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

. . . Note to Ori, I'm using a metaphor.

Gentility is not something you practice, calling me unintelligent for daring to disagree with you. Nobody has agreed with your simplistic theories, nobody.

Count the number of thumb-up you've got. Three, yes? Let's see who are the 3? WH, Setanta, and you. Isn't the hopeless trio with deep superstition?

oristarA wrote:

Count the number of thumb-up you've got. Three, yes? Let's see who are the 3? WH, Setanta, and you. Isn't the hopeless trio with deep superstition?

There's nothing superstitious about what we've said. It's all factual and backed up with evidence, (admittedly not in my case, but it's all out there on Wikipedia). You've got a crazy theory all of your own, and no one supports you. No one.

There's nothing superstitious about what we've said. It's all factual and backed up with evidence, (admittedly not in my case, but it's all out there on Wikipedia). You've got a crazy theory all of your own, and no one supports you. No one.

Here's some facts which sum up everything you've been arguing against.

1) The American Revolution was about governance tax and politics. It was not anti Christian.
2)After the American Revolution there were huge increases in Evangelical Christianity in both America and Britain.
3) The American Revolution did not mark the decline of the British Empire, but was just before the expansion. The height of the British Empire was during the reign of Victoria.
4) Belief in a system of religion is not dependent upon nationalistic victory in war, if it was Islam would have ceased functioning as a religion 200 years ago.

. . . Now think this: Your supporters, including WH, Setanta and a
masked one, usually click the button of thumb-up for you, and thumb-
down for me (that is why I got damned negative: -1!) , right? . . .

You never give up do you? I'm not going to waste any more time on someone who prefers bullshit to reality. Go back into your world of make believe, I'm not going to continue time arguing that black is not white.

. . . Lame facts, not stable before rigorous challenges.

oristarA wrote:

. . . Lame facts, not stable before rigorous challenges.

"Facts are stubborn things," said John Adams, "and whatever may be our
wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter
the state of facts and evidence."

The Friar is not just a ladies' man under the guise of a humanitarian, he is also a crooked businessman. He uses his position in the church to get money. He spreads the word that he had the power to forgive sins more than a priest in lines 218-219: “For he hadde power of confessioun as saide himself, more than a curat.” This gains him much profit from wealthy men as we see: “he was an esy man to yive penaunce ther as he wiste to have a good pituance;” (223-224). He even has the audacity not associate with the “lower” class because “to have with sike lazars aquaintaunce: it is nat honeste, it may nought avance..” (245-246). The profit he generates is proven because he looked like “a belle out of the presse.” (265). This point is reinforced in lines 257-258: “ yit wolde he have a ferthing er he wente; his purchas was wel bettre than his rente..” His purchases far exceeds his expected income from begging. The Friar should have been very poor, perhaps worse off than the people he helped, however this Friar was eating healthy and living large.

And why don't you follow his advice?