Spare me!

The Declaration of Indulgence, also called Declaration for Liberty of Conscience, was a pair of proclamations made by James II of England and VII of Scotland in 1687. The Indulgence was first issued for Scotland on 12 February and then for England on 4 April 1687. An early step towards establishing freedom of religion in the British Isles, it was cut short by the Glorious Revolution.

The Declaration granted broad religious freedom in England by suspending penal laws enforcing conformity to the Church of England and allowing people to worship in their homes or chapels as they saw fit, and it ended the requirement of affirming religious oaths before gaining employment in government office.

By use of the royal suspending power, the king lifted the religious penal laws and granted toleration to the various Christian denominations, Catholic and Protestant, within his kingdoms. The Declaration of Indulgence was supported by William Penn, who was widely perceived to be its instigator.

The declaration was greatly opposed by Anglicans in England on both religious and constitutional grounds. Some Anglicans objected to the fact that the Declaration had no specified limits and thus, at least in theory, licensed the practice of any religion, including Islam, Judaism or paganism.

The Declaration of Indulgence, as well as granting religious liberties to his subjects, also reaffirmed the King’s “Sovereign Authority, Prerogative Royal and absolute power, which all our Subjects are to obey without Reserve”, and thus espoused an absolute monarchy.

Frankly I would have thought Anglicans would have been happy to share the trough; apparently not. The acrimony between them and the Roman Catholics (or putatively, any other religious adherent) aroused more than a threat to conformity. It disclosed the vulnerability of the highest authority in the land. Those tribal affiliations run deep! Except for the improving image of a crystal glass of sherry on the sideboard after Matins, Anglicanism unwittingly disclosed its intellectual improvidence. The greedy miscalculation surpassed the bounds of both reason and logic.  Such are the mysteries of the hereafter! It is an odd conjunction of perspicacity and paramountcy – a collision which to my mind exposes its patent absurdities though shamefully dignified by irrelevancy and pretension. In a nutshell, “What’s wrong with this picture?

Clearly the only legitimacy to the dispute is a power struggle. If one were to ask the commoners about the doctrine of transubstantiation for example I cannot image the reply! Much less an interest!

Transubstantiation – the idea that during Mass, the bread and wine used for Communion become the body and blood of Jesus Christ – is central to the Catholic faith. Indeed, the Catholic Church teaches that “the Eucharist is the source and summit of the Christian life.’”

It is no accident that a majority of oligarchs of any persuasion align themselves by being mentally deficient. Their first line of attack is to remove anyone who isn’t the same (similar for example to the rancid seasoning behind the motto, “Make America Great Again“).  This simplistic abuse is naturally and easily surmounted by an intended disputant through obsequiousness – which just happens to be the preferred appetite of tyrants. This is hardly a revelation. The martinet has limited vision. But compliance performs its own miracles.

There are so many different levels on which mutiny is now seemingly arising. Yet the social advances are more often than not shrouded in curiosity not magnanimity. As a populace we are gravely lacking in acquaintance beyond our own conformity. The mere dedication to such a narrow focus is predatory of logic. It is a doctrine designed to freeze our capacity for thought.

I am attracted to the dissection of thought, breaking larger groups into smaller components. It not only facilitates induction; importantly it removes crippling argument. The shackles between us are often founded upon tenuous vibrancy. Hence the unpredictable results of change.

The Darwinian answer to evolution is of necessity a violent one. The British tone of superiority (strengthened by its own deceit) has been a convenient answer to decades of dispute. But not without the perversion of fact and the management of theme. It is at this point that the recognition of accommodation begins to lose some of its calibre. I mean, if these people are really as bad as I say, why then should there be compromise? Applauding one’s own superiority is hardly the best answer to debate. Perhaps the immobility engendered by a mirror is the answer. Or – more fundamentally – ask why we care at all.


(the Reformation) a 16th-century movement for the reform of abuses in the Roman Church ending in the establishment of the Reformed and Protestant Churches. The roots of the Reformation go back to the 14th-century attacks on the wealth and hierarchy of the Church made by groups such as the Lollards and the Hussites. But the Reformation is usually thought of as beginning in 1517 when Martin Luther issued ninety-five theses criticizing Church doctrine and practice. In Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Saxony, Hesse, and Brandenburg, supporters broke away and established Protestant Churches, while in Switzerland a separate movement was led by Zwingli and later Calvin.