> rather than the suppression of religious freedom in the red hot Reformation time.

That sentence seems pretty misleading to me, as it implies that "religious freedom" was something that really even existed at that time. Neither side wanted "religious freedom", they just wanted their side to win by exiling, killing or converting adherents on the other side.

What makes you think that? They absolutely did have religious freedom before [0], just not on an individual level unless you happened to be a lord. And lowborn individuals who didn't have a go at some ecclesial career weren't in a position to require much exiling or getting killed, they just went to whoever was put in charge of their local church.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_of_Augsburg?wprov=sfla1

The link on the Peace of Augsburg is exactly the point I was making:

> It officially ended the religious struggle between the two groups and made the legal division of Christianity permanent within the Holy Roman Empire, allowing rulers to choose either Lutheranism or Roman Catholicism as the official confession of their state. However, the Peace of Augsburg arrangement is also credited with ending much Christian unity around Europe. Calvinism was not allowed until the Peace of Westphalia.

That is, basically this carved up the middle of Europe into Protestant and Catholic areas, but in no areas was there really "religious freedom" as we think of the term today.

Nothing of what happened in Prague that day was about individual religious freedom, that much is true. But claiming that therefore it wasn't about religious freedom at all when it was quite literally about agreements guaranteeing religious freedom getting effectively revoked (just not guaranteeing it to everybody), that's a pretty wild case of time-traveling goalposts.