--- David Rastall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If you were a Catholic in the England of > 1600, probably you > would be left alone as long as you didn't get > political. >
--- David Rastall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If you were a Catholic in the England of > 1600, probably you > would be left alone as long as you didn't get > political. > Yes, but what of something like the 20-pound fine - initiated under Elizabeth - that was imposed upon anyone not present at the state-church's Sunday services? This is quite considerable when you consider that the average person brought in around _2_ pounds a year! This would have been a serious burden for even the wealthiest of Catholics. Today we can point to instances of a few people like Byrd who were able to jump over the hurdles of state-sponsored discrimination, but that doesn't mean that the powers-that-be were willing to look the other way in every case. Why _would_ they want Catholics in these primo positions? Consider the case of blacks in the US before the civil rights movement. As a black, you might very well have been, say, the most gifted lawyer applying for a position at a firm. In spite of this merit, there's every likelyhood that your resume would have ended up in the waste basket before it ever even got past the front desk. Chris ____________________________________________________________________________________ Have a burning question? Go to www.Answers.yahoo.com and get answers from real people who know. To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
