hi doma,
come now. you think king john can bind his successors to his view of the role of the church in england?
king john?
or indeed, amy monarch?
you are treating the rest of english history as if it has no meaning so as to assert a theory that has an extremely weak foundation.
and then you ignore important facts that refute it, such as the fact that the english struggled to free
themselves from catholic control over hundreds of years and finally succeeded, and then sought to exclude it from government and established a protestant church which has a constitutional role.
you find a sentence and wield it as if the investiture controversy never occurred, as if protestantism was a popish plot, as if the dissolution of the monasteries never happened, as if guy fawkes was an anti-catholic terrorist, as if the civil war had no religious element, as if the monarch might have married a catholic if she wished.
this is the method of those fundamentalist preachers who grasp a sentence in a scientific paper and use it to prop up the theory of a 5,000 year old earth.
what's to discuss. some of your theories are really fun. but this one is as contrary to reality as it is possible to be.
| 
