came into power. Puritans really didn’t like fun, like in general.
PETERS, JULIE STONE. “Staging the Last Judgment in the Trial of Charles I.” Representations, no. 143 (2018): 1–35. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26504449.
This is the best I can find in regard to perspectives of King Charles I as an idolator. If there is an account of Cromwell directly accusing Charles I of Idolatry I couldn’t find it easily.
As for the rest I found this
His destruction of idols and statues largely happened in Ireland but also occurred in England source
As for closing bars, his administration did this but not all bars, just ones that were “unlicensed and disorderly” source