@Why? #124518
*Sigh*
Well shit. This is egg on my face, it seems, because I was so certain. Chalk this up to my misremembering things. But at least I can admit when I make an oopsie.
So, in looking for citation to back up what I thought was a certainty, I could not find anything concrete to confirm that Calvin had, indeed, executed his (step)daughter and son-in-law. Turns out he might not have had a con-in-law at all, and although nobody seems 100% certain what happened to his stepdaughter, the general thought is that Calvin banished her, not executed.
Well, I guess we're all entitled to make a mistake now and then, and hopefully I don't make too many more in the future.
I really need to do something about how dogmatic I can get at times. Sometimes I get so certain about things I go and stupid it all up. Bleh.
Of course, none of this changes the fact that, yes, John Calvin did have people killed because his imaginary friend made a frowny in their general direction. Not outright killing his own offspring doesn't unmurder his other victims or make him a shining beacon of purity worthy of religious veneration. Being only 99% a murderous theomaniacal asshole isn't that much different from being 100% a theomaniacal asshole.