This is such BS.

[lord of the mark]

Let's see what an ex-president has to say on the matter:

quote:
"In matters of religion, I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of the general government. I have therefore undertaken on no occasion to prescribe the religious exercises suited to it; but have left them as the Constitution found them, under the direction and discipline of State or Church authorities acknowledged by the several religious societies "


Notice he says STATE authorities. Hes arguing against FEDERAL exercise - as Governor of Virginia, he in fact called a fast day, during the American revolution. John Adams, also an ex-President, contested Jefferson's interpretation of the limits on Federal govt in this matter.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Oerdin


They may have named a ship with a nod to religion but they weren't there to save souls. They were there to make cold hard cash.

I was responding to Gepaps "filthy faith" comment - such an attitude would have been almost as alien in Jamestown, as it was in Plymouth.

[lord of the mark]

"Point out to us which 'religious principles' (and which religion or religions they come from) are enshrined in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States"

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights ......

Of course this isnt quite found in any one religion, and is compatible with several.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by molly bloom

No, they came because they couldn't enforce their particular version of Christianity on the rest of the population.

Once they arrived in North America they went about remedying that situation- martyrs to Protestant religious intolerance included the Quakers hanged in Boston for the exercise of their religious beliefs.

The colony of Massachusetts had become a rigid Calvinist theocracy, intolerant of religious dissent.

In fact, it took an appeal to Charles II to halt the persecution and hanging of Quakers.

And in fact now represent one of the most enlightened and progressive mainstream Christian schisms namely the UCC. With credits being progressive stances of abolitionist teachings pre civil war, in the forefront on racial issues and equality in the 50's-70s and now taken the mantle to allow gay marriages.


Damn those intolerant Pilgrims.


In other news the article wrote Rector. Heh! Heh!

[lord of the mark]

1. Quakerism was considered quite radical at the time, and was seen as challenging all established authority. It was an outgrowth of extreme seperatism in northern england, and Quakers were hung in England, IIIUC. The last hanging of quakers in Mass. was several years earlier than Charles II's reign.

2. In later years, (well before the Am Rev) Massachusetts had a thriving Quaker community, in Nantucket.

3. The Mass. Constitution passed during the Am Rev included full religious freedom. Even before that toleration in Mass was widespread.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe


And in fact now represent one of the most enlightened and progressive mainstream Christian schisms namely the UCC. With credits being progressive stances of abolitionist teachings pre civil war, in the forefront on racial issues and equality in the 50's-70s and now taken the mantle to allow gay marriages.


Damn those intolerant Pilgrims.


In other news the article wrote Rector. Heh! Heh!

its no use OO. MB's posts deny any connection between New England Puritanism and later New England Progressivism. Calvinism , in these posts is associated only with "old light" presbyterianism, Papist baiting bigots like Rev Ian Paisley, and contemporary american fundies (despite THEIR descent from UNCalvinist Seperatist Baptists) .

Liberalism it would seem, is necessarily associated with the Independent Labour Party, and the British anticlerical tradition.

MB really should be sentenced to a year at, say, Harvard University, where he can absorb, among the many different religions and races represented their, and amidst modern ideologies, some of the broad attitudes and mindsets that the Puritans brought over in the 1630's.

I suppose MB would sentence me to a year in Protestant Derry. I daresay hed have the better end of the deal

[Ted Striker]

Word up the Pilgrims brought in hoes from different area codes, you know how they did it with the long black nun dresses but behind closed doors those panties are getting dropped Quaker Oats style DONT GET IT TWISTED

[MrFun]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
1. Quakerism

word!!

[Ted Striker]

Quakers

Quaker hoes

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
"Point out to us which 'religious principles' (and which religion or religions they come from) are enshrined in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States"

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights ......

Of course this isnt quite found in any one religion, and is compatible with several.

So, where is that a 'religious' principle ?

Which holy books set out those principles ?


They're in fact a statement of a political and philosophical viewpoint (based on theories of natural law)- 'they' hold the 'truths' to be 'self-evident', so they hold that those rights exist even before an individual can be intelligent enough to opt for a particular religion, or no religion at all.


In any case, Slowwhand appears to be relying on a version of history that's more akin to an 'I Love Lucy' episode set at Thanksgiving than anything else.

He confuses the religious Separatists sailing on 'The Mayflower' with the Puritans who came after- two distinct bodies, the Puritans being those who couldn't at the time 'purify' the Church of England to their fancy.

He confuses the individual chartered colonies with the United States of the 18th Century- a different kettle of fish altogether.

He also overlooks the non-religious aspect of the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights- the freedom to choose one's religion (or have no religion at all) and the freedom from having a religion enforced by the state are not specific religious principles enshrined in any holy text, but political and philosophical principles of the Enlightenment.

MB's posts deny any connection between New England Puritanism and later New England Progressivism.

Completely false.

Really, have your petty attempts at point scoring reduced you to fabricating what isn't there ?


My posts do nothing of the sort- I'm simply pointing out that the 'religious principles' of the Puritans in the 17th Century amounted to 'do as we say'- as the Quakers hanged for their religious beliefs eloquently testify.

..and Quakers were hung in England,

They were ? By whom, when and whereabouts ? Many were imprisoned, but precisely which ones were executed for their faith ?

Easy to claim, less easy to prove.

The last hanging of quakers in Massachusetts was several years earlier than Charles II's reign.

Wrong !

Dear me- history and facts not your strong points ? Misattribution and make believe more your thang ?

Reign of Charles II: 1660-1685. He arrived back on English soil in May of 1660, at Dover.

Mary Dyer, Quaker, hanged in Massachusetts, June 1 1660.

William Leddra, Quaker, hanged 14th March, 1661.

I also stated that Charles II was petitioned to end the persecution of Quakers, nothing else. Really, you're not even reading my posts attentively.

And, by the way, Charles was moved to send a writ of Mandamus to Massachusetts, which had been forbidding the Quakers the right of appeal to the King....


From the beginning, the church government of Massachusetts was in the hands of a small minority.

Similarly, the Separatists' 'Mayflower Compact' was designed to exclude servants from the franchise.

John Winthrop argued against democracy, stating that it would be a 'manifest breach of the Fifth Commandment'.

(R.C. Winthrop, 'Life and Letters of John Winthrop' publ.1867)

MB really should be sentenced to a year at, say, Harvard University, where he can absorb, among the many different religions and races represented their, and amidst modern ideologies, some of the broad attitudes and mindsets that the Puritans brought over in the 1630's.

Don't try your hand at patronising me- it won't work when you are so clumsy at it, and carefree with facts. Or I'll point out how you confuse 'there' and 'their', when lecturing me about which university I should attend...

The development of political thought in the 18th Century, over a hundred years after the various Puritan and Separatist colonies were founded, wasn't the subject, was it ?

Nice attempt to muddy the waters though.

Liberalism it would seem, is necessarily associated with the Independent Labour Party, and the British anticlerical tradition.

Oh, horse****. Again, you're just indulging in pure fabrication here.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

... as Governor of Virginia, he in fact called a fast day, during the American revolution.

Proof? Cite, please ?

After all, I recall you demanding proof from me in another thread. I wouldn't want you to think I'd treat you any differently.

[The Mad Viking]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. Wrong. Mayflower brought Puritans.
They came over religious freedoms.

And most of the Puritans descendents became United Empire Loyalists, and left the US for Canada, from 1776 to 1814. Or were tarred and feathered...