Date: April 04, 2021 03:39AM
For anyone who cares, this history is absolute bunk. Note how magaRomney implicitly discounts Europe and focuses only on England, which fits his belief that the Anglo-Saxons were the only civilized people in the world. But let's go along with that caprice for the time being.
> I would define it the way it was defined 400 years
> ago... Soule libertie which is that every Man can
> believe what he wants without fear of punishment,
> freedom of thought.
Recall that magaRomney recently said that the Anglo-Saxons became great through physical violence against other peoples and that they should continue doing that today. It follows that he cannot possibly mean that "every Man [sic]" should be free to "believe what he want[s] without fear of punishment."
Factually, what he says about Soule libertie in the early 17th century is simply wrong. From the middle 16th century onward a refusal to swear that the King/Queen of England was the head of the one true church was defined as treason, punishable by death. Another law in the 1580s stipulated that any loyalty to "Romish religion" was particularly treasonous and subject to capital punishment. You could also be fined substantially more than a year's income for failing to go to CoE services. In fact, England in the late 16th and early 17th centuries was famous for executing more Catholics than any other European country. So no, there was not "religious freedom," nor "freedom of belief," nor "freedom of thought" in England 400 years ago.
> Before the glorious revolution
> there was Laudianism at court. These were the
> appointed intellectuals and bureaucrats, the
> intelligentsia, chosen to control England, folks
> were going to the stocks for the simplest of
> crimes like having a different opinion from the
Again, this is nonsense. The literacy rate in England in the 17th century was not high, and the government punished anyone who printed things it didn't like. The truly educated people were all churchmen and government bureaucrats, so the Laudians and their opponents were equally "inteligensia [sic]." magaRomney's intimation that this was some sort of class struggle between commoners and the elite is the product of a fevered mind and his desire to make everything a struggle between the brave and libertarian Anglo-Saxon people and the dictatorial nobility.
> The ministers were mainly taking
> ques from the continent so the fashionable idea of
> the day was the absolute rule of Kings (think
> Louis XIV).
You see? Here he says the ministers were oppressing the true English commoners. But the Laudians and their opponents were all from the elite; at various times they were all ministers. And "absolute rule" was not an idea that originated on the continent, or at least solely on the continent: it inhered in the very nature of the English monarchy--which is why you could be executed for not recognizing the king/queen as God's agent on earth.
There were no advocates of freedom of religion in any of the powerful factions in the 17th century.
> But the Whigs/puratists weren't having any of this
> Popery. They smashed the statues, through rocks
> through the stain glassed windows, they killed the
> King and his minister, Laud.
Again, garbled nonsense. Note first that magaRomney started above by praising religious freedom and freedom of thought. But here he applauds the smashing of Catholic churches and violence against Catholic leaders and their followers.
How do you reconcile the contradiction? The only way is to assume that whatever puts magaRomney's heros in power is good and merits the use of violence and whatever contradicts that imperative is evil. He only wants freedom of religion and freedom of speech for people like himself.
Note also how he here puts the execution of Laud AFTER the Glorious Revolution when in fact it had happened occurred over forty years earlier. He is also wrong to insinuate that Laud was in some sense Catholic. He was a protestant reformer.
Having botched the history so thoroughly, watch what maga does below, where he reveals his motives in presenting such fallacies.
> It's the same fight today. People are getting
> banned from Youtube for saying the wrong thing.
> Peoples careers are getting destroyed for wearing
> the wrong Halloween costumes 15 years ago.
What this is really about is not English history but magaRomney's belief that Trump and his supporters represent the one true political faith. He ignores the fact that a private company like Youtube bears no constitutional responsibility to tolerate any sort of speech. He additionally says that those who oppose Trumpism are like Laudians who killed those with whom they disagreed when, in fact, Laud and his main allies were themselves killed by the government.
> Laudians today demand total submission and seek to
> silence anyone who disagrees.
There's the victimhood again. The thing about magaRomney and his fellow travelers is that they hate being criticized. They also think they deserve power even when they lose elections. And for him criticism by the press, private businesses, or private citizens is illegitimate and should be against the US constitution.
Which he would bury in a flurry of snowflakes.
> Their goal is social
Because justice is bad.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/04/2021 05:34AM by Lot's Wife.