Why on Earth is Joe Biden thinking of running for President (again)?

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by molly bloom



You might spend your time more profitably in trying to be less personal and more accurate in your 'critiques'.

I don't rant- were you not so busy finding faults that weren't there, you'd understand that.

Whatever the Pilgrim Fathers or the Puritan sects became was neither here nor there- that they were intolerant of other faiths and sects was to the point. But thanks for playing.

Yes whatever they became is irrelevant. Point of the matter is the fact that they became intolerant once in the new world and in control of their own local government is especially irrelevant. The fact they decided to come to the new world for the express purpose of worshippig as they saw fit is especially relevant and inkeeping with slowwy point. A point which still eludes you.

But since you decided to taint their character by playing the "they are intolerant bastards card" once they actually showed up, one might as well see the picture in its width and breadth rather than the ohhh sooo (not) clever manipulations of molly vision.

Slowwy's point (for the hard of reading):

quote:
The USA was founded on religious principles.

Uh, no, it wasn't.

While a stretch one can easily say that many of the incoming colonists and later immigrants were in fact attracted by the ability to practice religion of their own choosing. His point stands as a valid one much as you would like to protest otherwise.

If one take the definition of founded meaning a foundation for the principles of the nation. (one certainly enshrined ultimately in the very first amendment to the constitution. Namely

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Gee since it was the very first topic in a series of freedoms I would think it a primary, naaaaay get this a FOUNDING principle.

Slowwy's next 'point':



Bzzzz! Wrong!

'The Mayflower' brought Separatists- not 'Puritans'. The Plimouth Plantation was later absorbed into the Massachusetts Puritan theocracy.

The Separatists left the safety of the tolerant Protestant United Provinces out of dissatisfaction with with they saw as the laxness of Sabbath observance there. Minsters complained of :

"...the difficulty of reclaiming the country people on Sundays either from the sports or from their work."

Nathaniel Morton: New England's Memorial 1669- Chronicles of The Pilgrim Fathers

Yawnnn and this especially on point for what reason? I get it, simply to show the vastness of the useless historical trivia that come spewing forht from Molly land. Not particularly useful or in anyway moving the dialogue forward but a diversion of bandwidth nonetheless.

quote:
They came over religious freedoms.

So vague as to be meaningless- they came to establish their own religious communities where the franchise was restricted to a group within the religious grouping- authoritarian theocracies.

Annddd that differs in what respect to having the ability to practice religion as they see fit in what regard???? Sounds a lot like coming over because it they were able to have religious freedom of expression. Regardless of what they did with it.

The rest I can't be arsed with beacuse it essentially is a restating of the above.

Pilgrims or Xychatils or zorgnorfs or whatever coming to the new world to practice religion as they saw fit was an allure of the new world. To say otherwise is patently moronic. What they did with that religious freedom is immaterial to the arguement. The fact that they did and ultimately others (the founding fathers) saw that as a good thing and made it A if not THE founding principle of US Bill of rights says volumes.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe


Yes whatever they became is irrelevant.

And yet you post on the subject. Fitting, I suppose...

Point of the matter is the fact that they became intolerant once in the new world and in control of their own local government is especially irrelevant.

Unbeknownst to you (clearly) is that both the Separatists and some congregations of the broader Puritan movement were indeed intolerant- as much of Protestant Dissenters as of High Church Anglicans and Roman Catholics.

Am I surprised you're unaware of this ? Not really.

The fact they decided to come to the new world for the express purpose of worshippig as they saw fit is especially relevant and inkeeping with slowwy point. A point which still eludes you.

The point which clearly eludes you, despite my having informed you, is that the Pilgrim Fathers on the Mayflower left the safety of the United Provinces where they were perfectly free to worship as they saw fit, and went to settle in North America. If anything, they were economic migrants.

Separatist and Puritan dissatisfaction and disapproval of how others observed the Sabbath is an historical fact- again, this also appears to have eluded you.

But since you decided to taint their character by playing the "they are intolerant bastards card" once they actually showed up...

I did nothing of the sort. I simply used the relevant historical facts. Terribly sorry if the truth hurts.

the ohhh sooo (not) clever manipulations of molly vision.

Sarcasm (accurate or otherwise) is really not your forte. Avoid personal attacks until you've done some historical research, is my advice.

Fortunately my vision isn't constrained by blinkered hindsight.

His point stands as a valid one much as you would like to protest otherwise.

Rubbish. He states inaccurately, that the founders of the United States of America were the Pilgrim Fathers.

They weren't- they founded Plimouth Plantation, not a United States of America.

I get it, simply to show the vastness of the useless historical trivia that come spewing forht from Molly land.

No, simply to show that unlike you and Slowwy, my knowledge of history doesn't come from an 'I Love Lucy' rerun and the poetry of Felicia Dorothea Hemans.

See, I've read the works of the Separatists and the Puritans, written when they were in Europe and North America.

Self-evidently, neither you nor he have.

Sounds a lot like coming over because it they were able to have religious freedom of expression.

As I have pointed out several times, the Pilgrim Fathers were perfectly free to worship as they saw fit in the United Provinces. I note you have chosen not to address this twice now.

To say otherwise is patently moronic.

I wouldn't dream of intruding on your monopoly of saying stupid or moronic things.

Gee since it was the very first topic in a series of freedoms I would think it a primary, naaaaay get this a FOUNDING principle

How is the freedom to worship as one sees fit a 'religious' principle ?

In which religious text is this enshrined ?

Not in Christianity- 'thou shalt have no other gods before me'.

You don't appear to be able to differentiate between political and religious principles, nor do you appear to grasp that neither the Separatist Pilgrim Fathers nor the Puritans of Massachusetts would in any way have agreed with this sentiment- as evidenced by their treatment of Dissenters, such as the Quakers.

You'd think an American might have heard of Roger Williams and Rhode Island, and why settlements were founded there...

There was no separation of Church and State for the Pilgrim Fathers and the Puritans of Masschusetts- the Church was the State.

And an intolerant state it was.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
Does anybody remember Joe Biden?? This used to be a thread about Joe Biden.

Now it seems to be about molly making bad jokes and everyone else pontificating about it.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Now it seems to be about molly making bad jokes and everyone else pontificating about it.

As far as I can see the only bad joke is the appalling lack of knowledge displayed by some Americans about aspects of 17th Century history.

[Drake Tungsten]

Yes, it is truly appalling. I might go so far as to call it gob-smackingly vile.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by molly bloom



Unbeknownst to you (clearly) is that both the Separatists and some congregations of the broader Puritan movement were indeed intolerant- as much of Protestant Dissenters as of High Church Anglicans and Roman Catholics.

Am I surprised you're unaware of this ? Not really.

No ****e Hound of the Baskervilles, I have not argued Pilgrims were Puritans or vice versa or for that matter that they weren't exceedingly intolerant. I fully well know the history of mine own church. Dark and intolerant times certainly were part and parcel of their history as anyone who has ever studied American Literature at a highschool level can attest. But I'm sure I would have never come to this realization without you having the wherewithal to point out the blindingly obvious.

The point which clearly eludes you, despite my having informed you, is that the Pilgrim Fathers on the Mayflower left the safety of the United Provinces where they were perfectly free to worship as they saw fit, and went to settle in North America. If anything, they were economic migrants.

Separatist and Puritan dissatisfaction and disapproval of how others observed the Sabbath is an historical fact- again, this also appears to have eluded you.

No clueless one, instead what you have done is laid the case more firmly that The Pilgrims were looking to come to the new world because they did indeed take issue with the observance of the Sabbath, a clearly religious issue and one that they wished to rectify as soon as they could develop their own community. Gee smacks of religious ideals and get this a religious principle (not necessarily in this case a political one, although one can easily argue there were likely political components)

Classifying it as an econmic issue is purely inane.

I did nothing of the sort. I simply used the relevant historical facts. Terribly sorry if the truth hurts.

No what you did, as you normally do, is to take a slice of history and apply that as norm for the entire span of their history.

You do not acknowledge the feats of progressivism that took hold in the NewEngland churchs but instead lie them completely at the feet of Old World Philosophers. To be sure John Edwards a primary force for change did take some ideas from the likes of Locke but likewise created his own philosophy an amalgam of science via Newton, Spirituality via Augustine, Reformed theology, Plato etc. But I suppose since all these represent old world ideas the mere synthesis of these components is a mere trifling.

Sarcasm (accurate or otherwise) is really not your forte. Avoid personal attacks until you've done some historical research, is my advice.

Fortunately my vision isn't constrained by blinkered hindsight.

If you had 'vision' to understand that colonists were coming to the new world to worship in a manner they saw fit I might be inclined to agree. Otherwise your so called vision is merely a dreamscape behind closed eyelids.

Rubbish. He states inaccurately, that the founders of the United States of America were the Pilgrim Fathers.

They weren't- they founded Plimouth Plantation, not a United States of America.

He does??? Care to find the exact quote because it aint there my dreaming friend. What he did say was that pilgrims came over religious freedoms. (A point which you have so amply proven might I add)

Others then insinuated that meant he called them founding fathers. He then went on to say (rightly so) that they were developers of the country (but not the necessarily the founders.)

Others then felt the need to chastise his remarks as being nonrepresentative of the real motives of colonists (and later immigrants) that the motives were instead for teh most part economic ones not religious.

That may be a real point for discussion, but what is not a point for discussion is that a siginificant portion of colonials were in the new world for reasons of wishing to worship in a fashion of their own choosing be they English separatists, Quakers, German Lutherans or German reformed.

No, simply to show that unlike you and Slowwy, my knowledge of history doesn't come from an 'I Love Lucy' rerun and the poetry of Felicia Dorothea Hemans.

See, I've read the works of the Separatists and the Puritans, written when they were in Europe and North America.

Self-evidently, neither you nor he have.

Yawwn. Your comebacks are as lame as your reading skills apparently.

As I have pointed out several times, the Pilgrim Fathers were perfectly free to worship as they saw fit in the United Provinces. I note you have chosen not to address this twice now.

See above. The crux of the issue was they wanted a congregational society that adhered to the Sabbath. Clearly a religious issue and inkeeping with teh way they wished to worship. Thanks for playing. He shoots and damn if it didn't go in his own foot.

I wouldn't dream of intruding on your monopoly of saying stupid or moronic things.

Clearly mine is the case of a one eyed man in the land of the closed eyed Molly's dream world.

How is the freedom to worship as one sees fit a 'religious' principle ?

In which religious text is this enshrined ?

Why does this have to be an issue of it being enshrined into a religious text? Is freedom not a principle?

More to the point why is freedom to worship not a principle? It most certainly is a politcal one and deals with religion hence religious principle*. Should every time the words religous principle be used an astersik be assigned so that the world according to molly knows that it is a right ceded by the secular government. It certainly is a matter of principle to those who can't worship as they see fit.


* Note - religious principle in this context refers to the original context of Slowwy's post, the formation/founding of the US (a secular government) and in such a fashion shall be construed to mean rights granted to the citizenry thereof via secular means

Not in Christianity- 'thou shalt have no other gods before me'.

Again why and who cares? The point is not whether Christianity in of itself is intolerant but that the new world offered open spaces and opportunities for people to achieve those religious freedoms.

You don't appear to be able to differentiate between political and religious principles, nor do you appear to grasp that neither the Separatist Pilgrim Fathers nor the Puritans of Massachusetts would in any way have agreed with this sentiment- as evidenced by their treatment of Dissenters, such as the Quakers.

You'd think an American might have heard of Roger Williams and Rhode Island, and why settlements were founded there...

There was no separation of Church and State for the Pilgrim Fathers and the Puritans of Masschusetts- the Church was the State.

And an intolerant state it was.

I do understand the difference between politcal and religious principles. The point being is that it is immaterial. In the case of religious freedom being a religious principle again who cares it most certainly is a political one because it dictates the state shall not infringe on those who wish to worship.

Your continued use of a strawman to denigrate the puritans means little because as I have said for the umpteenth time it matters not whether they themselves were intolerant but that they chose to come to the new world in order to have ability to worship as they saw fit it just so happend that meant they created a congregational theocratic (and yes intolerant) society during that time period. And more to the point they are but one of a myriad of groups that chose to do so thus showing over the breadth of the history of the colonies that freedom to worship was a vital and maybe just mabe the most vital allure of the American colonies.

Ohhh and again for the record Slowwy's response was "They came over religious freedom." This much ado about religious principles is again a case of you not reading the orginal text and/or context of the posters.

He did however say that "The USA was founded on religious principles". Since he has already acknowledged the Pilgrims were merely one of a myriad of developers but were not necessarily the founding fathers of the USA that then harkens us back to the writers of DoI and Constituion. And yes there is ample evidence that the framers of the constitution believed that religious freedom of expression should not be infringed upon therefor supporting his claim that the USA was founded upon religious principles*.

[Seeker]

Why this thread is like the Special Olympics...because even if someone wins, they'll still be retarded.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Seeker
Why this thread is like the Special Olympics...because even if someone wins, they'll still be retarded.

I'm sure you truly meant to say:

"Why OT is like the Special olympics........"



Here's to the top ******.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
I have not argued Pilgrims were Puritans or vice versa or for that matter that they weren't exceedingly intolerant.

Do you have amnesia ?

But since you decided to taint their character by playing the "they are intolerant bastards card"

Looks like it. How can I taint anyone's character by saying they are intolerant, if they are ?


What a pity you're unable to post without resorting to these kind of remarks:

No ****e Hound of the Baskervilles, clueless one

A pity, because if perhaps you spent less time thinking up such awfullly juvenile remarks and more time reading the works of the Separatists and Puritans (which so far you have shown no evidence of doing) then you might have been able to marshal a more coherent and relevant argument.

The Pilgrims were looking to come to the new world because they did indeed take issue with the observance of the Sabbath, a clearly religious issue and one that they wished to rectify as soon as they could develop their own community.

And yet the Pilgrim Fathers were free to worship as they saw fit. What part of freedom of religion do you not understand ?

They disapproved of what they saw as the laxness of Sabbath observance in others- as did the Puritan Bulstrode Whitelocke in his role as ambassador to tolerant Lutheran Sweden.

They were not compelled to observe the Sabbath as the Calvinist Dutch did, get it ?

Classifying it as an econmic issue is purely inane.

Only to the ignorant it seems:

The Dutch in Leiden were tolerant and allowed the Separatists to worship as they pleased. However, the Pilgrims were excluded from certain occupations, membership in trade guilds, owning land but were allowed to participate in low-paying parts of Leiden's principal industry, textile trades, e.g. spinning, weaving, carding, combing, dying, tailoring and manufacture of felt, corduroy, etc. In 1616/17 the congregation began negotiations with the Virginia Company to begin a colony in North America. The Leiden congregation feared loosing their English heritage through intermarriage and assimilation in Dutch society. The Pilgrims also feared being recruited to fight in an impending war between Holland and Spain. James I eventually granted them permission to establish a colony in North America and to practice their religion as they pleased provided they did not antagonize the Church of England.

http://www.sail1620.org/discover_feature_pilgrims_and_puritans_in_17th_century_new_england.shtml

Then you inaccurately say:

...you take a slice of history and apply that as norm for the entire span of their history.

Well at least one of us knows which history he's talking about. I restricted myself to the early years of Protestant British settlement in North America- up until the late 17th Century, in fact. You decided that finding out whether or not the Separatists and Puritans were intolerant could best be discovered by leaping into the 19th and 20th Century.

Remarkable.

You do not acknowledge the feats of progressivism that took hold in the NewEngland churchs but instead lie them completely at the feet of Old World Philosophers.

I didn't have to- the issue was whether or not the Puritans and Separatists were intolerant. They were. Their religious principles did not underpin the foundation of the United States of America in the 18th Century.

The roots of the Enlightenment and the ideas behind the essential liberties of citizens were thrashed out in Great Britain and Ireland in the struggle between king and Parliament- in fact the Bill of Rights in the U.S. has a distinct relationship to the Bill of Rights of 1689 following the Glorious Revolution.

Otherwise your so called vision is merely a dreamscape behind closed eyelids.

What goes for your attempts at sarcasm goes double for the purple prose.

The crux of the issue was they wanted a congregational society that adhered to the Sabbath. Clearly a religious issue and inkeeping with teh way they wished to worship. Thanks for playing. He shoots and damn if it didn't go in his own foot.

Oh dear- see above:

The Dutch in Leiden were tolerant and allowed the Separatists to worship as they pleased.

I'll deal with the rest tomorrow.

[lord of the mark]

Molly, have you ever read Bernard Bailyn's "Ideological Origins of the American Revolution"?

Are you familiar with the debate over the establishment of an Anglican diocese in American in the 1760s and 1770s?

Many Americans at the time very largely did see their revolution as a continuation of the 1689, and were almost paranoid at what they saw as the prospect that the Tory govt in London was reversing the 1689 - a panic they shared with some English radicals at the time. That was probably the largest "stream" in revolutionary thought. Enlightenment natural rights thought also played a role, but so did a sense (especially in New England) of continuity with the English Commonwealth. And a sense of continuity with 17th century New England, and its struggles with the crown. To some extent this was anachronistic, reading the issue of the 1760s and 1770s back onto a very different time, but then so was the colonial and radical reading of 1689, IIRC.


Im not sourcing any of the above - its general impressions based on my reading. If anyone cares to dismiss it, they may.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by molly bloom

They disapproved of what they saw as the laxness of Sabbath observance in others- as did the Puritan Bulstrode Whitelocke in his role as ambassador to tolerant Lutheran Sweden.
.

"While a number of Jews lived in Sweden, practicing their rituals in secret, a Jewish community was not officially established until the 1770's. Samson Efraim and his son visited Goteborg and Stockholm on business in 1702. More Jewish businessman came to Sweden because of the demands of the East Indian Company and, in 1733, Jews were allowed to visit auctions in Goteborg and a small Jewish community of eight individuals lived in Stockholm until 1734."

Compare to


"The first person to readmit Jews into England was Oliver Cromwell, who came to power in 1649.Cromwell was influenced by Rabbi Menasseh ben Israel of Amsterdam who functioned as a Jewish ambassador to the gentiles. The rabbi moved to London in September 1655 and on October 31 submitted a seven-point petition to the Council of State calling for the return of Jews to England. Cromwell called the Whitehall Conference of December 4-18, 1655 to discuss Jewish readmission. Many merchants questioned Cromwell’s ideas and Cromwell angrily dismissed the conference, resolving to authorize an unofficial readmission of the Jews into England.

In 1656, Cromwell’s oral guarantee and the approval of the Council of State allowed the Conversos of England to practice their faith openly"

Both quotes are from Jewishvirtuallibrary.org

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by molly bloom


Do you have amnesia ?

Did I stutter? Or more to the point care to point where have I ever claimed the Puritans at that point in history were not intolerant?

But since you decided to taint their character by playing the "they are intolerant bastards card"

Looks like it. How can I taint anyone's character by saying they are intolerant, if they are ?

Even now your choice of verb tenses betrays you. "How can I taint anyone's character by saying they are intolerant, if they are?"

So you purport them to be intolerant today???? Given your tense is present tense should that not then imply a more recent look at what they have indeed become?

And yet the Pilgrim Fathers were free to worship as they saw fit. What part of freedom of religion do you not understand ?

They disapproved of what they saw as the laxness of Sabbath observance in others- as did the Puritan Bulstrode Whitelocke in his role as ambassador to tolerant Lutheran Sweden.

They were not compelled to observe the Sabbath as the Calvinist Dutch did, get it ?

Beyond their concerns that the corrupting influences society at large was having on the 'proper' rearing of their children, it was more than that though wasn't it. Their belief in Calvanist principles made them an easy mark for persecution in England. Hence the temporary relocation to Holland.

The immigration of the Pilgrims to New England occurred in stages. But that they had to go somewhere became apparent soon enough. Theirs was the position of the Separatist: they believed that the reforms of the Anglican church had not gone far enough, that, although the break with Catholicism in 1535 had moved some way toward the Puritan belief in and idea of religious authority grounded solely in Scripture, by substituting king for pope as the head of the church, England was only recapitulating an unnecessary, corrupt, and even idolatrous order (Gill, 19-21). In one basic respect, the Pilgrims are a logical outcome of the Reformation. In its increasing dissemination of the Bible, the increasing emphasis on it as the basis of spiritual meaning, the subsequently increasing importance of literacy as a mode of religious authority and awareness, a growing individualism was implicit. This individualism may then have easily led to an atomization or dispersion of authority that the monarchy duly feared, and that later generations of Americans could easily label democratization. As a writer in 1921 put it, "They accepted Calvin's rule, that those who are to exercise any public function in the church should be chosen by common voice" (Wheelwright, vii). However much this might emphasize the democratic qualities of the Pilgrims, as dissenters they do suggest at some level the origins of democratic society, in its reliance upon contending and even conflicting points of view, and in its tendency toward a more fluid social structure.

But theirs was a religious, not a political agenda; moral and theological principles were involved, and from their perspective, there could be no compromise. For them 2 Corinthians made it clear: "Come out from among them and be ye separate, saith the Lord." To achieve and preserve a simplicity and 'purity' that they felt had been lost amid the some of the surviving features of Catholicism--the rituals which continued through into the Anglican Church and were epitomized in its statement, "'I believe in...the holy Catholick Church'" (Gill, 19). To establish themselves as rightful interpreters of the Bible independent of an inherited social and cultural order, they removed from the Anglican Church in order to re-establish it as they believed it truly should be. This of course meant leaving the country, and they left for Holland in 1608.

Ultimately their belief that the church was to be led by a communal voice and not of the King made them realize quite soon I might add that they would likely be imprisoned or worse for treasonous acts. But I suppose they simply should have waited for that to happen so that the string of martyrs would have been reasonable cause to say they were duly persecuted. On the other hand realizing he had a dissenting sect of people the king reluctantly chose to allow their departure similar in a fashion similar to later deals made with William Penn and the Quakers. An obvious solution to what would turn to out and out persecution quite shortly were they not reigned in or otherwise dealt with.

Whats more is looking at the situation from their particular view point they were compelled by their religious faith to separate from those corrupting influences hence the bolded part. If being compelled to take those courses of action by your faith is not an exercise of your faith than what pray tell is?

But lets move forward to 1608 and Holland as you so wish:

The Dutch in Leiden were tolerant and allowed the Separatists to worship as they pleased. However, the Pilgrims were excluded from certain occupations, membership in trade guilds, owning land but were allowed to participate in low-paying parts of Leiden's principal industry, textile trades, e.g. spinning, weaving, carding, combing, dying, tailoring and manufacture of felt, corduroy, etc. In 1616/17 the congregation began negotiations with the Virginia Company to begin a colony in North America. The Leiden congregation feared loosing their English heritage through intermarriage and assimilation in Dutch society. The Pilgrims also feared being recruited to fight in an impending war between Holland and Spain. James I eventually granted them permission to establish a colony in North America and to practice their religion as they pleased provided they did not antagonize the Church of England.

So by a technicality you assume freedom to practice religion is OK yet out and out discrimination against those same people for reasons of their faith alone is not coersion against people of that faith. A strange logic you do have indeed.

Moreover (and I may be wrong on this) weren't the Pilgrims like the Quakers not conscientious objectors due to their faith? If so being conscripted for war would most definitely be considered an assault on their religious foundations.

Well at least one of us knows which history he's talking about. I restricted myself to the early years of Protestant British settlement in North America- up until the late 17th Century, in fact. You decided that finding out whether or not the Separatists and Puritans were intolerant could best be discovered by leaping into the 19th and 20th Century.

Remarkable.

No more remarkable than claiming US was not founded on religious principles* in the 18th century.

Of for that matter considering Slowwy's point was about Pilgrims how remarkably disingenuous of you to bring the Purtians into the matter. If one does that then one has to look at what the Pilgrims became (yes Puritans) but then what also the Puritans became or for that matter were becoming at and around the point of the founding of the country.

What is also remarkable is that you have chastised the Pilgrims for being intolerant whilst all the time pointing to the all too well known history of the Puritan sect. To whit I point you to your own sourced web site. Namely:
Pilgrims not Puritans

(Note the desciptive table below that gives some differences between the two, it has small words and is easy to read.)

Yet one more remarkable thing, you could do with a little fact checking, the American Great Awakening has it roots in the mid 1700's (as my reference to Jonathon Edwards shows) not the 19th and 20th century as you seem to purport me to think. The outcome of the Great Aweking of course being a more individual religious expience as opposed to one dictated.

I didn't have to- the issue was whether or not the Puritans and Separatists were intolerant. They were. Their religious principles did not underpin the foundation of the United States of America in the 18th Century.

No as always the real issue is not intolerance per se but the motivations for the soon to be colonists/settlers. And clearly the Pilgrims (amongst many others during the 17th,18th, and 19th centuries) chose to move for reasons of freedom to worship, either explicitly stated and granted via the Bill of Rights or prior to that implicitly known due to the vast expanses and opportunities the untainted New world had to offer.

I refer you to the Mayflower compact for those same codified motivations for the Pilgrims:

In the name of God, Amen. We whose names are underwriten, by the loyall subjects of our dread soveraigne Lord, King James, by the grace of God, of Great Britaine, Franc, and Ireland king, defender of the faith, etc.

Haveing undertaken, for the glorie of God, and advancemente of the Christian faith, and honour of our king and countrie, a voyage to plant the first colonie in the Northerne parts of Virginia, doe by these presents solemnly and mutually in the presence of God, and one another, covenant and combine our selves togeather into a civill body politick, for our better ordering and preservation and furtherance of the ends aforesaid; and by vertue hereof to enacte, constitute and frame shuch just and equall lawes, ordinances, acts, constitutions, and offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meete and convenient for the generall good of the Colonie, unto which we promise all due submission and obedience. In witnes whereof we have hereunder subscribed our names at Cap-Codd the .11. of November, in the year of the raigne of our soveraigne lord, King James, of England, France, and Ireland, the eighteenth, and of Scotland the fiftie-fourth. Anno Dom. 1620 (Wheelwright, 32-33)

Note first and foremost the primacy of faith and advancement of Christian faith. Further the establishment of communal society including governance of Church as the community saw fit.

[lord of the mark]

"However, the Pilgrims were excluded from certain occupations, membership in trade guilds, owning land but were allowed to participate in low-paying parts of Leiden's principal industry, textile trades, e.g. spinning, weaving, carding, combing, dying, tailoring and manufacture of felt, corduroy, etc"


Were they also allowed to lend money at interest and to buy and sell second hand goods?

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

LoTM,

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Both quotes are from Jewishvirtuallibrary.org

And have what exactly to do with what a Calvinist British Puritan thought of the laxness of Swedish Lutheran Sabbath observance ?

Tolerance of other forms of Protestantism does not imply tolerance of all forms of Christianity or other faiths.

The point I was making was that Whitelocke, like other Puritans and some Separatists wanted a stricter observance of the Sabbath, if necessary IMPOSING it on others, as in England, Scotland and New England.