Why is there a general sneering going on east to west?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by molly bloom
It's one of those great American myths that the Puritans were at all interested in religious liberty or toleration (they were, but for themselves alone) or democracy (they governed through a religious intellectual elite).

Oh Boy, another myth. Thank you Molly.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
UR=worth making a serious reply to?

How?

Face it, you don't have an answer to my question.

However, thank you for the flattery.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by The Mad Monk
Considering that one of your most important leaders declared war on your own intelligensia, I'd say you don't have much room to critique us.

1.
2. Strawman
3. Red herring

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Face it, you don't have an answer to my question.

Me=actually consider your question serious?

Why?

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Which I suppose extended to the Catholics, eh?

In the same way it didn't in New England?


I'm tired of always giving you history lessons.

Who were perceived as the major threats to Great Britain?

Catholic France and Catholic Spain- Great Britain took its first steps towards empire under Cromwell with the capture of Jamaica from Spain (1655), and the defeat of Spain at the Battle of the Dunes (1658).

So intolerant was Cromwell, that at a time of the exiling from and torture of Jews in Catholic countries, he decreed they should be allowed to return to Great Britain.

There had been Catholic assassination attempts and plots against Elizabeth I, and the Pope had declared her deposed and that anyone who killed her would receive forgiveness.

Her successor James I and VI had survived an assassination attempt by Catholics in which it had been hoped not only he but also a great deal of the membership of the House of Commons would be killed.

King Charles I's Lord Lieutenant in Ireland, Thomas Wentworth, had raised a force of Catholics, which it was feared, would be used to support Charles Stuart's attempts at personal rule.

Then in 1641 there was the massacre of Protestants in Ireland by Catholics, an estimated 12 000 out of a population of 40 000 Protestants.


Along with this in Europe there had been the tyranny of the Catholic Duke of Alva's rule in the Low Countries (during the United Provinces' Eighty Years' War with Spain), the slaughter of the Sack of Magdeburg by Catholic forces, the expulsion of Jews and Muslim converts from Spain, France's Wars of Religion, and the Massacre of the French Protestant Huguenots on St. Bartholomew's Day (for which the Pope delightfully had a 'Te Deum sung', and a medal wrought to commemorate the event).


I wonder if English Protestants felt they had any reason to distrust Catholicism in Europe and at home, then, associated as it was with several assassination attempts against the head of state, a general slaughter in Ireland and in Europe, and several invasion attempts?

In any case, the fact that there were laws discriminating against one group of sectaries does not disprove what I stated, that there was a growing difference between the New England colonies and Great Britain when it came to toleration of dissenters, and that that this was perceived by the Puritan establishment in the New World with puzzlement.

"In developing Protestant theories of persecution and toleration, Coffey argues that there was a strong continuity of desire for uniformity, and the will to achieve it, from before the Reformation. Like true converts, Protestants zealously rooted out schismatics and heretics. Protestant emphasis on access to the scriptures equipped them with plenty of Biblical examples of cruelty. But the Protestant belief in a "Godly community" drove their consciences to be troubled by those who would not conform. This framework had the benefit for monarchs of imposing political as well as religious conformity; and the concept of adiaphora ("things indifferent or inconsequential") relied on the regulation of such things by the monarch. Coffey traces Protestant ideas of toleration to Milton, Walwyn, Robinson and Williams who broke with Augustinian attitudes to coercion and, in contrast to the continent, developed a patchwork of tolerant values: civil, political and theological.

Having thus established a framework for early modern toleration and persecution, Coffey takes a chronological tour through the Elizabethan, Early Stuart, Puritan and Restoration regimes. Coffey argues inter alia that Elizabethan persecution was every bit as brutal as the Marian variant, that James's succession simply substituted Calvinist for Anglican intolerance, and that the severest punishments were reserved for anti-Trinitarians. Paradoxically it was in Puritanism that persecution formed an alliance with toleration: Cromwell was both a bigot and a promoter of toleration, who re-admitted Jews to England. Charles II continued this curious and complex mixture. Charles was a Catholic (at least by his death), who made the Declaration of Breda granting liberties, but sought to marginalise Dissent with the "Clarendon code." Persecution became largely an economic force (with the ejection of the nonconformist ministers from parishes) and a political one (with the passing of the Test Act). Imprisonment of Dissenters existed but torture and executions were rare. "

http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.cgi?path=14374985726040

Unlike in Catholic France, there was no British equivalent of the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes.

The Toleration Act, 1689:

'The Glorious Revolution and the adoption of William of Orange as King marked the end, not only of Stuart autocracy, but also of religious persecution in England.

The Toleration Act of 1689 granted nonconformist congregations a measure of legal recognition, and dissenters were henceforth able to worship freely in their own meeting houses, provided that they were registered with either civil or diocesan authorities, with the majority of registrations, not surprisingly, made to the courts of Quarter Sessions.

...for between 1754 and 1837 all marriages except those of Jews and Quakers had to be solemnised in the Anglican Church. Similarly, nonconformist burials are generally found in Anglican registers, as the parish burial ground was usually the only one available. Most nonconformist registers were surrendered to the Registrar General for authentication in 1837, although few Catholic and no Jewish congregations did so.'

http://www.devon.gov.uk/index/community/the_county/record_office/north_records_office/leaflets/sources_for_history_of_nonconformity-2.htm

[Ben Kenobi]

In any case, the fact that there were laws discriminating against one group of sectaries does not disprove what I stated, that there was a growing difference between the New England colonies and Great Britain when it came to toleration of dissenters, and that that this was perceived by the Puritan establishment in the New World with puzzlement.

And nor do I contest that statement.

I agree that there was greater toleration in England towards the various groups of dissenters, which is a natural outcrop of the rise of a particular dissenting group, the Puritans, over the Anglicans.

I just do not want you to overlook some very salient points, such as the continued antipathy to the Catholics.

Do you justify their persecution of the Catholics in England because the Catholics abroad were perceived as hostile?

That would be like giving Israel a free pass to the Palestinians within their borders, to deny them the rights given to all other citizens, just because some foreign Palestinians are a threat to the state.

[Ben Kenobi]

And don't forget the Test acts in your whole lecture Molly.

This act was followed by the Test Act of 1672 (25 Charles II. C. 2). The immediate cause of the Test Act (the full title of which is 'An act for preventing dangers which may happen from popish recusants') was the king's declaration of indulgence, dispensing with laws inflicting disabilities on Nonconformists. This act enforced upon all persons filling any office, civil or military, the obligation of taking the oaths of supremacy and allegiance and subscribing a declaration against transubstantiation, and also of receiving the sacrament within three months after admittance to office. The oath was:

I, N, profess, testify, and declare, that I do believe that in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper there is not any Transubstantiation of the elements of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ at or after the consecration thereof by any person whatsoever: and that the invocation or adoration of the Virgin Mary or any other Saint, and the Sacrifice of the Mass, as they are now used in the Church of Rome, are superstitious and idolatrous...

The act did not extend to peers; but in 1678 30 Charles II. ft. 2 enacted that all peers and members of the House of Commons should make a declaration against transubstantiation, invocation of saints, and the sacrifice of the mass-a special exception being made in favour of the duke of York.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
That is because you have only bad culture, and all of your traditions suck! There I said it .

I think in all seriousness it's to do (in the UK) with the traditional perception of the Jacobites, many of whom formed the first pilgrim immigrants to North America, and the perception, real or not, if your nations stubborness, self-righteousness, perceived ill-consideration, desperately ultra-conservative attitudes and Alabama. Note that is all a question of perception not a statement of fact.

I highly doubt America was always seen as ultra-conservative, or even conservative.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi



Do you justify their persecution of the Catholics in England because the Catholics abroad were perceived as hostile?

I don't 'justify' anything, I simply look at what the situation in Europe was at the time.

You were suggesting that because Catholics were discriminated against in Great Britain, my statement that there was a growing toleration for dissenters in Great Britain which confused Puritan colonists in the Americas, was somehow incorrect.

You were wrong, as you usually are, when it comes to arguing history with me.


And in case you had missed it, the Babington Plot, the massacre in Ireland and the Gunpowder Plot were undertakings of ENGLISH Catholics, or subjects of the ENGLISH monarch.

The Babington Plot:

"In December 1585, Gilbert Clifford was arrested in Sussex. While being interviewed, Clifford confessed that he had been involved in a Catholic plot to overthrow Elizabeth I. The man in charge of protecting Elizabeth was Francis Walsingham. He offered to release Clifford if he was willing to work as a double-agent. Clifford agreed and went to his contact in the French embassy telling him that he knew how to smuggle letters to and from Mary Stuart. He explained that every week a barrel of beer was sent from Burton to where Mary was imprisoned. Clifford arranged to have letters placed in a waterproof package inside the stopper of the barrel.

Another double-agent, Thomas Philips, who was inside the prison, told Mary how she would be receiving letters in her beer barrel. However, before they were placed inside the beer barrel, they were read by Walsingham. More importantly, Francis Walsingham was also able to read the letters that Mary sent to her Catholic friends in France and Spain. In these letters Mary explained how she wanted France and Spain to help her become queen by invading England.

Walsingham allowed the letters to continue to be sent because he wanted to discover who else was involved in this plot to overthrow Elizabeth. Eventually, on 25 June 1586, Mary wrote a letter to Anthony Babington. In his reply, Babington told Mary that he and a group of six friends were planning to murder Elizabeth."

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/TUDbabingtonP.htm

The Gunpowder Plot:

'....when the Pope had excommunicated Elizabeth, releasing her subjects from their allegiance to her. The Spanish Armada of 1588 had made matters worse. To the Tudor State, all Catholics were potential traitors. They were forbidden to hear Mass, forced instead to attend Anglican services, with steep fines for those recusants who persistently refused.

Yet rumours suggested James was more warmly disposed to Catholics than the dying Queen Elizabeth. His wife, Queen Anne of Denmark, was a Catholic, and James himself was making sympathetic noises. The crypto-Catholic Earl of Northumberland sent one of his staff, Thomas Percy, to act as his agent in Scotland. Percy's reports back optimistically suggested that Catholics might enjoy protection in James' England.

The early signs were encouraging. Upon his accession as James I of England (VI of Scotland), the new king ended recusancy fines and awarded important posts to the Earl of Northumberland and Henry Howard, another Catholic sympathiser. This relaxation led to considerable growth in the number of visible Catholics.

Trying to juggle different religious demands, James was displeased at their increasing strength. The discovery in July 1603 of two small Catholic plots did not help. Although most Catholics were horrified, all were tainted by the threat of treason.'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/state/monarchs_leaders/gunpowder_robinson_01.shtml

[JimmyCracksCorn]

Wow, Molly. I'm really impressed with your knowledge of colonial American history, especially as it pertains to New England.

Its precisely because of this sort of stuff that baffles me why people think we have no history. Its so fascinating. But are you (or anyone else here) familiar with the New England Confederation, or the United Colonies of New England (1643)? It was the first try at independence in the colonies, in reaction to the English Civil War, although it was short lived (40 years).

Here's the Constitution:

http://personal.pitnet.net/primarysources/1643.html

And here's a brief history of it:

http://www.publicbookshelf.com/public_html/Our_Country_Vol_1/historyne_hh.html

Now who can say our history is nothing but Europeans prancing around in spandex? I just don't understand it.

[Ben Kenobi]

You were suggesting that because Catholics were discriminated against in Great Britain, my statement that there was a growing toleration for dissenters in Great Britain which confused Puritan colonists in the Americas, was somehow incorrect.

Please, read what I write.

I'm trying to help your case against the English Puritans.

And even if two Catholics were involved in plots, that is not cause to persecute the peaceful Catholics, but only cause to throw the perpetrators in the hoosegaw.

[JimmyCracksCorn]

Damn, Molly. How do you pump this stuff out, with sources, so quick?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Last Conformist

How come, in that case, that the Americans find it necessary to sneer back so much?

We saved your asses twice, so we don't feel like breaking you

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by JimmyCracksCorn
Damn, Molly. How do you pump this stuff out, with sources, so quick?

Unlike Obi Gyn, I studied history in depth and broadly- and I hold on to my books zealously.


Knowledge is power.


'And even if two Catholics were involved in plots'

Obi Gyn




Not too familiar with the minutiae of Tudor and Stuart history then, eh?



Anyway, Jimmycracks, the difference between American and European history (from a Eurocentric American view, which is what I was familiar with when I lived in Great Britain) is that 'everything is so old over here!'

Said to me by a lovely woman from Brooklyn outside Coventry Cathedral.

When we talk about recent history in Great Britain, we mean 1588 and the Spanish Armada. In America, it's the O.J. trial and Monica Lewinsky.