Regardless of whether or not Charles I deserved to be executed, I was fascinated by the fact that he felt confident in the fact that he was destined to go to Heaven after his execution. A short paragraph in “The Trial and Execution of Charles I” stuck out to me because it was unlike the majority of the passage and other passages; it was not merely weighing the validity of his actions. It seems to me that it was almost as if Charles I was not even concerned with the justification or validity as long as he was going to be saved by going to Heaven. This is interesting to me because in modern day if leaders were to be assassinated or executed, many of them would be very concerned and focus most of their attention on the truthfulness and fairness of the reasoning behind their executions.<\/p>\n
It would also make sense that during this time period the citizens would also be comforted by the notion that even if Charles I was wrongfully executed, at least he was going to go to Heaven. This could mean that they would potentially disregard the morality of the sentence because they felt so confident in the wildly unknown. Killing a leader even if he or she is likely a tyrant just because of the sureness of Heaven is not necessarily morally permissible. Thus, the concept of the punishment of an unjust leader being contingent on civilians’ faith in the possibility of an enchanted world and afterlife is very shocking to me. Conclusively, I was surprised to see that even Charles I thought that as long as Heaven was on the horizon, any consequence served for potentially being a poor leader was permissible.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Regardless of whether or not Charles I deserved to be executed, I was fascinated by the fact that he felt confident in the fact that…<\/p>\n