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.