After reading a BBC article, watching half a video, getting offered a website free trial, and watching a 3 Minute History close to 4 times, I think I have an understanding of the English Civil War. These are my thoughts:
What I am curious about is the importance of religion during the time period and the fact that something like religion could cause such a huge war back in the day and still causes conflict now.
Like race, religion was something that really divided people during the 1600s, especially because of the Catholic vs Protestant conflict. Some areas nowadays are more tolerant of each others religion, while other areas continue to be separated due to it. What makes people in some areas of the world more tolerant than in the past? On the other hand, what is it that has people continue being as intolerant as they were?
Was it a person, event, or just a way that society did or did not change? In some areas of the world, I believe it is related to the government’s separation from the church. This has an effect on the public, making them more accepting of others beliefs and opinions.
Next up: parliament. Charles I was quite wishy-washy when it came to the parliament. One minute he had them, the next he did not. Being the stubborn, overly-confident man he was, he only got parliament back together when he needed money. He used them. Now, let’s say that Charles had the money and didn’t need parliament’s, would he have still been in power as long as he was? Could he have ruled, entirely, by himself? Other than financially, how much of an effect did parliament really make on the events that happened?
Finally, why execution? In 1649, Charles I was sent to trial accused of committing treason. Quickly, he was found guilty and was beheaded, executed, or simply dead. How do we justify whether this is right or wrong? Those who stand on the side for execution may say that execution just ends it all. That the wrongs a person commits doesn’t give the person the privilege of life any longer. Maybe some think execution is smart out of the fear that the person will do wrong again. Out of the possibility that the wrong do-er will hurt them or their families.
I stand on the side that execution isn’t the answer. I personally believe some people deserve second chances to make thing right. A form of punishment is important to teach the person a lesson, but if they’re dead, what do they learn from that? Some people may not take the opportunity to change for the better, but the chance should still be available to all.
Like with religion, I again ask: What has changed to make execution not the only punishment today? Did this have to do with people straightening up their morals? Maybe people are now more giving with the opportunity of life. Alternately, some could argue that there are punishments more painful that death. Could this be why execution isn’t a common punishment? Because to some, death is too easy? Also, how much of an effect did religion have on this change?
The questions relating to execution are my favourite because the answers are quite subjective. Whether or not you agree with the punishment relates entirely to one’s beliefs and morals. I think it would be quite interesting to hear other’s thoughts on execution and their justifications on whether it is right or wrong.