During The American Revolutionary War, the state religion of Great Britain was Christianity?

@oristarA,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

My sympathies were with the Sons of Liberty, in their anti-tyrannical cause,
but I 'm not sure where that gave us the right to rob the King of his real estate.
Except for his consent in 1783 in the Treaty of Paris,
if the Queen demanded it back, I m not sure by what logic we cud refuse.

David's point is:

Logically speaking, American Revolutionary War is a failure. The Queen can demand the real estate - the United States in its entirety- back.

1 Reply

Even if the founding fathers had unmistakably included freedom of religion in the Constitution of the United States (The First Amendment (1791) prohibits Congress from obstructing the exercise of certain individual freedoms: freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, and freedom of petition), our idiotic Izzy could shut his eyes and have the audacity to spout "bullshit! downright lies!" and Lordyaswas echoed him like a yes-man.

1 Reply

@oristarA,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

My sympathies were with the Sons of Liberty, in their anti-tyrannical cause,
but I 'm not sure where that gave us the right to rob the King of his real estate.
Except for his consent in 1783 in the Treaty of Paris,
if the Queen demanded it back, I m not sure by what logic we coud refuse.

oristarA wrote:

David's point is:

Logically speaking, American Revolutionary War is a failure.

It may have been a failure of a moral nature
in that we robbed the King of his real estate,
but it was a military success and a political success.
The King acknowledged that. I understand that,
referring to the US Constitution, the King allegedly said:
If Washington can do this,
he 'll be the greatest man in the world.

I have always deemed the Declaration of Independence
to be a BEAUTIFUL Instrument
concerning political relations; however, so far as I remember,
Jefferson did not explain how our decision to reject Royal authority
and to seize political Independence
gave us any right to the King 's real estate.
If tenants of residential realty denounce an obnoxious landlord,
does their denunciation rightfully entitle them to own his real estate??

Theoretically, the King coud have declared, but did not:
if you don t like my rule then get the hell off my land
and find somewhere else that u prefer.

oristarA wrote:

The Queen can demand the real estate - the United States in its entirety- back.

Yes. I am confident that her demand woud not be honored.
I wonder if Izzy is going to demand its return?

David

3 Replies

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

oristarA wrote:
The founding fathers promoted religious tolerance.

First bullshit hypothesis and now downright lies. Unlike you I use a source to back up what I'm saying.

Quote:
But the Puritan fathers of the Massachusetts Bay Colony did not countenance tolerance of opposing religious views. Their “city upon a hill” was a theocracy that brooked no dissent, religious or political. The most famous dissidents within the Puritan community, Roger Williams and Anne Hutchinson, were banished following disagreements over theology and policy. From Puritan Boston’s earliest days, Catholics (“Papists”) were anathema and were banned from the colonies, along with other non-Puritans. Four Quakers were hanged in Boston between 1659 and 1661 for persistently returning to the city to stand up for their beliefs.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/americas-true-history-of-religious-tolerance-61312684/?page=2

The same could be very well said that because our Izzy is an embarrassment to Great Britain, there are no wise men in the British Empire.

No. Newton, Hawking, Winston Churchill have impressed the world. Izzy is responsible for himself. The Puritan fathers of the Massachusetts Bay Colony were responsible for their own behaviors. There is nothing to do with the founding fathers, whose ideas in the Constitution have been shining for more than two hundred years.

0 Replies

@oristarA,

oristarA wrote:

Though the founding fathers had unmistakably included freedom of religion in the Constitution of the United States (The First Amendment (1791) prohibits Congress from obstructing the exercise of certain individual freedoms: freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, and freedom of petition), our idiotic Izzy could shut his eyes and have the audacity to spout "bullshit! downright lies!" and Lordyaswas echoed him like a yes-man.

"even if" is a misuse.

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

I wonder if Izzy is going to demand its return?

Sod off! We've got enough **** of our own without being responsible for America's as well.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

I wonder if Izzy is going to demand its return?

izzythepush wrote:

Sod off! We've got enough **** of our own without being responsible for America's as well.

OK, Izzy.
I wonder whether I can get them to name the next State after u,
if it is United.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Please don't.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

OK.

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

oristarA wrote:
The Queen can demand the real estate - the United States in its entirety- back.
Yes. I am confident that her demand woud not be honored.
I wonder if Izzy is going to demand its return?

David

Before he figures out how to make the Queen to share the real estate with him, there is no way he will risk anything to confront Americans, who are much smarter than him, anyways.

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

oristarA wrote:
David's point is:

Logically speaking, American Revolutionary War is a failure.
It may have been a failure of a moral nature
in that we robbed the King of his real estate,
but it was a military success and a political success.
The King acknowledged that. I understand that,
referring to the US Constitution, the King allegedly said:
If Washington can do this,
he 'll be the greatest man in the world.

David

What is the moral code in your mind, Dave?
For the King, the Laws of God lay foundation for his moral code.
For Founding Fathers, the Laws of Nature lay foundation for their moral code.
For the Fathers, American Revolution is a great success of their morality or moral code all humankind, not a failure in your standard, or in the King's standard.

0 Replies

It is important to know how the King's real estate became hereditary and of divine right.
The legitimacy of the process will decide whether today's Queen has the right to claim the real estate back.

1 Reply

@oristarA,

oristarA wrote:

It is important to know how the King's real estate became hereditary and of divine right.

Who says or said that the King's real estate became/is "of divine right"?
Parts feudalism, here especially re. landownership, existed in England already under the Anglo-Saxon and Danish kings and thus made it easy to introduce it in full at the Norman Conquest.
The Angles and Saxons, like later the Danish, knew this system from countries of origin on the continent ... a pre-Christian period.

Landownership of free people always has been hereditary.
Chlodwig I created the oldest known source, Lex Salica, which deals with hereditary landownership in medieval Europe. (Who has my blood has my heritage )

2 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Ever heard of divine-right theory of kingship?

1 Reply

@oristarA,

It might surprise you, but 'yes', I did.

I'm not so educated in legal history as you are (just the mandatory courses at law school and for fun at the history department). So it would be interesting to hear your opinion of how this influenced the monarchical landownership rights and laws in pre-Christian times and the later development of those.
How did these divine rights influenced other persons (nobility or not) rights of landownership?

But besides that and before it gets even peculiar funnnier: ever heard of the Glorious Revolution and/or bill of rights?

0 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

It should be made clear that looking into history is for better understanding reality, not otherwise as to complicate it.

Private property rights, including the right of real estate, are sacred/divine and inviolable, regardless of common people's or kings'. Just take a look at the Castle Law of the United States and you will understand what is a divine right.

David has pointed out that ""Affirmati Non Neganti Incumbit Probatio" - Since ancient times, it has been recognized that the burden of proof is on he who asserts a proposition." Since David himself actually asserts the proposition that America is morally responsible to return the King's real estate, he is held accountable to bear the burden of proof. Not me.

1 Reply

@oristarA,

I don't know where David studied legal history or history. Nor where you did, oristarA.

But thanks for making it a better understandable reality - I've obviously missed all that at law school and the history departments.
Multi multa, non omnia novit.

1 Reply

--------------------- Notice -------------------------

I will travel to another city for about three days. Updating will be suspended for the time being.

Thank you for paying attention here.

0 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

I don't know where David studied legal history or history. Nor where you did, oristarA.

But thanks for making it a better understandable reality - I've obviously missed all that at law school and the history departments.
Multi multa, non omnia novit.

Note that my normal procedure in response to a comment (yours, in this case)
woud be to include only your first sentence (mentioning me) within my nested quote,
thereby to focus attention on the precise text upon which I offer comment. I was about to DO that,
(i.e., to remove other text, to which I am not replying) but suddenly I REMEMBERED that when someone
(was it Oristar??) merely added bolding to some of your text to single out that part of it, u got very upset about it,
so I figured I better be CAREFUL and handle this with kid gloves and leave it intact to avoid an indignant objection.

Turning back to the subject:
So far as I know, no one in the 1770s denied that America was the King's property
(no reference to the realty of the Kings of France or Spain).
The forces that I favor took his Royal property from him by brute force,
killing some of his security forces, in the process. That is robbery.
(The King thawt it was treason too, but for the nonce,
we here consider his being robbed of his realty.)

We wrote a Declaration of Independence denouncing the King for his abuse of us.
Nowhere within that declaration did we explain how those abuses
gave us a right to grab and to own his real estate.

The King did proclaim that we were out of his protection, but he did not take the next step and demand
(what I said b4): "if u don t like my rule, then get the hell off my land and go where u prefer."

Do u impugn the accuracy of the historical facts that I have set forth, Walter,
(that we shud question where I learned history)??

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

So far as I know, no one in the 1770s denied that America was the King's property

Well, that might be so.
I thought until now differently.

But when it was the King's property and no-one denied it - why did settlers by the land from the natives?

And "property": I do know that American Indians had a different understanding of 'property' to Europeans: while Europeans differed between real property (which included land and permanent structures built on it) and personal property (which was essentially anything that a person can pack up and move somewhere else, American Indians just owned what they made with their own two hands.

But you say that no-one denies that all was the King's property ... Just wondering.

1 Reply

During The American Revolutionary War, the state religion of Great Britain was Christianity?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know