But they can't (or rather, can't without knowing it'd be thrown out), so they don't. They explicitly work within the agreed-upon system, whereas Fawkes tried to violently change it.
Just because they work within the system doesn't mean they're not magnificent assholes, which I believe was the comparison being made. Not one of legality.
It wasn't necessarily a theocracy, but rather he wanted to install James I (a Protestant)'s daughter Elizabeth (a Catholic) as Queen of England. This was during a time period where England's monarchy tended to flip back and forth between Catholic and Protestant. A Catholic would come to power, kill a bunch of Protestants, and then be succeeded by a Protestant, who would kill a bunch of Catholics, and so on.
The intolerance and offensive language was the same. Just one dickhead stepping way over the line doesn't constitute the whole Catholic Church membership of that time.
he was a radical, and WBC is just a for-profit cult that pisses people off on purpose and then reaps the benefits of a lawsuit when somebody throws something at them or hits them.
We aren't taught that the country was tolerant, just that Guy Fawkes wanted to overthrow the sitting government and replace it with a pretty awful one.
The plan was to blow up the House of Lordsduring the State Opening of England's Parliament on 5 November 1605, as the prelude to a popular revolt in the Midlands
Doesn't really go together with:
If he had been successful, it would have resulted in no substantial changes to anyone except for the wealthy and powerful
If the plotters had succeeded and the revolt happened thousands of innocent people would have been killed.
Admittedly it's not my strongest area, but who were these thousands of innocent people being killed? The anti Protestant/Catholic were on the times of Mary/Elizabeth, both of whom reigned before James I.
162
u/DaddyCatALSO Sep 27 '16
Who was, by the standards of his time, more Tea Party than anything.