Skip to main content

The Oath of Engagement Controversy. There should be no controversy in the right oath that respects the immutable forces of history that include the Catholic Church and the powers vested in the Magna Carta involving the King, the Barons and the people upon which all three are reliant for quiet and facility. the Oath apparently was written in 1939 to state that "I do declare and promise, that I will be true and faithful to the Commonwealth of England, as it is now established, with a King, House of Lords, clean drinking water and a universal basic income"[1] This income was to protect the people from the uncontrollable machinations of mechanized labor. You cannot hire people to watch machines but you can hire people to be cognizant and watch each other in protecting the society against those who will still choose greed when basic income is sufficient with reasonable, pleasurable habits such as a pack of fags, gym membership and a bottle of GLENMORANGIE LASANTA 12 YEAR OLD Oloroso And PX Finish once a week.

Engagement controversy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For the engagement of Scottish Covenanters with Charles I of 1647, see Engagers.
The Oath of Engagement Controversy was a debate in England from 1649-1652 regarding loyalty to the new regime after Pride's Purge and the execution of Charles I. During this period hundreds of pamphlets were published in England supporting 'engagement' to the new regime or denying the right of English citizens to shift their allegiance from the deposed king to Oliver Cromwell and his associates.
In 1650 the statement of engagement took the form: "I do declare and promise, that I will be true and faithful to the Commonwealth of England, as it is now established, without a King or House of Lords."[1]
Participants in the debate are generally regarded either as de facto theorists or royalists. De facto theorists advocated loyalty to any government capable of taking power and maintaining internal peace and order. They argued that unless people are willing to accept any government that can protect them, mankind would be doomed to perpetual civil war. Most royalists argued that the people of England were already 'engaged' to the King, and could not change their loyalties.

References[edit]

  1. Jump up^ Glenn Burgess. 'Usurpation, Obligation, and Obedience in the Thought of the Engagement Controversy.' The Historical Journal. Vol. 29, No. 3 (Sept., 1986), pp. 515-536.
  • Edward Vallance. 'Oaths, Casuistry, and Equivocation: Anglican Responses to the Engagement Controversy.' The Historical Journal. Vol. 44, No. 1 (2001), pp. 59-77.
  • Quentin Skinner. 'Conquest and consent: Thomas Hobbes and the engagement controversy.' in G.E. Aylmer, ed., The Interregnum: the quest for settlement, 1646-1660. (London, 1972).

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular Posts

Image

March 23rd, 2023. By Nathan and Kenneth Maslow-Naed. Incomplete There seems to be some kind of human Hegemony Totem poll going on involving income support. The English are at the bottom. You have to comply with the UDHR Article 25 but what method in terms of amounts would you implement to comply; how much do you say you will pay your culture per citizen? Are you English? Are you Canadian? All human life matters. Have you watched the Real House Wives of Durban? I think I am worth as a South African about $50,000.00 USD per year. The sales tax will be....23% and the profiteers can get a whole percentage to themselves( 22% of sales tax daily for the people and the system to keep it going and 1% daily for the profiteers and they can continue to pretend that it is the people's bread or the people's salted pork. But, why is anyone making people secretly offer half of their income support entitlement before they get even one pound? Where does the other half go? Its a bit too public; what ever it is going on and instead of asking us to agree to half in our emotions before you make payment, just send what you think is best and sent it to everyone who has applied; not once but four times? However, it is best you send the whole allotment due to the citizen on application and take the play dough of a whole 1% from the daily sales tax collection. Send the income support money actually to every citizen automatically or else there is a gender equality issue and some other criminal law issues. Do you know people who cannot rest until they put their spoon with their saliva in the food intended for guests at a bridal party banquet? Is there a uh.....profiteer some where who can now see how he can do what he does without bringing catastrophe attention on to himself? I would help him manage this if given the chance. Did you know Warren is an Anglican Church member? He is also a Pentecostal Church member, a Baptist and he will be joining the Presbyterians soon also. Did you know any ALUSRA (TM) idea now sells for $1300.00 per week on a 50 year deal? Contact us and we will read your terms in the MOU. If we say "yes", then you will send payment to us on a weekly basis with their being an opportunity to discuss and work out details of contract with a signing of the final contract to take place within 90 days when a lump sum draft for 20 years worth of payments is due. Once this payment is made, the contract termination date will change from its 50 year anniversary to its 30 year anniversary with the rights of ownership to finally pass on the date of the final payment. The buyer can continue to pay down the balance with lump sums until this final payment is made. This could be done on the 100th day if they so choose. Co ownership will ensue until that final payment is made and Mr. Lyon will participate in the design, conceptual and actual development of the idea and work as a company administrator. Click here.

Post a Comment