Texas Republicans Double Down On White "Christian Nationalism" While State "grows More Purple" -...

What is funny is that the extreme Nazis were worried about the replacement Theory but yet president Biden proves them right. Replace them with illegal aliens who have actually get blanket amnesty by The illegal alien advocate Senator Chuck Schumer with the hope that they vote Democrat and totally revolutionize America. This is done by Design so it's kind of ironic that paranoid Nazis are actually correct in this instance.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11436431/Schumer-wants-amnesty-11-million-migrants.html

Welcome to my family history and why there is a First Amendment along with Separation of Church and State. I doubt few will read but read it.

In 1632, Rev. Lothrop was arrested in the house of one of his congregants along with 42 of his congregation, and was brought before the Court of the High Commission. He, and they, were charged with sedition and holding conventicles. The political nature of the charge of sedition [“an insurrection against established authority”], and the antique language of “conventicle’ [ a private meeting to hear illegal preaching] renders the charges unclear to modern ears. The charges were, however, deadly serious and the court proceedings unimaginable. The accused had none of the rights of modern citizens. The court was an inquisition, where the accused were forced to testify against themselves, with our counsel. The process was so intimidating that many
people were driven to flee. It was one of the driving forces in the Great Migration to New England. It was no dispute over prayer books and vestments. It was about life, death, and salvation.
First, what was the Court of the High Commission? It, along with the Court of the Star Chamber, was a Royal Prerogative Court [King’s Rights], originally created in the time of Henry VII [1485-1509]. These courts were separate from the Civil Courts, or Common Law Courts, which operated on the basis of precedent, and the rights of English people under the Common Law. Originally, these courts were established under the King’s right to protect individuals from abuse in Common Law Courts. Under the Elizabeth I and the Stuart Kings [James I and Charles I], these courts were used by the Church of England to suppress those who sought to reform the church, or to seek a different path to salvation, using court rules that were in clear violation with the Common Law. They came down, with extreme severity, on Separatists in particular. Because of their covenant relationship, Separatists believed that every congregation could be a church unto itself, and could elect it’s own Ministers, by vote of it’s elders, based upon the model of the early Christian church [pre-Constantine]. To do so meant they had no need of the Church of England, and did not accept the authority of the Bishops. This was unacceptable to the Crown. As famously said by King James I, “ No Bishop, no King”. Since the King was the head of the Church of England, and appointed the Archbishop, he wanted one church with order and conformity. To the King, the Separatists position implied anarchy and chaos, and must be stopped. As James I said further, “ I will harry them out of the land”.
Under Charles I and his Archbishop, William Laud, the screws were tightened much more. Laud was the Chief Judge of the High Commission. In his zeal to suppress nonconformists, he scrapped several principles of English Common Law, including [1] protection against self- incrimination, [2] the right to confront one’s accusers, [3] the right to produce witnesses in one’s own defense, [4] the right to a prompt hearing in court, so one did not languish in a dangerous jail without a trial, and [5] cruel and unusual punishments. All of these rights were suspended for those, such as the members of Rev. Lothrops congregation, who were brought before the Court of the High Commission in May 1632.
The Ministers and there flock faced brutal treatment. For the high crime of publishing tracts critical of the Bishops many ministers had their ears cut off, their faces branded and were confined to prison for life, which meant death within a few months or a few years at most. When one was brought before the court, the requirement was to sign an oath of Allegiance to the Church of England, to forswear any contrary belief or practice and to answer any question posed by the judges,consisting of Laud and five other Bishops. To do so meant to abandon their right to choose their own Minister, to hear preaching and to attend Bible study with a Minister of their choice. They believed their own souls to be at stake. They were not allowed any of the basics of a fair trial, and certainly faced cruel punishment. So what did they do? They refused to swear the oath and were jailed. Some died in prison, some were released and fled to America, and some fought for Parliament in the English Civil War.
Now, hear the voices of Archbishop Laud, of Rev. John Lothrop and of the Howes and their friends [from the Proceedings of the Court of the High Commission]:
“ 5 May, 1632. This day were brought to the court out of prison diverse persons whixh were taken on Sunday last at a conventicler met at the House of Barnet, a brewer’s clerk, dwelling in the precinct of Black Friars: By name, John Lothrop, their Minister, Humphrey Barnard, Henry Dod, Samuel Eaton, William Granger, Sara Jones, Sara Jacob, Peninah Howes, Sara Barbon, Susan Wilson and diverse others”---

Statement by the Archbishop—“ You show your selves to be unthankful to God, to the Kingand to the Church of England, that when, God bbe praised, through his Majesties care and ours that you have preaching in every church, and men have liberty to join in prayer and participation in the sacrements and have catechizing to enlighten you, you in an unthankful manner cast off all this yoke, and in private unlawfully assemble yourselves together making rents and divisions in the church.---You are unlearned men that seek to make up a religion of your own heads!”---“you are desperately heretical”
“Then came in Mr. Lothrop, who is asked by what authority he had to preach and keep this conventicler.” Laud,--“How many women sat cross legged upon the bed, while you sat on one side and preached and prayed most devoutly?” Lothrop. “I keep no such evil company” “Will you lay your hand upon the book and take your oath?’ Lothrop. “I refuse the oath.”
Peninah Howes “ I dare not swear this oath till I am better informed of it, for which I desire time”;;;”I will give an answer of my faith, if I be demanded, but not willingly forswear myself”
Sara Barbon “ I dare not swear, I do not understand it. I will tell the truth without swearing”
Then they were then all taken to the New Prison.
“8 May, 1632. Laud to Sara Jones—“ This you are commanded to do of God who says you must obey your superiors.” Sara Jones “That which is of God is according to God’s Word and the Lord will not hold him guiltless that takes His name in vain”
‘Lothrop. I do not know that that I have done anything which might cause me justly to be brought before the judgement seat of man, and for this oath, I do not know the nature of it” Laud “You are accused of Schism”
To Samuel Howes ‘Will you take your oath?’ Howes I am a young man and do not know what this oath is”
Peninah Howes is then asked to take the oath, but she refused. Laud “Will you trust Mr Lothrop and believe him rather than the Church of England?’ P

The statement “there is no such thing as religion in the US” is false.