This is what I posted and what you cited as to what you were answering:
I believe your answer does not respond to the entirety of that but that it rather takes something out of context.
When a prosecutor says: “the fact that the defendant was seen fleeing the site of the crime, added to all the other evidence presented goes to prove that the defendant did indeed commit armed robbery” does not mean the defendant is being persecuted for running across the street even though others run across the street and are not prosecuted.
I did take it out of context, but that’s because it’s not any kind of evidence at all. The logical answer is that Mr. Ex-Jew doesn’t eat pork because he’s never eaten pork before, not because he’s really still a practicing Jew.
Fleeing the site of the crime is evidence that you could have committed the crime (because you were there). Disliking bacon is not evidence that you’re Jewish.
As soon as you provide examples of Christians (converted or “native”) who were persecuted solely for not eating pork you will have a case. In the meanwhile you don’t. Specially because pork was probably so expensive not many people got to eat much of it anyway. Had the Inquisition provided them with a plate of pork most would have eaten it without any need to convince them. Food was pretty scarce at that time and people ate what they could rather than what they liked.
So, find me a good Christian, practicing in every respect, who was persecuted solely for not eating pork.
I think I’d find it quite difficult to establish just how good a Christian any Inquisition victim might have been or not been, but I don’t think you’ll find anyone else who thinks the Inquisition was well-run, as you seem to.
So you are saying you hold a belief but have no evidence to support it?
BTW, I never said the Inquisition was “well run”. I am saying they were fairly normal for how things were done in Europe at the time. Even centuries later my ancestors had to flee Scotland to save their lives because they were Catholic. So let us not pretend these things only happened in Spain because probably more people were killed and displaced in northern Europe by wars and conflicts of religion than were in Spain.
I don’t know about bacon but you sure as hell won’t any true Spaniard who does not like Jamón serrano. I know Jews who love it but never met a Spaniard who didn’t.
I think the Jews historically were persecuted because they were available. Medieval Europeans could have hated Muslims or Africans or Chinese, but they were all thousands of miles away - what fun is that? You need an enemy who’s close enough to hit when you’re in a bad mood.
Look, Really Not All That Bright, this is getting silly. If you are the one who claims Christian ex-Jews were persecuted solely on the basis that they did not eat pork then it is up to you to provide evidence in support of that assertion. I maintain that as long as there is no evidence that it happened I do not have to believe that it happened.
And, BTW, the trials of the Inquisition are quite well preserved as are many others of that time. Quite a few have been published, including those against Antonio Perez which I have read in their entirety some time ago.
Pedro de Villarreal, his wife Maria Lopex, and their daughter Isabella were all executed in Castile in 1519. The charges against them were that they didn’t eat pork, that she removed the sciatic nerve from meat, prepared special “sabbath stews”, didn’t eat rabbit or eel, and ate meat on fast days.
It’s quite possible that they were crypto-Jews, but the fact is that each of those charges…refusal to eat pork, removal of the sciatic nerve, prepared sabbath stews, refusal to eat rabbit and eel, and eating meat on fast days, were themselves independent charges, and seen as proof of crypto-Judaism.
But that’s what Really Not That Bright is saying too. He’s saying that the mere accusations of pork eating, or eating meat on Friday, or not lighting lamps on Saturday against conversos were enough to start an investigation or even lead to a conviction, while this wasn’t the case with Old Christians. Conversos were, as a class, suspected of being crypto-Jews. This isn’t even taking into account the limpieza de sangre legislation, which was racial antisemitism and not even religious antisemitism.
Obviously Spain wasn’t the only anti-Semitic county or the only religiously intolerant country, but, in the late fifteenth and sixteenth century especially, Jews were persecuted in Spain.
Of course adhering to a Jewish diet was more likely to raise suspicions on a Jewish convert than on a “native” Christian. Plenty of native Christians were persecuted for having read Muslim or Jewish books and other such things. The point is that the Inquisition did not persecute anybody for the mere fact of being an ex-Jew but for signs that they may be declaring their Christianity while secretly practicing the Jewish faith. Of course being an ex-Jew would be one more point in raising suspicions. Monty Python not withstanding the Inquisition were not entirely stupid.
