States petition for secession

Except that he did so as a Protestant. Well, the implication is that the death of Henry VIII and the accession of Edward VI was an extraordinarily convenient time to decide that transubstantiation was false. By a lucky coincidence, Cranmer's views on theology were always just the same as the reigning monarch. Unless, Macaulay hints, this isn't a coincidence at all, and Cranmer was the prototype of the Vicar of Bray.

Yes. What he was after than is a subtle question. Under Henry VIII. Then, under Edward VI, he became a staunch Protestant. Then you are not looking. Here you go again: No, you're just not following it.Cranmer was a Roman Catholic when he was appointed to be Archbishop of Canterbury, which was done through a Papal Bull. When Henry VIII broke with the Church of Rome, Cranmer became what one might call a semi-Catholic, supporting the royal supremacy over the church of England, but maintaining those Catholic doctrines believed by Henry such as transubstantiation, and persecuting those who denied it. On the accession of Edward VI, Cranmer suddenly became a staunch Protestant who didn't believe in transubstantiation at all, and burned Catholics. And then when the Catholic Mary I came to the throne, he recanted his Protestantism repeatedly, but Mary burned him anyway.And all through these changes of opinion until his arrest by Mary, he continued to oppress and persecute anyone who deviated from whichever official party line he was following at the time.

Well, you could have looked it up.Latimer participated, for example, in the trial and execution of the Catholic John Forest. From WP: Or under what flag he was burned? Have it one way or another, but it would be a bit of a stretch to count him a non-Protestant when he was persecuting people in the Protestant cause under Edward VI but as a valiant Protestant martyr when he was persecuted by Mary.Edward VI, however, was sincere --- as sincere as Mary.Slice it how you like, both sides behaved, during the Reformation, in a way that would have revolted the Apostles and made the angels weep. Not universally, of course, but there were some right swine on both sides.

So you don't know what you want, but you do know that you want it?I would think that developing a concrete proposal would be an important step in getting to whatever it is you want. You can't just say to people: "Let us secede from the United States and form a new nation of Piginapokistan, where we shall do ... y'know ... stuff ... founded firmly on principles that I couldn't care less about."

Not quite. Are you planning to hang Quakers, ban Christmas, and reduce the age of consent to 12? The fact that you can't get what you want makes the whole conversation moot. But I'm interested in what it is you do want. You're planning to change the physical layout of the nation?Well, they say that Faith can move mountains.Thank you, I'll be here all week. Try the forbidden fruit.

If people were allowed to change, they'd do so opportunistically, becoming blue when they need good government (when they're ill, for example) and red when they don't and don't want to pay for it.If they weren't, that would also be something of a problem. Are you going to make someone suffer all his life for being red when he's eighteen (or whenever it is you get to choose)?

Which members of your family have you disowned? Just interested.

Your statement: This would seem to imply that you don't want to see or talk to most of your family.

Oh, you're quite right. My bad. Thanks to you and apologies to Faith.

No-one has attacked your freedom of speech, they have merely disagreed with the dumb things that you say. Which is also an exercise of freedom of speech.

And let all that be true, no-one has said that you shouldn't have a right to say it. I for one believe that the stupid poisonous nonsense that drools out of your dumb mouth is and should be protected by the First Amendment. If I point out that it is malignant evil trash, that does not deprive you of your First Amendment rights, that's me exercising mine. Let me know when you are actually forbidden by law from preaching your ignorant gospel of hate, and I shall come to your defense. The fact that you can imagine that one day in the future this will happen gets you no sympathy from me. You can, as we know, imagine all sorts of crazy things.

... says the woman whose ideal constitution would mandate that Jews should have no political power. Pointing out that people are wrong is not actually a harbinger of genocide. That's normal. Depriving Jews of all political power, on the other hand, often is.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

No.

No. For example, if Congress passed a law saying that all Calvinists should be burned at the stake, that too would be unconstitutional, although it would not establish a state religion.But feel free to argue to the contrary. But obviously the Constitution has to affect state actors. If Congress declared war on American Calvinists, should they be able to say: "No, that's perfectly constitutional, because it's a bunch of soldiers who are killing you. In order for there to be a breach of the First Amendment, a Congressman would have to kill you personally"?

Perhaps you could argue for that instead of just saying it?