Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

pilgrims vs modern immigrants

11 views
Skip to first unread message

Nicko

unread,
Nov 19, 2011, 11:55:45 AM11/19/11
to
I wonder how the pilgrims would have reacted if a mariachi band had
shown up at their thanksgiving celebration, tumbling out exhausted,
dehydrated and disheveled, from a forty-foot shipping container.

spamtrap1888

unread,
Nov 19, 2011, 12:17:03 PM11/19/11
to
Nicko -- Chinese people come by container, not Mexicans.

Nicko

unread,
Nov 19, 2011, 1:47:08 PM11/19/11
to
Imagine a Chinese mariachi band!

Cydrome Leader

unread,
Nov 19, 2011, 5:32:26 PM11/19/11
to
spamtrap1888 <spamtr...@gmail.com> wrote:
hahaha.

mexis come packed in the back of trucks.


HUey

unread,
Nov 19, 2011, 6:41:26 PM11/19/11
to
In article <18010cb9-5a58-4296-bd65-058a4fd99f87
@p16g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, nervou...@gmail.com says...
maliachi band...

--
HUey

|^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^||___||___
| Broken Truck Pale Ale || |__\__
|_...__...__________||_____|__|__|=]
"(@)'(@)"""""""""""""*|(@)*(@)**(@)


Bruce Esquibel

unread,
Nov 20, 2011, 6:02:20 AM11/20/11
to
There was something along this line I wanted to bring up.

I watch this show called QI (Quite Interesting), it's a BBC show that
probably wouldn't work on american tv without a heavy overhaul. No prize
money although it comes off as a game show where the people on the panel
(rotating guest celebrities) just earn points which have no explanation how
the points are actually earned.

So it's more of a comedy/entertainment show, like a comedic Jepordy.

The questions they ask are supposed to be researched and verified and are
usually along the lines of getting a kneejerk answer which everyone thinks
is the right answer (urban legends, traditional thinking) but is generally
the wrong one.

A couple weeks ago they had one that sort of stuck a nerve, but only because
the wrong answer was what I remember being taught in school and is pretty
much the total opposite if true.

It went something along the lines of why did the pilgrims/puritans leave
England for America.

The answer that rang in first, to escape religious persecution, is correct,
but they were the ones doing the persecution, not England.

Turns out they were more like a cult than a real religion.

It's not that anyone was trying to get rid of them but when they weren't
getting anywhere on the home front, they decided to leave for "the new
world" to setup their own colony where it's was going to be their way or the
highway.

So they really didn't come here to escape anything, they came to set up a
super race of sorts based on one religion where anyone not in their train of
thought would get expelled into the wilderness or put to death without all
those english laws getting in the way.

America was first settled by early Moonies or Scientologists in other words.

Happy thanksgiving all.

-bruce
b...@ripco.com







Cuthbert Thistlethwaite

unread,
Nov 20, 2011, 8:42:11 AM11/20/11
to
It must have been great when the pilgrims left.

I imagine it was as if all the sanctimonious religion-wankers of today
suddenly went to the moon.

sticks

unread,
Nov 20, 2011, 11:13:25 AM11/20/11
to
This sounds like a very "British" account of history, and though I'm
actually surprised someone as intelligent as Bruce repeats this, I am
not surprised the continuing dilution of our founding continues. It's
so "contemporary" to speak out this way.

First off, the Pilgrims and Puritans are two distinct and separate
groups. The Pilgrims were harshly persecuted and had actually fled to
the Netherlands before coming to the colonies. I don't know how anyone
can say they were not persecuted. They founded the Plymouth Colony in
1620, ten years before the Puritans settled in Boston in 1630.

The Puritans were subjected to persecution for their beliefs and now
considered "fundamentalists" because of their insistence that only the
scripture should guide their lives and worship. They objected to the
"rituals" of the Catholic Church and their lives were made difficult by
King Charles I mainly because of his marriage to his Princess from
France whose family was strict Catholic. The term "Puritans" was not
self given, but was derogatory slang at the time.

To say that either the Pilgrims or the Puritans were doing the
persecution, or even had the power to do so, is quite a stretch and is
the real urban myth. When they came to the colonies, there were
differing levels of religious injection into their daily lives, but
their objective was not in mingling their political ideas with their
spiritual. Establishing a "super race" is not something they ever
considered. They believed their most important purpose in life was to
bring glory to God. The forced worship of the Church of England at the
time didn't fit into those beliefs and the "Magic Show" of much of the
Catholic Church was even considered to put their souls in mortal
jeopardy. Naturally, they rejected those ideas in their colonies.
Combine this with the fact that though the colonists "fled" England,
they were still bankrolled by their homeland and being played for
economic reasons. So though there were some of the same types of
problems Bruce would describe as "their way or the highway" that they
were fleeing from in England, it should have been expected in small
colonizations and the length of time of which change actually took place
with people like Rogers Williams was at the speed of light compared to
how things worked in the rest of the world during this period.

Adam H. Kerman

unread,
Nov 20, 2011, 11:55:23 AM11/20/11
to
Bruce Esquibel <b...@ripco.com> wrote:

>I watch this show called QI (Quite Interesting), it's a BBC show that
>probably wouldn't work on american tv without a heavy overhaul. No prize
>money although it comes off as a game show where the people on the panel
>(rotating guest celebrities) just earn points which have no explanation how
>the points are actually earned.

>So it's more of a comedy/entertainment show, like a comedic Jepordy.

Sounds like a bit like Wait Wait Don't Tell Me with regard to general
knowledge.

>A couple weeks ago they had one that sort of stuck a nerve, but only because
>the wrong answer was what I remember being taught in school and is pretty
>much the total opposite if true.

I remember having to unlearn plenty of high school American history
in college. Whom do I sue?

>It went something along the lines of why did the pilgrims/puritans leave
>England for America.

>The answer that rang in first, to escape religious persecution, is correct,
>but they were the ones doing the persecution, not England.

>Turns out they were more like a cult than a real religion.

I always loved Cecil Adams' story of why they landed at Plymouth: Beer run.

>It's not that anyone was trying to get rid of them but when they weren't
>getting anywhere on the home front, they decided to leave for "the new
>world" to setup their own colony where it's was going to be their way or the
>highway.

>So they really didn't come here to escape anything, they came to set up a
>super race of sorts based on one religion where anyone not in their train of
>thought would get expelled into the wilderness or put to death without all
>those english laws getting in the way.

>America was first settled by early Moonies or Scientologists in other words.

Maybe the Indians came here from Asia for reasons other than they were
looking for new lands to settle.

>Happy thanksgiving all.

Hare krishna

rikkitikki

unread,
Nov 20, 2011, 12:21:49 PM11/20/11
to
<SNIP> Sounds like a bit like Wait Wait Don't Tell Me with regard to
general
>knowledge.<

And FYI, the Pigrims were called the Separatists in England and they
had no music outside of singing the Psalms acapella.
But I'm sure a few tavern songs also got sung when the beer got drunk.
Forget drinking the Colony water, it was too salty and too brown.

spamtrap1888

unread,
Nov 20, 2011, 12:37:50 PM11/20/11
to
On Nov 20, 8:13 am, sticks <wolverin...@charter.net> wrote:
> On 11/20/2011 5:02 AM, Bruce Esquibel wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > There was something along this line I wanted to bring up.
>
> > I watch this show called QI (Quite Interesting), it's a BBC show that
> > probably wouldn't work on american tv without a heavy overhaul. No prize
> > money although it comes off as a game show where the people on the panel
> > (rotating guest celebrities) just earn points which have no explanation how
> > the points are actually earned.
>
> > So it's more of a comedy/entertainment show, like a comedic Jepordy.
>
> > The questions they ask are supposed to be researched and verified and are
> > usually along the lines of getting a kneejerk answer which everyone thinks
> > is the right answer (urban legends, traditional thinking) but is generally
> > the wrong one.
>
> > A couple weeks ago they had one that sort of stuck a nerve, but only because
> > the wrong answer was what I remember being taught in school and is pretty
> > much the total opposite if true.
>
> > It went something along the lines of why did the pilgrims/puritans leave
> > England for America.
>
> > The answer that rang in first, to escape religious persecution, is correct,
> > but they were the ones doing the persecution, not England.

The BBC sang a different tune in 2004:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/legacies/immig_emig/england/nottingham/article_1.shtml

>
> > Turns out they were more like a cult than a real religion.
>
> > It's not that anyone was trying to get rid of them but when they weren't
> > getting anywhere on the home front, they decided to leave for "the new
> > world" to setup their own colony where it's was going to be their way or the
> > highway.
>
> > So they really didn't come here to escape anything, they came to set up a
> > super race of sorts based on one religion where anyone not in their train of
> > thought would get expelled into the wilderness or put to death without all
> > those english laws getting in the way.
>
> > America was first settled by early Moonies or Scientologists in other words.
>
> > Happy thanksgiving all.
>
> > -bruce
> > b...@ripco.com
>
> This sounds like a very "British" account of history, and though I'm
> actually surprised someone as intelligent as Bruce repeats this, I am
> not surprised the continuing dilution of our founding continues.  It's
> so "contemporary" to speak out this way.
>
> First off, the Pilgrims and Puritans are two distinct and separate
> groups.

This is like saying that Baptists and Christians are two distinct and
separate groups. Pilgrims were a subset of the Separatists, which were
a subset of the Pilgrims.


> The Pilgrims were harshly persecuted and had actually fled to
> the Netherlands before coming to the colonies.  I don't know how anyone
> can say they were not persecuted.

People who could not find any evidence of persecution, perhaps. The
King's subjects were required to go to services at the King's church;
alternative preaching services were taboo, but practiced anyway. You
might as well say that pot smokers are persecuted in the US. Name
someone imprisoned for his beliefs, whose property was seized, etc.

> They founded the Plymouth Colony in
> 1620, ten years before the Puritans settled in Boston in 1630.
>
> The Puritans were subjected to persecution for their beliefs and now
> considered "fundamentalists" because of their insistence that only the
> scripture should guide their lives and worship.  They objected to the
> "rituals" of the Catholic Church

The Church of England retained the rituals of the Catholic Church. The
Pilgrims could not deal.

> and their lives were made difficult by
> King Charles I mainly because of his marriage to his Princess from
> France whose family was strict Catholic.

Sticks finally alludes to the fact that CATHOLICS were persecuted at
this time. Priests were executed simply for being priests -- even
under Charles I.

http://www.ewtn.com/library/CHISTORY/PENALAWS.HTM

The Pilgrims' main objection was that the Church of England did not
follow their dearly held Calvinist principles.

> The term "Puritans" was not
> self given, but was derogatory slang at the time.
>
> To say that either the Pilgrims or the Puritans were doing the
> persecution, or even had the power to do so, is quite a stretch and is
> the real urban myth.  When they came to the colonies, there were
> differing levels of religious injection into their daily lives, but
> their objective was not in mingling their political ideas with their
> spiritual.  Establishing a "super race" is not something they ever
> considered.  They believed their most important purpose in life was to
> bring glory to God.  The forced worship of the Church of England at the
> time didn't fit into those beliefs and the "Magic Show" of much of the
> Catholic Church was even considered to put their souls in mortal
> jeopardy.  Naturally, they rejected those ideas in their colonies.

The Pilgrims and Puritans came to America to practice religious
freedom and deny it to others.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/legacies/immig_emig/england/nottingham/article_1.shtml

spamtrap1888

unread,
Nov 20, 2011, 12:39:26 PM11/20/11
to
On Nov 20, 9:37 am, spamtrap1888 <spamtrap1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 20, 8:13 am, sticks <wolverin...@charter.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 11/20/2011 5:02 AM, Bruce Esquibel wrote:
>
> > > There was something along this line I wanted to bring up.
>
> > > I watch this show called QI (Quite Interesting), it's a BBC show that
> > > probably wouldn't work on american tv without a heavy overhaul. No prize
> > > money although it comes off as a game show where the people on the panel
> > > (rotating guest celebrities) just earn points which have no explanation how
> > > the points are actually earned.
>
> > > So it's more of a comedy/entertainment show, like a comedic Jepordy.
>
> > > The questions they ask are supposed to be researched and verified and are
> > > usually along the lines of getting a kneejerk answer which everyone thinks
> > > is the right answer (urban legends, traditional thinking) but is generally
> > > the wrong one.
>
> > > A couple weeks ago they had one that sort of stuck a nerve, but only because
> > > the wrong answer was what I remember being taught in school and is pretty
> > > much the total opposite if true.
>
> > > It went something along the lines of why did the pilgrims/puritans leave
> > > England for America.
>
> > > The answer that rang in first, to escape religious persecution, is correct,
> > > but they were the ones doing the persecution, not England.
>
> The BBC sang a different tune in 2004:
>
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/legacies/immig_emig/england/nottingham/article_1...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > Turns out they were more like a cult than a real religion.
>
> > > It's not that anyone was trying to get rid of them but when they weren't
> > > getting anywhere on the home front, they decided to leave for "the new
> > > world" to setup their own colony where it's was going to be their way or the
> > > highway.
>
> > > So they really didn't come here to escape anything, they came to set up a
> > > super race of sorts based on one religion where anyone not in their train of
> > > thought would get expelled into the wilderness or put to death without all
> > > those english laws getting in the way.
>
> > > America was first settled by early Moonies or Scientologists in other words.
>
> > > Happy thanksgiving all.
>
> > > -bruce
> > > b...@ripco.com
>
> > This sounds like a very "British" account of history, and though I'm
> > actually surprised someone as intelligent as Bruce repeats this, I am
> > not surprised the continuing dilution of our founding continues.  It's
> > so "contemporary" to speak out this way.
>
> > First off, the Pilgrims and Puritans are two distinct and separate
> > groups.
>
> This is like saying that Baptists and Christians are two distinct and
> separate groups. Pilgrims were a subset of the Separatists, which were
> a subset of the Pilgrims.

Need more coffee:

Pilgrims were a subset of the Separatists, which were
a subset of the Puritans.
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/legacies/immig_emig/england/nottingham/article_1...

Adam H. Kerman

unread,
Nov 20, 2011, 2:15:33 PM11/20/11
to
sticks <wolve...@charter.net> wrote:

>This sounds like a very "British" account of history, and though I'm
>actually surprised someone as intelligent as Bruce repeats this, I am
>not surprised the continuing dilution of our founding continues. It's
>so "contemporary" to speak out this way.

>First off, the Pilgrims and Puritans are two distinct and separate
>groups.

Their religious practices were compatible, but not identical. They
were similar to Calvinists, but disagreed in part. They weren't distinct.
The Pilgrims were a small Puritan subset.

>The Pilgrims were harshly persecuted and had actually fled to the
>Netherlands before coming to the colonies. I don't know how anyone can
>say they were not persecuted. They founded the Plymouth Colony in 1620,
>ten years before the Puritans settled in Boston in 1630.

Hold on. I think we can all agree that as an anti-Papal movement, worship
in the Church of England was mandated and that the English did not tolerate
rival Protestant movements well and there were years (if not decades) in
which non-adherants and Catholics alike received harsh treatment.

But, dammit, the Pilgrims went to Holland to worship in peace. Has anyone
ever been persecuted there? They couldn't stand Holland, not because they
didn't want to learn to speak Dutch or German, but because they couldn't
stand their tolerant ways. Perhaps men danced with the wives, or daughters
flirted, but the Dutch were promiscuous and therefore damned to Hell.
The worst thing the Dutch ever did to the world was Tulip Madness, which
destroyed economies, but that passed. They've behaved ever since.

The Puritans had groups and congregations that went to Holland and
various parts of the continent as well, decades before the Pilgrims.

>The Puritans were subjected to persecution for their beliefs and now
>considered "fundamentalists" because of their insistence that only the
>scripture should guide their lives and worship. They objected to the
>"rituals" of the Catholic Church and their lives were made difficult by
>King Charles I mainly because of his marriage to his Princess from
>France whose family was strict Catholic. The term "Puritans" was not
>self given, but was derogatory slang at the time.

They were also anti-monarchists, objecting especially to sovereign immunity!
They were politically powerful, and were a prominent party in Parliament,
and one of the antagonistic groups that caused England to collapse into
civil war.

You've got time line partly wrong. Their mass migration was over two
decades, ending when the civil war began. Yes, things were much nastier
for them under Charles, but King James did not tolerate rival forms of
Protestantism either. The migration began under James, not Charles.

I shouldn't say more on this subject, because to this day, I am as
confused as hell about the origins of the English Civil War (which is
the original of The Troubles in Ireland) and similar wars among Protestants
on the Continent over the meaning of, How Reformed Must Protestantism Be
In Order To Be acceptable?

Of the Protestant churches, the Church of England, being the first, was
the least Reformed. Puritans did not approve of their Catholic-like
ceremonies. More importantly, they weren't initially trying to form a
separate movement but change religious practices through legislation.
Edwardian and Elizabethan religious changes didn't go far enough. They
were anti-episcopalians.

Friends have tried to explain to me degrees of Reformation among Protestant
churches, but it drives me nuts. Aargh. I'll never understand Christians.

The institutions of England--the Monarchy and the Church--oppressed
Puritans for more than just religious movements. It was far more political
than religious, as religion and politics were tightly intertwined.

>To say that either the Pilgrims or the Puritans were doing the
>persecution, or even had the power to do so, is quite a stretch and is
>the real urban myth. When they came to the colonies, there were
>differing levels of religious injection into their daily lives, but
>their objective was not in mingling their political ideas with their
>spiritual. Establishing a "super race" is not something they ever
>considered. They believed their most important purpose in life was to
>bring glory to God. The forced worship of the Church of England at the
>time didn't fit into those beliefs and the "Magic Show" of much of the
>Catholic Church was even considered to put their souls in mortal
>jeopardy. Naturally, they rejected those ideas in their colonies.
>Combine this with the fact that though the colonists "fled" England,
>they were still bankrolled by their homeland and being played for
>economic reasons. So though there were some of the same types of
>problems Bruce would describe as "their way or the highway" that they
>were fleeing from in England, it should have been expected in small
>colonizations and the length of time of which change actually took place
>with people like Rogers Williams was at the speed of light compared to
>how things worked in the rest of the world during this period.

I don't agree at all with your comment that their objective was not
mingling politics and religious. That comment applies at no point
in the history of their movement.

If they didn't believe in imposing their religious beliefs onto the
community via politics after coming to America, how do you explain Roger
Williams, as the most prominent example? What about the Quakers, a few
of whom fled England to escape persecution after the Civil War only to
find it again in Massachusetts?

You cannot reconcile Puritanism with religious tolerance. Now, Bruce
was way over the top with Pilgrims as a cult; Puritanism was a major
religious movement among Christians in England and on the Continent
where they spread the ideas, so not a tiny sect. And the "super race"
stuff was over the top too. They came here to lead good, worshipful lives,
and intended to prevent outside influence. I assume his comment referred
to living a life more saintlier than thou.

Adam H. Kerman

unread,
Nov 20, 2011, 2:24:31 PM11/20/11
to
spamtrap1888 <spamtr...@gmail.com> wrote:

>The Pilgrims' main objection was that the Church of England did not
>follow their dearly held Calvinist principles.

The Puritans were more reformed than Calvin, I suppose. I don't know
that the Pilgrims were less critical of Calvin than the Puritans were.

This is the point at which my head explodes, trying to understand and
reconcile degrees of reformation among Protestants who all look alike
to me.

As far as the Pilgrims, is it not fair to say there were just one
Puritan congregation that emigrated from England to Holland? I would
not characterize them as a separate Protestant movement in any way.

But I could be wrong.

Adam H. Kerman

unread,
Nov 20, 2011, 2:26:55 PM11/20/11
to
Adam H. Kerman <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>sticks <wolve...@charter.net> wrote:

>>This sounds like a very "British" account of history, and though I'm
>>actually surprised someone as intelligent as Bruce repeats this, I am
>>not surprised the continuing dilution of our founding continues. It's
>>so "contemporary" to speak out this way.

>>First off, the Pilgrims and Puritans are two distinct and separate
>>groups.

>Their religious practices were compatible, but not identical. They
>were similar to Calvinists, but disagreed in part. They weren't distinct.
>The Pilgrims were a small Puritan subset.

Didn't finish re-writing this paragraph. I don't consider the Pilgrims
to be a distinct movement within Protestantism from the Puritans, but
I could be wrong. So if their religious practices were very different,
someone will have to explain it to me.

spamtrap1888

unread,
Nov 20, 2011, 3:04:15 PM11/20/11
to
On Nov 20, 11:26 am, "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
> Adam H. Kerman <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>
Adam's POV agrees with mine, so he must be correct.

JG

unread,
Nov 20, 2011, 4:35:21 PM11/20/11
to
On Nov 19, 5:41 pm, HUey <hue...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In article <18010cb9-5a58-4296-bd65-058a4fd99f87
> @p16g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, nervous.n...@gmail.com says...
>
>
>
> > On Nov 19, 11:17 am, spamtrap1888 <spamtrap1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 19, 8:55 am, Nicko <nervous.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > I wonder how the pilgrims would have reacted if a mariachi band had
> > > > shown up at their thanksgiving celebration, tumbling out exhausted,
> > > > dehydrated and disheveled, from a forty-foot shipping container.
>
> > > Nicko -- Chinese people come by container, not Mexicans.
>
> > Imagine a Chinese mariachi band!
>
> maliachi band...
>
> --
> HUey
>
>    |^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^||___||___
>    | Broken Truck Pale Ale ||        |__\__
>    |_...__...__________||_____|__|__|=]
>   "(@)'(@)"""""""""""""*|(@)*(@)**(@)

I'm proud to see our Job Creators defended, another Citadel chink
engineer was busted !

Adam H. Kerman

unread,
Nov 20, 2011, 7:30:34 PM11/20/11
to
spamtrap1888 <spamtr...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Adam's POV agrees with mine, so he must be correct.

Don't rub it in, dix.

Bruce Esquibel

unread,
Nov 21, 2011, 8:48:32 AM11/21/11
to
Adam H. Kerman <a...@chinet.com> wrote:

> You cannot reconcile Puritanism with religious tolerance. Now, Bruce
> was way over the top with Pilgrims as a cult; Puritanism was a major
> religious movement among Christians in England and on the Continent
> where they spread the ideas, so not a tiny sect. And the "super race"
> stuff was over the top too. They came here to lead good, worshipful lives,
> and intended to prevent outside influence. I assume his comment referred
> to living a life more saintlier than thou.


Yes, I confess error.

Went back and watched the segment again, the word "Pilgrims" was never used.

Anyway this is the clip, maybe it is British spin, maybe the writers and
researchers took poetic license. It is just a game/entertainment show.

http://zone8.ripco.com/newtest/

-bruce
b...@ripco.com

Eric

unread,
Nov 21, 2011, 10:35:50 AM11/21/11
to
Cydrome Leader <pres...@MUNGEpanix.com> wrote in news:ja9apq$7ep$1
@reader1.panix.com:
And stuffed in rail cars... I remember reading about a grain hopper car
found full of dead mexicans and grain. Before that a dark colored grain
hopper car full of dead mexicans that died from the heat.

--
Coming to you from the beautiful Chicago suburbs

smr

unread,
Nov 21, 2011, 11:40:07 AM11/21/11
to
On 11/21/11 7:48 AM, Bruce Esquibel wrote:

> Yes, I confess error.

Eh. The gist is: the cockwaffles who founded both Plymouth and Boston
were considered the most intolerable asswipes in an era quite noted for
the abundance of intolerable asswipes. Anybody who thinks they were at
all tolerant or noble "just leave us alone and we'll leave you alone"
kind folk should note that every fuckin' state that surrounds
Massachusetts was basically founded originally as a colony by refugees
from the Pilgramist Terror in MA who were basically facing a "leave or
be killed" situation should they have hung around with the unfun,
po-faced fuckwads in the funny hats.

I despise those religious aspects of our national culture that descend
directly from having been founded by these cumstains. The staggeringly
intolerant fundamentalism of way the fuck too many Americans, the
impulse to control/condemn/regulate the private behaviors of consenting
adults, the inability to just let the "Other" abide provided no harm
comes to others (and no, seeing a woman drive, or a black hold property,
doesn't constitute "harm"), etc. and so on.

The sooner we can frog-march America into the post-religious future that
much of the rest of the Western World has already managed to get to, the
better. I can't wait until the entire concept of "religion" is something
most people view as nothing more than an archaic inspiration for some
neat, old architecture.

--
smr

sticks

unread,
Nov 21, 2011, 4:43:54 PM11/21/11
to
On 11/20/2011 11:37 AM, spamtrap1888 wrote:
> On Nov 20, 8:13 am, sticks<wolverin...@charter.net> wrote:


>> First off, the Pilgrims and Puritans are two distinct and separate
>> groups.
>
> This is like saying that Baptists and Christians are two distinct and
> separate groups. Pilgrims were a subset of the Separatists, which were
> a subset of the Pilgrims.

I think I know what you tried to say with this doublespeak. You're
wrong. The Pilgrims were separatists. The puritans were not. The
Pilgrims were a sect of Puritans, but not willing to continue with the
Church of England. They were, two distinct and separate groups.


>
>> The Pilgrims were harshly persecuted and had actually fled to
>> the Netherlands before coming to the colonies. I don't know how anyone
>> can say they were not persecuted.
>
> People who could not find any evidence of persecution, perhaps. The
> King's subjects were required to go to services at the King's church;
> alternative preaching services were taboo, but practiced anyway. You
> might as well say that pot smokers are persecuted in the US. Name
> someone imprisoned for his beliefs, whose property was seized, etc.

This is ridiculous. Not many actually argue they weren't persecuted.

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel01.html


>> They founded the Plymouth Colony in
>> 1620, ten years before the Puritans settled in Boston in 1630.
>>
>> The Puritans were subjected to persecution for their beliefs and now
>> considered "fundamentalists" because of their insistence that only the
>> scripture should guide their lives and worship. They objected to the
>> "rituals" of the Catholic Church
>
> The Church of England retained the rituals of the Catholic Church. The
> Pilgrims could not deal.

The rituals or "magic show" was the problem. As free men, they did not
think they should have to "deal" but should be allowed to worship as
they saw fit. Duh.


>> and their lives were made difficult by
>> King Charles I mainly because of his marriage to his Princess from
>> France whose family was strict Catholic.
>
> Sticks finally alludes to the fact that CATHOLICS were persecuted at
> this time. Priests were executed simply for being priests -- even
> under Charles I.

If you want to start a thread about Catholic persecution, go ahead.
This thread was about the Pilgrims.


> http://www.ewtn.com/library/CHISTORY/PENALAWS.HTM
>
> The Pilgrims' main objection was that the Church of England did not
> follow their dearly held Calvinist principles.

True, they wanted their church to more closely model Calvinist models
and not have the rituals and one man head associated with the Catholic
Church. They were courageous enough to seek it.


sticks

unread,
Nov 21, 2011, 4:49:50 PM11/21/11
to
On 11/20/2011 11:39 AM, spamtrap1888 wrote:

>>> First off, the Pilgrims and Puritans are two distinct and separate
>>> groups.
>>
>> This is like saying that Baptists and Christians are two distinct and
>> separate groups. Pilgrims were a subset of the Separatists, which were
>> a subset of the Pilgrims.
>
> Need more coffee:
>
> Pilgrims were a subset of the Separatists, which were
> a subset of the Puritans.

The Pilgrims were Puritans, and the Puritans became Pilgrims when they
journeyed to America.
Most people understand and acknowledge the two groups. I have no
problem with you not doing so.

sticks

unread,
Nov 21, 2011, 5:21:02 PM11/21/11
to
On 11/20/2011 1:15 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> sticks<wolve...@charter.net> wrote:
>
>> This sounds like a very "British" account of history, and though I'm
>> actually surprised someone as intelligent as Bruce repeats this, I am
>> not surprised the continuing dilution of our founding continues. It's
>> so "contemporary" to speak out this way.
>
>> First off, the Pilgrims and Puritans are two distinct and separate
>> groups.
>
> Their religious practices were compatible, but not identical. They
> were similar to Calvinists, but disagreed in part. They weren't distinct.
> The Pilgrims were a small Puritan subset.

The Puritans accepted the Church of England as legitimate, but needing
change/reform. The Pilgrims had abandoned any hope of such efforts
being successful and instead chose to leave.
>
>> The Pilgrims were harshly persecuted and had actually fled to the
>> Netherlands before coming to the colonies. I don't know how anyone can
>> say they were not persecuted. They founded the Plymouth Colony in 1620,
>> ten years before the Puritans settled in Boston in 1630.
>
> Hold on. I think we can all agree that as an anti-Papal movement, worship
> in the Church of England was mandated and that the English did not tolerate
> rival Protestant movements well and there were years (if not decades) in
> which non-adherants and Catholics alike received harsh treatment.

Very true. 150 years of total chaos.

> But, dammit, the Pilgrims went to Holland to worship in peace. Has anyone
> ever been persecuted there? They couldn't stand Holland, not because they
> didn't want to learn to speak Dutch or German, but because they couldn't
> stand their tolerant ways. Perhaps men danced with the wives, or daughters
> flirted, but the Dutch were promiscuous and therefore damned to Hell.
> The worst thing the Dutch ever did to the world was Tulip Madness, which
> destroyed economies, but that passed. They've behaved ever since.

Most people will explain that the Dutch culture was becoming apparent in
their children. This was most likely true, and not taken lightly. What
often gets dismissed was that Holland's truce with Catholic Spain was
coming to an end and they feared for their lives there too.

-------snip-----

> I don't agree at all with your comment that their objective was not
> mingling politics and religious. That comment applies at no point
> in the history of their movement.
>
> If they didn't believe in imposing their religious beliefs onto the
> community via politics after coming to America, how do you explain Roger
> Williams, as the most prominent example? What about the Quakers, a few
> of whom fled England to escape persecution after the Civil War only to
> find it again in Massachusetts?
>
> You cannot reconcile Puritanism with religious tolerance. Now, Bruce
> was way over the top with Pilgrims as a cult; Puritanism was a major
> religious movement among Christians in England and on the Continent
> where they spread the ideas, so not a tiny sect. And the "super race"
> stuff was over the top too. They came here to lead good, worshipful lives,
> and intended to prevent outside influence. I assume his comment referred
> to living a life more saintlier than thou.

Human nature has lots of fault. These colonies started out with small
groups of people with similar values trying to make a go of it. The
Pilgrims took along many tradesmen on the journey so they had a chance
of surviving. These people were neither forced to go to church or
expelled to the wilderness. Did their values influence how their small
community governments worked? I'm sure they did, and as the Partisans
became more abundant and powerful, the two conflicted in ways neither
would have predicted. The Partisans still did believe the Church of
England had value, but needed reform. The goal was to be able to
worship as they chose, with scripture being the ultimate guide and not
some head of church or state. Actual implementation highlighted human
faults.

sticks

unread,
Nov 21, 2011, 5:24:39 PM11/21/11
to
On 11/21/2011 7:48 AM, Bruce Esquibel wrote:
>
> Anyway this is the clip, maybe it is British spin, maybe the writers and
> researchers took poetic license. It is just a game/entertainment show.
>
> http://zone8.ripco.com/newtest/

I get nothing on this page.

Adam H. Kerman

unread,
Nov 21, 2011, 5:30:59 PM11/21/11
to
Bruce Esquibel <b...@ripco.com> wrote:
>Adam H. Kerman <a...@chinet.com> wrote:

>>You cannot reconcile Puritanism with religious tolerance. Now, Bruce
>>was way over the top with Pilgrims as a cult; Puritanism was a major
>>religious movement among Christians in England and on the Continent
>>where they spread the ideas, so not a tiny sect. And the "super race"
>>stuff was over the top too. They came here to lead good, worshipful lives,
>>and intended to prevent outside influence. I assume his comment referred
>>to living a life more saintlier than thou.

>Yes, I confess error.

>Went back and watched the segment again, the word "Pilgrims" was never used.

"The Puritans came over on the Mayflower." Hm

"They didn't land at Plymouth Rock. It's a myth."

It's a big rock; they didn't dock at the rock. But they must have
sighted it.

>Anyway this is the clip, maybe it is British spin, maybe the writers and
>researchers took poetic license. It is just a game/entertainment show.

>http://zone8.ripco.com/newtest/

"They objected to the religious freedom in England, which meant you could
have all sorts of ranges of religion."

That's flat-out ignorant.

Adam H. Kerman

unread,
Nov 21, 2011, 5:38:03 PM11/21/11
to
smr <m...@shawnritchie.com> wrote:

>The sooner we can frog-march America into the post-religious future that
>much of the rest of the Western World has already managed to get to, the
>better. I can't wait until the entire concept of "religion" is something
>most people view as nothing more than an archaic inspiration for some
>neat, old architecture.

Way to ruin a good rant with something flat-out stupid.

We're the only Western democracy that doesn't allow established religion.
Canada and France and others provide Catholic religious education at
taxpayer expense, right at the public school. Other countries subsidize
religious education.

The majority of European nations have established churches.

In Europe, there are government subsidies to congregations to maintain
historic churches. Probably subsidies to congregations with modern churches,
but I'll have to do some more reading on that.

By public policy, our country has more freedom of religion, and freedom
from religion, than anywhere else.

Adam H. Kerman

unread,
Nov 21, 2011, 5:54:08 PM11/21/11
to
sticks <wolve...@charter.net> wrote:
>On 11/20/2011 1:15 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>sticks<wolve...@charter.net> wrote:

>>>This sounds like a very "British" account of history, and though I'm
>>>actually surprised someone as intelligent as Bruce repeats this, I am
>>>not surprised the continuing dilution of our founding continues. It's
>>>so "contemporary" to speak out this way.

>>>First off, the Pilgrims and Puritans are two distinct and separate
>>>groups.

>>Their religious practices were compatible, but not identical. They
>>were similar to Calvinists, but disagreed in part. They weren't distinct.
>>The Pilgrims were a small Puritan subset.

>The Puritans accepted the Church of England as legitimate, but needing
>change/reform. The Pilgrims had abandoned any hope of such efforts
>being successful and instead chose to leave.

You're talking about two different periods! You're also comparing a
major group with a single congregation!

The Puritan movement began during Elizabethan times by a group of ministers
didn't want to go along with swapping out the Pope and replacing him
with the British monarch as head of church. They wanted an entirely
new church. btw, some historians do say they refered to themselves as
separatists, not because they wanted to leave England but because they
had separated themselves from the political establishment.

They tried to reform the religious practices of the established church
from within. They tried through legislation for they had elected members
of Parliament. At some point, they wanted their own churches.

>>>The Pilgrims were harshly persecuted and had actually fled to the
>>>Netherlands before coming to the colonies. I don't know how anyone can
>>>say they were not persecuted. They founded the Plymouth Colony in 1620,
>>>ten years before the Puritans settled in Boston in 1630.

>>Hold on. I think we can all agree that as an anti-Papal movement, worship
>>in the Church of England was mandated and that the English did not tolerate
>>rival Protestant movements well and there were years (if not decades) in
>>which non-adherants and Catholics alike received harsh treatment.

>Very true. 150 years of total chaos.

>>But, dammit, the Pilgrims went to Holland to worship in peace. Has anyone
>>ever been persecuted there? They couldn't stand Holland, not because they
>>didn't want to learn to speak Dutch or German, but because they couldn't
>>stand their tolerant ways. Perhaps men danced with the wives, or daughters
>>flirted, but the Dutch were promiscuous and therefore damned to Hell.
>>The worst thing the Dutch ever did to the world was Tulip Madness, which
>>destroyed economies, but that passed. They've behaved ever since.

>Most people will explain that the Dutch culture was becoming apparent in
>their children. This was most likely true, and not taken lightly. What
>often gets dismissed was that Holland's truce with Catholic Spain was
>coming to an end and they feared for their lives there too.

I'm not sure what war began at that point.

>>I don't agree at all with your comment that their objective was not
>>mingling politics and religious. That comment applies at no point
>>in the history of their movement.

>>If they didn't believe in imposing their religious beliefs onto the
>>community via politics after coming to America, how do you explain Roger
>>Williams, as the most prominent example? What about the Quakers, a few
>>of whom fled England to escape persecution after the Civil War only to
>>find it again in Massachusetts?

>>You cannot reconcile Puritanism with religious tolerance. Now, Bruce
>>was way over the top with Pilgrims as a cult; Puritanism was a major
>>religious movement among Christians in England and on the Continent
>>where they spread the ideas, so not a tiny sect. And the "super race"
>>stuff was over the top too. They came here to lead good, worshipful lives,
>>and intended to prevent outside influence. I assume his comment referred
>>to living a life more saintlier than thou.

>Human nature has lots of fault. These colonies started out with small
>groups of people with similar values trying to make a go of it. The
>Pilgrims took along many tradesmen on the journey so they had a chance
>of surviving. These people were neither forced to go to church or
>expelled to the wilderness.

Because the colony wouldn't have survived? C'mon. Not speaking of the
Pilgrims any longer, which was just the one tiny colony, but the major
migration of Puritans over two decades.

>Did their values influence how their small community governments worked?
>I'm sure they did, and as the Partisans became more abundant and
>powerful, the two conflicted in ways neither would have predicted.
>The Partisans still did believe the Church of England had value, but
>needed reform. The goal was to be able to worship as they chose, with
>scripture being the ultimate guide and not some head of church or state.
>Actual implementation highlighted human faults.

I would really like you to specifically address the horrible way they
treated the Quakers, who were no threat to their religious practices,
and were irrelevant to their anti-episcopalian religion.

smr

unread,
Nov 21, 2011, 5:51:01 PM11/21/11
to
You are fucking fooling yourself if you think public policy in this
country isn't strongly influenced by organized religion, usually of the
fundie stripe. When was our last big-time atheist politician?

You are fooling yourself fucking further if you don't count "hey, don't
bother paying taxes" as a gigantic subsidy to every religious building
in this country, either.

You are fooling yourself thrice if you think religion plays one
goddamned iota as much of a role in the political life of any other
Western democracy as it does in these here United States.

Lastly, you are fooling yourself four fucking times over if you think
your average Euro is anywhere near as religious as your average
American. To wit:

"Americans also were far more likely to say that religion was important
to their lives. More than half - 53 percent - said religion was "very
important" to them, a view expressed by 16 percent of all British
respondents, 13 percent of those interviewed in France and 13 percent of
the Germans questioned".

I realize you're basing your opinions on Written Public Policy, but
unlike such a wonk as yourself, I don't put much credence in that kinda
shit as an actual barometer of fuck all. What people DO and THINK counts
a lot more than what some policy paper says. And by that standard,
America out-religions pretty much everything.

--
smr

Adam H. Kerman

unread,
Nov 21, 2011, 6:41:16 PM11/21/11
to
smr <m...@shawnritchie.com> wrote:
>On 11/21/2011 4:38 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>smr<m...@shawnritchie.com> wrote:

>>>The sooner we can frog-march America into the post-religious future that
>>>much of the rest of the Western World has already managed to get to, the
>>>better. I can't wait until the entire concept of "religion" is something
>>>most people view as nothing more than an archaic inspiration for some
>>>neat, old architecture.

>>Way to ruin a good rant with something flat-out stupid.

>>We're the only Western democracy that doesn't allow established religion.
>>Canada and France and others provide Catholic religious education at
>>taxpayer expense, right at the public school. Other countries subsidize
>>religious education.

>>The majority of European nations have established churches.

>>In Europe, there are government subsidies to congregations to maintain
>>historic churches. Probably subsidies to congregations with modern churches,
>>but I'll have to do some more reading on that.

>>By public policy, our country has more freedom of religion, and freedom
>>from religion, than anywhere else.

>You are fucking fooling yourself if you think public policy in this
>country isn't strongly influenced by organized religion, usually of the
>fundie stripe. When was our last big-time atheist politician?

Of course it's influenced. But the Constitution has strict limits on
how far that influence can be taken in legislation. No one else has that.

>You are fooling yourself fucking further if you don't count "hey, don't
>bother paying taxes" as a gigantic subsidy to every religious building
>in this country, either.

As I am a Georgist, it's ridiculous that you claim to believe I believe that.

>You are fooling yourself thrice if you think religion plays one
>goddamned iota as much of a role in the political life of any other
>Western democracy as it does in these here United States.

You're flat out ridiculous here. Generally, they have more abortion
restrictions, as an example of religion at work. Of course, Americans
go nuts at the idea of contraception and venereal disease eduction as
a public health issue.

>Lastly, you are fooling yourself four fucking times over if you think
>your average Euro is anywhere near as religious as your average
>American. To wit:

>"Americans also were far more likely to say that religion was important
>to their lives. More than half - 53 percent - said religion was "very
>important" to them, a view expressed by 16 percent of all British
>respondents, 13 percent of those interviewed in France and 13 percent of
>the Germans questioned".

Sigh. You failed to read the 20 year old tea leaves. Europe and Canada
gets immigration from fundy parts of the world, lots of it, which in
turn changes their societies.

>I realize you're basing your opinions on Written Public Policy, but
>unlike such a wonk as yourself, I don't put much credence in that kinda
>shit as an actual barometer of fuck all. What people DO and THINK counts
>a lot more than what some policy paper says. And by that standard,
>America out-religions pretty much everything.

It doesn't affect my life if my neighbor is religious, unless he
harms me. What the fuck is wrong with you?

Mark Anderson

unread,
Nov 21, 2011, 7:04:07 PM11/21/11
to
In article m...@shawnritchie.com says...
> You are fooling yourself fucking further if you don't count "hey, don't
> bother paying taxes" as a gigantic subsidy to every religious building
> in this country, either.

Along with the free property tax subsidy, churches also benefit from the
charitable income tax deduction which is a subsidy on the tax side of
the equation. Tax side subsidies (i.e. deductions) are much harder to
eliminate which is why the tax code has gotten so god damned complicated
with them. Any attack on a tax deduction is a dog whistle to the brain
dead mouth breathing blennies of the world who rail against all
taxation. They'll come out en mass to protest any elimination of a
deduction making it easy for the beneficiaries of these kind of
subsidies to keep the masses confused so as to keep the government
largess gravy train flowing their way.

Sweden directly funds their churches from post tax collected dollars.
Still not right IMHO but at least they're honest about it.

BTW: Cardinal George's mansion sits on two very large Gold Coast corner
lots in probably the neighborhood with the highest real estate value in
the city. If that mansion is valued at, say, $10M, and if the church
gets a free ride on property taxes for that property, then that's around
a $100K subsidy just for the Cardinal's residence alone. It must be
nice to live like a King, and on the government dole, while having taken
an oath of poverty. Do Catholic priests still take the poverty oath?



spamtrap1888

unread,
Nov 21, 2011, 7:48:51 PM11/21/11
to
On Nov 21, 2:51 pm, smr <m...@shawnritchie.com> wrote:
> On 11/21/2011 4:38 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>

>
> > smr<m...@shawnritchie.com>  wrote:
>
> >> The sooner we can frog-march America into the post-religious future that
> >> much of the rest of the Western World has already managed to get to, the
> >> better. I can't wait until the entire concept of "religion" is something
> >> most people view as nothing more than an archaic inspiration for some
> >> neat, old architecture.
>
> > Way to ruin a good rant with something flat-out stupid.
>
> > We're the only Western democracy that doesn't allow established religion.
> > Canada and France and others provide Catholic religious education at
> > taxpayer expense, right at the public school. Other countries subsidize
> > religious education.
>
> > The majority of European nations have established churches.
>
> > In Europe, there are government subsidies to congregations to maintain
> > historic churches. Probably subsidies to congregations with modern churches,
> > but I'll have to do some more reading on that.
>
> > By public policy, our country has more freedom of religion, and freedom
> > from religion, than anywhere else.
>
> You are fucking fooling yourself if you think public policy in this
> country isn't strongly influenced by organized religion, usually of the
> fundie stripe. When was our last big-time atheist politician?

Clinton, GHW Bush, Reagan... Although they were all hypocrite enough
to pay lip service to religion.

>
> You are fooling yourself fucking further if you don't count "hey, don't
> bother paying taxes" as a gigantic subsidy to every religious building
> in this country, either.

Religionists pay extra taxes to make up for it. Only atheists get
screwed at the property tax level.

>
> You are fooling yourself thrice if you think religion plays one
> goddamned iota as much of a role in the political life of any other
> Western democracy as it does in these here United States.

Germany and/or Austria actually collects tax from the citizens to
finance their religion.

> Lastly, you are fooling yourself four fucking times over if you think
> your average Euro is anywhere near as religious as your average
> American. To wit:
>
> "Americans also were far more likely to say that religion was important
> to their lives. More than half - 53 percent - said religion was "very
> important" to them, a view expressed by 16 percent of all British
> respondents, 13 percent of those interviewed in France and 13 percent of
> the Germans questioned".

Europeans' awareness of their religion is like a fish's awareness of
water. 90-some percent of Frenchmen are Catholic, mostly non-
practicing. Germans are either Catholic (in the South and West) or
Protestant (in the North and East). The homogeneity means you never
have to think about your religion.

>
> I realize you're basing your opinions on Written Public Policy, but
> unlike such a wonk as yourself, I don't put much credence in that kinda
> shit as an actual barometer of fuck all. What people DO and THINK counts
> a lot more than what some policy paper says. And by that standard,
> America out-religions pretty much everything.

Our religious pluralism creates chauvinism. MY religion is best. Plus
most of the waves of Protestantism took place on our shores, each
successive wave attempting to be more fundamentalist. So, feeling smug
about your particular sect, you can look down either on the Papist
mackerel snappers or the Holy Roller snakehandlers. Or both.

smr

unread,
Nov 21, 2011, 7:51:48 PM11/21/11
to
On 11/21/2011 5:41 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

> Of course it's influenced. But the Constitution has strict limits on
> how far that influence can be taken in legislation. No one else has that.

Only a guy like you could think that means jack fucking shit around
here. I'd rather have Western Europe's non-enshrined but
actually-followed-in-the-breach spirit about it than our "wink and a nod
but you ain't gettin' elected if you don't praise god!" bullshit.

Religion carries WAY too much weight around this dump, and it's getting
worse. Fucking Personhood Amendments are making it to the ballet? We
have entire states where you can only get an abortion in one clinic that
has to fly a fucking doctor in from another goddamned state to even
provide that much?

We're a fuckin' outright theocracy compared to, say, Germany.

> As I am a Georgist, it's ridiculous that you claim to believe I believe that.

Then why would you point out the occasional maintenance subsidy in
Europe as a contra-indicator to our outright gifts to every dump with a
cross on it around here?

> You're flat out ridiculous here. Generally, they have more abortion
> restrictions, as an example of religion at work. Of course, Americans
> go nuts at the idea of contraception and venereal disease eduction as
> a public health issue.

Generally? In Western Europe?

Um, you realize that EVERY STATE IN EUROPE save for Poland, Ireland,
Monaco, San Marino, Andorra and the fucking Vatican have legalized
abortion on request up to the point (and a huge honking sticking one it
is, though it's also increasingly the accepted law here) of fetal
viability? Basically, if you're in your first trimester and you want it
gone, you can get it gone, a standard I happen to find reasonable.

And, unlike in vast swaths of these United States, you can actually,
y'know, exercise that fucking right with relative ease over there.

I know you think that, once something is written down on paper by an
Authority, it's all good, but I happen to find that only a good starting
point.

> Sigh. You failed to read the 20 year old tea leaves. Europe and Canada
> gets immigration from fundy parts of the world, lots of it, which in
> turn changes their societies.

And yet those stats were from a 2008 survey, long after the wave of
Islamic immigration had begun. I'm sure those asswipes want abortion
made the sharia of the land but I'm still holding out some hope that the
Euros will wake the fuck up and ship those worthless fuckheads either
home or into a camp sometime before I die.

> It doesn't affect my life if my neighbor is religious, unless he
> harms me. What the fuck is wrong with you?

Well, for one thing, your fundie neighbors are trying their damndest to
re-reduce women back to chattel status, in case you haven't noticed. If
I knock the ol' lady up accidentally, I want to continue to be able to
easily have that parasite hoovered out of her. Lots of shit going on in
the South where religious organizations are trying to make that
impossible, as a starting point for overturning RvW entirely. I was
prouder than fuck when Mississippi rejected the first serious attempt to
do so, but the Bible-Thumpers tend to be patient and persistent.

I want religion squashed as much as possible because the really really
faithful don't seem happy until they're able to start imposing it on
everyone else. American has suffered from the tension between full
rights for everyone and religiously-inspired restrictions against same
for its entire history. No reason to weaken vigilance now.

--
smr

Cuthbert Thistlethwaite

unread,
Nov 21, 2011, 9:47:08 PM11/21/11
to
I was able to play the clip; thank you for it.

Persecution of Puritans is a lot of fundamentalist propaganda.

They want you to think that James I was right up there with Himmler and
Diocletian, a first-rate Persecutor. But he wasn't.

A couple maybe three of their leaders were executed (for sedition, not
heresy) over a 50-year period, and they had to pay a tax if they skipped
the Church of England on Sundays and "holy" days. On the CT scale of
persecutions, this was a milk and cookies party.

My impression is that regular people considered them very annoying,
self-righteous, sanctimonious assholes, sort of like the early Mormons
in Illinois. Rudeness, distance, and insults from the general
population must have been a significant motivation to leave.

In New England they had a free hand to be assholes. Charles II revoked
their charter in the 1680s, and I think it was for hanging Quakers.

Think this is all over?

About 3 weeks ago, Congress passed an honorary resolution re-affirming
"In Got we Trust" as the US motto (as if we need a freaking motto),
after Obama had stated it was "E Pluribus Unum". The resolution was put
up by a GOP from Virginia. Passed by a landslide. My Congressman voted
for it and I have criticized him for doing so.

The Puritans, whether Pilgrims or not, have definitely not disappeared
into the mist of history.

smr

unread,
Nov 21, 2011, 10:07:10 PM11/21/11
to
On 11/21/2011 6:48 PM, spamtrap1888 wrote:

> Clinton, GHW Bush, Reagan... Although they were all hypocrite enough
> to pay lip service to religion.

I know you're a trolling old shitbag full of drool, but this is a bit
extreme.

> Religionists pay extra taxes to make up for it. Only atheists get
> screwed at the property tax level.

Religionists pay extra taxes? Where?

> Germany and/or Austria actually collects tax from the citizens to
> finance their religion.

Only from stated adherents of said religions. And it's religions,
plural, asswipe. Germany doesn't have a state religion. AND the fucking
churches that use this system PAY the fucking government to collect
their tithes for them.

Austria collects a small tax on behalf of the Roman Church for anyone
who wishes to declare membership in it.

Go re-read your troll handbook, because you're not even getting basic
facts right here.

> Europeans' awareness of their religion is like a fish's awareness of
> water. 90-some percent of Frenchmen are Catholic, mostly non-
> practicing. Germans are either Catholic (in the South and West) or
> Protestant (in the North and East). The homogeneity means you never
> have to think about your religion.

90% of Frenchmen are Catholic? Way to lie, troll.

I can't find a poll from that last ten years that puts that at higher
than 52% other than one biased newspaper poll that has it in the 60's.

EVERY poll I can find from the last 10 years shows no less than 32% of
the French declaring themselves as atheist, with it ranging up to the
mid-40's, either of which I would fucking love to see in the USofA.

So fuck off with your ass-born lies, troll.

> Our religious pluralism creates chauvinism. MY religion is best. Plus
> most of the waves of Protestantism took place on our shores, each
> successive wave attempting to be more fundamentalist. So, feeling smug
> about your particular sect, you can look down either on the Papist
> mackerel snappers or the Holy Roller snakehandlers. Or both.

Or I can continue to look down on _everyone_ who believes in a higher
power of any sort, for doing so is a mark of ignorant madness.

--
smr

sticks

unread,
Nov 21, 2011, 10:29:47 PM11/21/11
to
On 11/21/2011 4:54 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

> I would really like you to specifically address the horrible way they
> treated the Quakers, who were no threat to their religious practices,
> and were irrelevant to their anti-episcopalian religion.

As you should, since it highlights the difficulties they were having
separating government from religion. No doubt the Puritans were not
against using the law to punish the Quakers. I do believe their
original plan was to seek freedom to worship as they choose, but
clinging to the Church of England made it difficult to abandon some of
their ways. Also, the Quakers, though extremely noble were also very
bold. In a in your face kind of way. They constantly disrupted the
church meetings of the Puritans. Something we would view today as
lunacy, the unwillingness to take off a hat, was turned into a huge
issue. Though the Puritans thought they were reformers, the Quakers
were not afraid to get in their face and show them their idea of reform.
Yes, they paid a harsh price for their beliefs.

spamtrap1888

unread,
Nov 22, 2011, 4:17:45 AM11/22/11
to
On Nov 21, 7:07 pm, smr <m...@shawnritchie.com> wrote:
> On 11/21/2011 6:48 PM, spamtrap1888 wrote:
>
> > Clinton, GHW Bush, Reagan... Although they were all hypocrite enough
> > to pay lip service to religion.
>
> I know you're a trolling old shitbag full of drool, but this is a bit
> extreme.

Clinton's moral compass was demagnetized, while GHWB and Reagan were
of the "Greed Is Good" faith.

>
> > Religionists pay extra taxes to make up for it. Only atheists get
> > screwed at the property tax level.
>
> Religionists pay extra taxes? Where?

Whatever the church doesn't pay must be made up by everyone else. Most
Chicagoans belong to one congregation or other.

>
> > Germany and/or Austria actually collects tax from the citizens to
> > finance their religion.
>
> Only from stated adherents of said religions. And it's religions,
> plural, asswipe. Germany doesn't have a state religion. AND the fucking
> churches that use this system PAY the fucking government to collect
> their tithes for them.
>
> Austria collects a small tax on behalf of the Roman Church for anyone
> who wishes to declare membership in it.

The point is the state is in bed with the church in those countries,
pea brain.

>
> Go re-read your troll handbook, because you're not even getting basic
> facts right here.
>
> > Europeans' awareness of their religion is like a fish's awareness of
> > water. 90-some percent of Frenchmen are Catholic, mostly non-
> > practicing. Germans are either Catholic (in the South and West) or
> > Protestant (in the North and East). The homogeneity means you never
> > have to think about your religion.
>
> 90% of Frenchmen are Catholic? Way to lie, troll.
>
> I can't find a poll from that last ten years that puts that at higher
> than 52% other than one biased newspaper poll that has it in the 60's.
>
> EVERY poll I can find from the last 10 years shows no less than 32% of
> the French declaring themselves as atheist, with it ranging up to the
> mid-40's, either of which I would fucking love to see in the USofA.

That doesn't mean they're not Catholic, dickwad. Once you're baptized,
you're Catholic. Kerman might as well say he's not Jewish. I do see
that baptism rates are in the low 80% these days. Mea culpa.

>
> So fuck off with your ass-born lies, troll.

What ever.

>
> > Our religious pluralism creates chauvinism. MY religion is best. Plus
> > most of the waves of Protestantism took place on our shores, each
> > successive wave attempting to be more fundamentalist. So, feeling smug
> > about your particular sect, you can look down either on the Papist
> > mackerel snappers or the Holy Roller snakehandlers. Or both.
>
> Or I can continue to look down on _everyone_ who believes in a higher
> power of any sort, for doing so is a mark of ignorant madness.

See, if you were a Frenchman you wouldn't give a shit. Only in our
pluralistic society do you feel driven to define your position.

Bruce Esquibel

unread,
Nov 22, 2011, 7:39:47 AM11/22/11
to
sticks <wolve...@charter.net> wrote:

>> http://zone8.ripco.com/newtest/

> I get nothing on this page.


I dunno, only guess is you have javascript disabled.

Maybe there is something wrong with the index file but it's supposed to try
flash compatability first, then html5 and if those two fail, offer a link to
just download the video file.

So "I get nothing" is a bit puzzling.

-bruce
b...@ripco.com

Wing Ding

unread,
Nov 22, 2011, 8:40:20 AM11/22/11
to
Perfectly said!

smr

unread,
Nov 22, 2011, 9:35:41 AM11/22/11
to
On 11/22/11 3:17 AM, spamtrap1888 wrote:

> Clinton's moral compass was demagnetized, while GHWB and Reagan were
> of the "Greed Is Good" faith.

Looking around, seems like most people who claim to be religious are of
the "Greed Is Good" faith. Are you claiming the right to decide who is
actually religious or not? Because fuck you if the atheists are taking
the blame for these cunts.

> Whatever the church doesn't pay must be made up by everyone else. Most
> Chicagoans belong to one congregation or other.

This is the most broken logic I've seen around here lately, which is
saying something.

> The point is the state is in bed with the church in those countries,
> pea brain.

It does not follow that the citizens of said states are therefore
automatically religious, troll.

> That doesn't mean they're not Catholic, dickwad. Once you're baptized,
> you're Catholic. Kerman might as well say he's not Jewish. I do see
> that baptism rates are in the low 80% these days. Mea culpa.

Oh, fuck you. I was baptized. Trust me: I'm not Catholic, or religious.

> See, if you were a Frenchman you wouldn't give a shit. Only in our
> pluralistic society do you feel driven to define your position.

So you want a state religion enforced upon everyone. May you die soon
and alone, troll.

--
smr

spamtrap1888

unread,
Nov 22, 2011, 11:59:42 AM11/22/11
to
On Nov 22, 6:35 am, smr <m...@shawnritchie.com> wrote:
> On 11/22/11 3:17 AM, spamtrap1888 wrote:

> > The point is the state is in bed with the church in those countries,
> > pea brain.
>
> It does not follow that the citizens of said states are therefore
> automatically religious, troll.

People are not "religious" when they belong to the faith of the
overwhelming majority, just like fish are unaware they are swimming in
water. Only in pluralistic societies do people tend to openly practice
their religion -- iow, to be "religious" -- because the presence of
the other faiths forces them to defend their own.

>
> > That doesn't mean they're not Catholic, dickwad. Once you're baptized,
> > you're Catholic. Kerman might as well say he's not Jewish. I do see
> > that baptism rates are in the low 80% these days. Mea culpa.
>
> Oh, fuck you. I was baptized. Trust me: I'm not Catholic, or religious.
>
> > See, if you were a Frenchman you wouldn't give a shit. Only in our
> > pluralistic society do you feel driven to define your position.
>
> So you want a state religion enforced upon everyone. May you die soon
> and alone, troll.
>

You're confusing de facto and de jure. France, for example, is
officially secular.

smr

unread,
Nov 22, 2011, 12:26:44 PM11/22/11
to
On 11/22/11 10:59 AM, spamtrap1888 wrote:

> People are not "religious" when they belong to the faith of the
> overwhelming majority, just like fish are unaware they are swimming in
> water. Only in pluralistic societies do people tend to openly practice
> their religion -- iow, to be "religious" -- because the presence of
> the other faiths forces them to defend their own.

You keep trying to make this ridiculous argument, which amounts to
"religion = community". So you don't care about the "holding faith"
aspect of religion, which is the one that pisses me off?

If it's not about faith, then WHY FUCKING BOTHER? Be fucking French, not
Catholic, since the latter is apparently meaningless except as an
identifier into the larger Frenchness of society.

God. Damn.

> You're confusing de facto and de jure. France, for example, is
> officially secular.

And religion plays next to no de facto or de jure role in French civic
life. Which is what I'm aiming for here in the States.

Next.

--
smr

Nicko

unread,
Nov 22, 2011, 8:12:58 PM11/22/11
to
French Catholics have the lowest usage of holy water of all
Catholics. Apparently, it feels too much like bathing for their
tastes.

Adam H. Kerman

unread,
Nov 23, 2011, 12:56:43 AM11/23/11
to
smr <m...@shawnritchie.com> wrote:
>On 11/21/2011 5:41 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

>>As I am a Georgist, it's ridiculous that you claim to believe I believe that.

>Then why would you point out the occasional maintenance subsidy in
>Europe as a contra-indicator to our outright gifts to every dump with a
>cross on it around here?

Religion receives much public funding in many European countries. An
occassional subsidy? You're ridiculous.

>>You're flat out ridiculous here. Generally, they have more abortion
>>restrictions, as an example of religion at work. Of course, Americans
>>go nuts at the idea of contraception and venereal disease eduction as
>>a public health issue.

>Generally? In Western Europe?

>Um, you realize that EVERY STATE IN EUROPE save for Poland, Ireland,
>Monaco, San Marino, Andorra and the fucking Vatican have legalized
>abortion on request up to the point (and a huge honking sticking one it
>is, though it's also increasingly the accepted law here) of fetal
>viability? Basically, if you're in your first trimester and you want it
>gone, you can get it gone, a standard I happen to find reasonable.

Second trimester is generally illegal in many countries, with a
health of the mother exception.

>And, unlike in vast swaths of these United States, you can actually,
>y'know, exercise that fucking right with relative ease over there.

Yeah, OB/GYN practices have been driven out of a lot of places.

>I know you think that, once something is written down on paper by an
>Authority, it's all good, but I happen to find that only a good starting
>point.

Don't blennie me.

>>It doesn't affect my life if my neighbor is religious, unless he
>>harms me. What the fuck is wrong with you?

>Well, for one thing, your fundie neighbors are trying their damndest to
>re-reduce women back to chattel status, in case you haven't noticed.

Fine. I don't believe religion should be used as a reason to harm others.

>If I knock the ol' lady up accidentally, I want to continue to be able
>to easily have that parasite hoovered out of her. Lots of shit going
>on in the South where religious organizations are trying to make that
>impossible, as a starting point for overturning RvW entirely. I was
>prouder than fuck when Mississippi rejected the first serious attempt
>to do so, but the Bible-Thumpers tend to be patient and persistent.

The law was written so very stupidly that certain anti-abortion groups
recommended voting "no". A better-written provision probably would have
passed. Human life begins at conception? Give me a break.

Adam H. Kerman

unread,
Nov 23, 2011, 1:05:18 AM11/23/11
to
The Puritans were somewhat like the brand-new Presbyterians, with no
episcropacy. I don't understand how you are calling them Church of
England. Weren't they a new sect at this point, with their own churches
and no bishops at all?

sticks

unread,
Nov 23, 2011, 8:34:12 AM11/23/11
to
Yes, but unlike the Pilgrims, they still thought there was hope for the
Church of England and believed that by coming to the New World and
setting up their Church they could be a shining example to their
brethren back home. England was more than happy to let them go because
of the dire economic times they were in. Taxation was heavy.
Unfortunately, a large portion of Puritan religious leaders also were
political leaders. Though I don't believe their original intent was to
repress the rights of others, it became commonplace to do so if
newcomers didn't have the willingness to fit in. Spiritual Tribalism
was something both the Puritans and the Quakers gravitated to. The
Quakers did not like "ordained" religious leaders, instead believing
leaders eventually showed themselves. Where the Quakers believed that
the family alone should rear the children, the Puritans believed
strongly in school, church, and community being a big part in the lives
of their young. People of differing beliefs were a danger to the
tribalism both were creating. Though these things sound like small
differences now, consider at the time on a Sunday morning 4 Quakers
barging in on a service and taking off everything but their hats!

Adam H. Kerman

unread,
Nov 23, 2011, 11:19:33 AM11/23/11
to
Fine. At what point did Puritans stop thinking of their churches as Church
of England in the New World and in England? They didn't become today's
Episcopalians, obviously, who do have an episcopacy. They wouldn't have
become Presbyterians, as that church sent out its own missionaries. In
the 1800s, there was a rebellion among some Presbyterians who felt
that the sect was trying to set up an episcopacy, which is when the
Congregationalist movement began, although they didn't change the style
of worship. Methodism arose post-Civil War.

>Unfortunately, a large portion of Puritan religious leaders also were
>political leaders. Though I don't believe their original intent was to
>repress the rights of others, it became commonplace to do so if
>newcomers didn't have the willingness to fit in. Spiritual Tribalism
>was something both the Puritans and the Quakers gravitated to. The
>Quakers did not like "ordained" religious leaders, instead believing
>leaders eventually showed themselves. Where the Quakers believed that
>the family alone should rear the children, the Puritans believed
>strongly in school, church, and community being a big part in the lives
>of their young. People of differing beliefs were a danger to the
>tribalism both were creating. Though these things sound like small
>differences now, consider at the time on a Sunday morning 4 Quakers
>barging in on a service and taking off everything but their hats!

I never read anything about Quakers disrupting their services; that's
hysterical.

Still, America would have a very different attitude toward religion if
founded by Quakers rather than Puritans.

Harriet Potter

unread,
Nov 23, 2011, 11:56:40 AM11/23/11
to
More fun than stuffing a slinky up your butt before the big turkey day chow down.

(help with the colon cleansing).

Wing Ding

unread,
Nov 24, 2011, 8:43:28 AM11/24/11
to
it's too bad the indians didn't kill them all.

sticks

unread,
Nov 24, 2011, 3:08:18 PM11/24/11
to
On 11/23/2011 10:19 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> sticks<wolve...@charter.net> wrote:

>
>>> The Puritans were somewhat like the brand-new Presbyterians, with no
>>> episcropacy. I don't understand how you are calling them Church of
>>> England. Weren't they a new sect at this point, with their own churches
>>> and no bishops at all?
>
>> Yes, but unlike the Pilgrims, they still thought there was hope for the
>> Church of England and believed that by coming to the New World and
>> setting up their Church they could be a shining example to their
>> brethren back home. England was more than happy to let them go because
>> of the dire economic times they were in. Taxation was heavy.
>
> Fine. At what point did Puritans stop thinking of their churches as Church
> of England in the New World and in England? They didn't become today's
> Episcopalians, obviously, who do have an episcopacy. They wouldn't have
> become Presbyterians, as that church sent out its own missionaries. In
> the 1800s, there was a rebellion among some Presbyterians who felt
> that the sect was trying to set up an episcopacy, which is when the
> Congregationalist movement began, although they didn't change the style
> of worship. Methodism arose post-Civil War.

When they ran out of wine?

But seriously, it is hard to pinpoint an exact time on something like
this. The thought was obviously born of such men as Smythe, Locke and
Williams. Some were willing to take action while others clung. By the
late 1600's they were having a hard time even filling the pews.
Commerce had become more important to most colonists. It wasn't until
the First Great Awakenings in the early 1700's that it's prominence in
the thought circles became apparent again. In my mind, what ultimately
led up to the ability of such a separation to exist was the 1688-9
emergence of William and Mary. The "Bill of Rights" and "Act of
Toleration", though actually conceived to keep the Catholics out of the
Church of England, allowed the Puritans to preach and establish their
own churches. This freedom and the Great Awakenings had much to do with
the thinking of the day and many would argue is what led the colonists
to the American Revolution to be truly free men. Ultimately, I believe
that was the end of the Church of England in America.

0 new messages