American Revolution

[Resurrexi]

"Armed resistance to oppression by political authority is not legitimate, unless all the following conditions are met: 1) there is certain, grave, and prolonged violation of fundamental rights; 2) all other means of redress have been exhausted; 3) such resistance will not provoke worse disorders; 4) there is well-founded hope of success; and 5) it is impossible reasonably to foresee any better solution." ([url="http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2243.htm"]Catechism of the Catholic Church 2243[/url])

[picchick]

1) There were fundamental rights that were being violated.
2) I am pretty sure we told the King a couple times over to knock it off
3) I do not know what they would constitute as worse disorders
4) Yeah we were pretty sucessful. However, I am not sure how sure anyone is of success when they are battling a seemingly giant
5) Goes with 2.

I voted Yes

[Hassan]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1885371' date='Jun 7 2009, 01:45 AM']"Armed resistance to oppression by political authority is not legitimate, unless all the following conditions are met: 1) there is certain, grave, and prolonged violation of fundamental rights; 2) all other means of redress have been exhausted; 3) such resistance will not provoke worse disorders; 4) there is well-founded hope of success; and 5) it is impossible reasonably to foresee any better solution." ([url="http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2243.htm"]Catechism of the Catholic Church 2243[/url])[/quote]

Prolly not.

Although I'm glad it happened.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1885379' date='Jun 7 2009, 01:51 AM']Prolly not.

Although I'm glad it happened.[/quote]

It wouldn't be so bad to be like Australia.

[Hassan]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1885382' date='Jun 7 2009, 01:52 AM']It wouldn't be so bad to be like Australia.[/quote]


Wouldn't we be more like Canada?



Ewwwww.....

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1885384' date='Jun 7 2009, 01:54 AM']Wouldn't we be more like Canada?



Ewwwww..... [/quote]

I was going to mention Canada as well, but I realized that doing so would not advance my argument that it would be good for the United States to belong to the Commonwealth.

[picchick]

Rex...how do you see it as not?

[Resurrexi]

I don't have a strong opinion on the matter.

Edited June 7, 2009 by Resurrexi

[picchick]

Do you have an opinion on the matter?

[Resurrexi]

I do not really see how forbidding trade with non-British traders constitutes a "grave violation of fundamental rights."

[Nihil Obstat]

Oh you silly Canada bashers.

[princessgianna]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1885371' date='Jun 7 2009, 12:45 AM']"Armed resistance to oppression by political authority is not legitimate, unless all the following conditions are met: 1) there is certain, grave, and prolonged violation of fundamental rights; 2) all other means of redress have been exhausted; 3) such resistance will not provoke worse disorders; 4) there is well-founded hope of success; and 5) it is impossible reasonably to foresee any better solution." ([url="http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2243.htm"]Catechism of the Catholic Church 2243[/url])[/quote]
Catholics were not allowed to practice the Faith originally. Granted there was not a lot of Catholic Resistance (excepting Charles Carroll of course). Area of Maryland (should be pronounced Mary land) was the only colony that "allowed" Catholicism. Carroll with Benjamin Franklin (he was a joke imho) went to try get Canadian forces to help but the smart Catholci Canadians knew how much Catholics were bashed and refused to help.

There you go a history lesson! Yes?

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' post='1885550' date='Jun 7 2009, 11:00 AM']Oh you silly Canada bashers. [/quote]
Silly [i]silly[/i] people indeed!

Edited June 7, 2009 by princessgianna

[Maximilianus]

[quote name='princessgianna' post='1885645' date='Jun 7 2009, 04:20 PM']...Maryland (should be pronounced Mary land) was the only colony that "allowed" Catholicism.[/quote]

Yeah, until it was usurped by Puritans and eventually done in by English penal laws againts Catholics.

[kenrockthefirst]

I'm not sure. Britain bankrupted itself fighting the Seven Year's War / French and Indian Wars. Granted, this was done to protect its national interests but at the same time, the war was fought to protect the American colonists.

In any event, while Parliament and the King were a bit ham-fisted in their dealings with the American colonists, especially with respect to taxation and the quartering of troops, I'm not convinced that their authority was illegitimate. I'm more of the view that the money and political classes in the American colonies felt that they could get a "better deal" independently than they could as British subjects.

[Didacus]

Canada gained their independance by asking for it.
(Sure, we kept the queen and all, but even that is on the way out soon)

Just a little papist commentary there. Back to you Bob.