Just because you don't like what history reveals does not and cannot change that history. The English Baptists and Quakers were responsible for religious liberty in England, just as they and other free churches were in the USA. It certainly was NOT the CoE that was responsible for this, as they were the persecutors, and any church that was a state church was the same -- persecutors. If you have read any of my posts, you should know that I have not singled out the CoE. I showed how the Puritan state church of New England persecuted baptists and Quakers and hanged four Quakers on Boston Common. Bu the facts remain: the CoE was a state church which was a persecutor and not a defender of religious liberty. The same applied to ALL state churches. edited for language. Admin
Yes, religious liberty can be "messy", but would you like it to be the case that all the above could still be imprisoned, tortured, mutilated, hanged, guillotined, beheaded, tongues bored, ears cropped, dismembered, burned alive? That's what the state churches did.
I am defending religious liberty! Perfectly biblical? I suppose it was in accord with the teachings of Jesus to persecute and kill others in His name.
What would you call the 1689 proclamation of toleration? Could you expand on this? How did the baptists and quakers contribute to the proclamation of toleration of 1689. Indeed how did states even acquire religious toleration if baptists and quakers were not in charge of any state, ever?
Wow, this is how you treat a new member to the forum? Am I correct that you stated you were an associate Clergy member in the AMiA? I hope your evangelistic efforts are less inflammatory, maybe it is time for that sabbatical you mentioned? Jeff
First answer in red above, and see referenced article. Ah, but you see, the Quakers were in charge in Pennsylvania because it was founded by a Quaker, William Penn, and it guaranteed full religious freedom, not just toleration, to everyone. The same is true of Roger Williams and Rhode Island. James Madison, Anglican, from Virginia, was strongly influenced to support religious liberty by a Baptist minister, John Leland. The legacy of Baptists, Quakers, and other free churches was the gift of religious liberty to all, even to their persecutors.
So, since what he posted was exactly what I called it -- complete and total bull and falsehood -- how was I supposed to respond? What about what he said to me? He said that all he had seen from me "were one-sided portrayals to sully and demean the english church wherever possible, by all methods fair and unfair." That is absolutely total falsehood and slander. So, why do you admonish me and not him? The length of time he has been here is irrelevant, or is slander permitted to newbies?
For starters he saw what the rest of us saw from you, and you yourself admitted that you often respond in the heat/passion of the moment and later forget what you said, at least that's what you claimed when someone held you accountable for your statement that you were leaving the forum. You also dodged my last question in the post. Jeff
I think Anglicans should just keep quiet about this issue. The state church doesn't appear to be persecuting any one, Parliamentry interferrance in church matters (such as approving Bishops) appears to be minimal.The pro points such as stopping Mormans using the measures to gain Anglican geneology info could have been stopped, would probably be outweighed by possible religious concerns about the monarch. I realise dissestablishment might not change Acts of Settlement etc.but it would lead to pressure on religious issues. Why shouldn't a Cardinal crown the Monarch? .Why can't the monarch be Roman Catholic? Why does the Monarch have to have religious, secular and spiritual powers? My advice is don't open a can of worms. Unless you're a fan of the Diet of Worms