New college program brings Saudis to U.S (or how stupid can we get?)

AP via Washington Times ^ | September 10, 2006 | Garance Burke

[A. Pole]

The English don't hold a candle to this

It seems to me that you are biased in favor of Protestants.

[muawiyah]

You don't have to be biased in favor of Protestants in order to condemn Louis XIV's murders.

Did you know that today Roman Catholicism thrives in the United States because it is protected by the Third, Second and First Amendments, all designed to make sure no tyrant would oppress the free exercise of religion the way Louis XIV did Protestantism.

Kind of ironic, eh!

[A. Pole]

Did you know that today Roman Catholicism thrives in the United States because it is protected by the Third, Second and First Amendments

You are mixing apples and oranges as you compare XVIIc France with XVIII/XIX USA. As well you can compare XIX slavery of America with China of XXI century.

The "Act for further preventing the growth of Popery" (11 & 12 Gul. III, 4), passed in 1699, introduced a fresh hardship into the lives of the clergy by offering a reward of 100 pounds for the apprehension of any priest, with the result that Catholics were placed at the mercy of common informers who harassed them for the sake of gain, even when the Government would have left them in peace. It was further enacted that any bishop or priest exercising episcopal or sacerdotal functions, or any Catholic keeping a school, should be imprisoned for life; that any Catholic over eighteen not taking the Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance, or making the Declaration against Popery, should be incapable of inheriting or purchasing any lands; and any lands devised to a Catholic who refused to take the oaths should pass to the next of kin who happened to be a Protestant. A reward of 100 pounds was also offered for the conviction of any Catholic sending children to be educated abroad. The cruel operation of this Act, which made itself felt throughout the ensuing century, was extended by a measure passed under Queen Anne (12 Anne, St. 2, c. 14), though Catholics were not generally molested during her reign.

The last penal statutes to be enacted were those of George I. By I Geo., I, St. 2, c. 13, the Hanoverian Succession Oaths were to be taken by all Catholics to whom they were tendered, under penalty of all the forfeitures to which "popish recusant convicts" were liable. The Stuart rising of 1715 was followed by another Act (I Geo., I.St.2.c.50) appointing commissioners to inquire into the estates of popish recusants with a view to confiscating two-thirds of each estate. The scope of "An Act to oblige papists to register their names and real estates" (I. Geo. I. St. 2. c. 55) is sufficiently indicated by its title. It added to the expense of all transactions in land, the more galling as Catholics were doubly taxed under the annual land-tax acts. (See also 4 G. III, c. 60.) In 1722 was passed "An Act for granting an aid to his Majesty by levying a Tax upon Papists" (9 Geo., I, 18), by which the sum of one hundred thousand pounds was wrung from the impoverished Catholics. Throughout the reign of George II (1727-60) there were no further additions to the penal code and under his successor, George III, (1760-1820), the work of repeal was begun.

Even this lengthy enumeration is not absolutely exhaustive, and the Acts here cited contain many minor enactments of a vexatious nature.

(Penal Laws in England)

[muawiyah]

That's all very nice. You'fe found a written law. In England that law would have application after the finding of a court in due deliberation. In France Louis issued edicts and people were murdered.

I really don't see what your point is in trying to equate Louis XIV's tyranny with the budding democracy in UK?

Are you trying to equate the two?

[TheCrusader]

"The next question is "do you really think a message of kick the illegals out, produce a recession, and put social security into worse shape is sellable to the US public."

Yep, just tell them the truth. Once the public is educated about just how many crimes are being committed by the illegal invaders, the M-13 gangs, drug smuggling over the border, in how much it costs us to capture, try, and incarcerate them, how much they cost us in insurance rises due to their driving w/o insurance, how much they cost us in free medical benefits, welfare benefits and college tuition reductions, and tax evasion, then convincing the American public to boot them out will be easy. The money we are saving on cheaper lettuce and tomatos is paltry compared to what it costs us to host these 20 million misfits from south of the border. Politicians hate the truth.

[A. Pole]

The money we are saving on cheaper lettuce and tomatos is paltry compared to what it costs us to host these 20 million

Read my tagline (but if the Senator McCain proposal were implemented it would be almost 25 cents more)