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

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe


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. (

Yes he does, surprisingly enough.

Slowwy first says:

The USA was founded on religious principles.

Then in reply to Odin's post:

No it wasn't, it was founded on the principles of the ENLIGHTENMENT!

He says:

Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. Wrong. Mayflower brought Puritans.

and

Founding father's of the constitution were not the initial developers of this country.

I'm sure even you can make that logical connection.

And neither, by the way, were the Pilgrim Fathers of Plimouth Plantation, nor the Puritans of Masschusetts Bay Colony- they all came AFTER the colonies of Roanoke, Popham and Jamestown.

The first English Colony of Roanoke, originally consisting of 100 householders, was founded in 1585, 22 years before Jamestown and 37 years before the Pilgrims landed in Massachusetts, under the ultimate authority of Sir Walter Raleigh. In 1584 Raleigh had been granted a patent by Queen Elizabeth I to colonize America

If he means the Pilgrims were the first Christian settlers in North America he's wrong.

If he means that the Pilgrims were the first English or British settlers in North America he's wrong.

If he means they were the first Protestants in North America he's wrong.

If he means they founded the United States of America, he's wrong.

All in all, not bad going.

that the motives were instead for teh most part economic ones not religious.

Yeah, I think I dealt with that misconception yesterday...

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.

They weren't discriminated against for their religion by the Dutch !!!

Good grief, what part of religious toleration is still not making sense to you ?

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

In which religious text is the particular 'religious principle' you have in mind found ?

In any of the Calvinist sects' books ? Is it in Calvin's 'Institutes' ? The English translation of the Geneva Bible ?

Again, you seem unable to make the distinction between a political principle- that the state shall not enforce a creed or form of worship on its citizens, and a religious principle.

The point being is that it is immaterial.

It's the heart of the matter- the United States as conceived by the Founding Fathers was based upon state toleration of the numerous religious sects and religions, and not the notion of 'cuius regio, eius religio'- as the text of the Treaty of Tripoli indicates:

Article 11 : "The Government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion."

as opposed to Plimouth Plantation and Massachusetts Bay where Church membership determined who was fit to rule and who was to be ruled.

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.

Because as you so ably demonstrated, it wasn't relevant to whether or not 17th Century settlers were intolerant. Good grief.

Oh, and how inconvenient of Locke, Hobbes, Newton, Bacon and Milton to be born before the Declaration of Independence and the Constitutional Convention. It didn't seem to bother the likes of Jefferson or Madison much- they referred in their deliberations on the constitution of the United States of America to:

Polybius
Demosthenes
Plutarch
Fortune Barthelemy de Felice
The Amphictyonic Councils of Ancient Greece
The Delian League.

All 'Old World', you'll notice...

Here's 'Old World' John Milton in his 'The Tenure of Kings And Magistrates':

PROVING THAT If IS LAWFUL, AND HATH BEEN HELD SO THROUGH ALL AGES, FOR ANY, WHO HAVE THE POWER, TO CALL TO ACCOUNT A TYRANT, OR WICKED KING; AND, AFTER DUE CONVICTION, TO DEPOSE, AND PUT HIM TO DEATH; IF THE ORDINARY MAGISTRATE HAVE NEGLECTED, OR DENIED TO DO IT. AND THAT THEY, WHO OF LATE SO MUCH BLAME DEPOSING, ARE THE MEN THAT DID IT THEMSELVES.

http://www.constitution.org/milton/tenure_kings.htm

Published 1648-1649, you'll notice. But even better, he goes on to say:

No man, who knows aught, can be so stupid to deny, that all men naturally were born free...

That has a familiar ring:

The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries..having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states...

and:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal... ...with inalienable rights

1648, Old World; 1776, New World.

Fortunately people such as Thomas Paine and Jefferson and Cotton Mather- member of the 'Old World' Royal Society of London- saw no such foolish distinctions between 'Old World' knowledge and 'New World' knowledge.

What a pity the lesson hasn't been passed down.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe

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????

No, it betrays your lack of knowledge of the English language- it makes perfect grammatical sense (and historical sense) to ask a hypothetical question framed in that way.

How do you supposedly taint someone's character by describing them as what they are ? I have not stated that whatever later sects may have arisen in the 18th, 19th or 20th Centuries were 'intolerant', because unlike you, I restricted myself to the relevant century and sects.

But then I suppose I should have expected this because of your injudicious use of the vocative and an ill-advised attempt to turn a Latin noun into an English adjective...

Their belief in Calvanist principles made them an easy mark for persecution in England. Hence the temporary relocation to Holland.

In fact it didn't, as the great numbers of Calvinists dwelling there when those few Separatists left would indicate. Calvinist members of Parliament, Calvinist bishops, Calvinist merchants and parsons and congregations- and even a Calvinist country to the north- Scotland.

treasonous acts.

Rubbish. You don't understand the law of treason, clearly. The Pilgrims did- they asserted their loyalty:

We whose names are underwriten, by the loyall subjects of our dread soveraigne Lord, King James,

That's from 'The Mayflower Compact'.

You then go on to say, again inaccurately:

..the king reluctantly chose to allow their departure similar in a fashion similar to later deals made with William Penn and the Quakers.

Wrong. King Charles II Stuart was friendly towards the Quakers, granting them a charter in North America and he prevented Massachusetts from persecuting the Quakers any further.

it has small words and is easy to read.

Should suit you and Slowwy then. Who knows, you might, just might, learn something.

I have been aware of the differences between Pilgrims and Puritans. Slowwy ain't though.

You might learn that the reasons William Bradford (you may have heard of him, but so far not on any evidence we've seen) gave for leaving Leiden were:

...the "discouragements" of the hard life they had in Holland, and the hope of attracting others by finding "a better, and easier place of living"; the "children" of the group being "drawne away by evill examples into extravagence and dangerous courses"

He was governor of Plimouth Plantation. You know, where the Pilgrims set up...

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.

You mentioned Edwards, not me. You could do with a little fact checking. I wouldn't purport you to think anything, on your showing so far.

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..

Amazing- you've managed to get the Pilgrims emigrating because of the Bill of Rights. Which came over a century later...

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by molly bloom



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.

the point i was making was that laxness of sabbath observance != religious tolerance, which you seemed to imply, by calling the Swedish Lutherans tolerant. Not tolerant toward other Protestants, or tolerant toward other Christians, but tolerant, period.

Which reinforces my point - real religious tolerance was pretty scarce on the ground in the 17th century, as was real democracy - which is NOT the same as religious tolerance. Moving from 17th c political positions to the age of revolution meant not only changing attitudes about religious tolerance, but changing attitudes about hereditary aristocracy, the role of political participation in society etc. In many of these areas the Puritans were fairly advanced and DID leave a positive legacy to 18th century America, even if they hanged quakers and used state power to enforce the sabbath.

I dont know if thats what Slowwy had in mind (I suspect not). Im not affirming Slowwys position - Im taking issue with some things you either state or imply in the course of attacking Slowwys position.


BTW, did you ever read Michael Walzer's "Revolution of the Saints"? (Walzer is a democratic socialist and an editor of Dissent magazine, and has taught at Harvard)

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


the point i was making was that laxness of sabbath observance != religious tolerance, which you seemed to imply, by calling the Swedish Lutherans tolerant. Not tolerant toward other Protestants, or tolerant toward other Christians, but tolerant, period.

Lutheran Sweden was 'tolerant' up to a point- Bulstrode Whitelocke, like others of his religious persuasion was not.

If I wished to make a necessary link between laxness of Sabbath observance and thorough-going religious toleration, I would do so, honest guvnor.

It is however worthwhile noting that Whitelocke, Calvinist Puritans in England and Scotland and North America and some Separatists were excessively Sabbatarian.

They disapproved of the way the Lutheran Swedes, the Calvinist Dutch, the French Huguenots, the Hungarian and Polish Protestants and the Calvinist Swiss observed the Sabbath.

I've already quoted Nathaniel Morton in 'New England's Memorial', 1669, on 'lax' Sabbath observance in the United Provinces; Whitelocke went so far as to persuade Queen Christina to discontinue Sunday court balls during his tenure as ambassador. Rather presumptuous behaviour...

Thomas Shephard says:

"Why the Lord Christ should keep his servants in England and Scotland to clear up and vindicate this point of the Sabbath, and to welcome it with more love than some precious ones in foreign churches?"

'Theses Sabbaticae' 1649

Cotton Mather on Shepard:

" [he]...hath handled the morality of the Sabbath, with a degree of reason, reading, and religion, which is truly extraordinary."

http://www.apuritansmind.com/TheLordsDay/TheLordsDay.htm

The Sabbath day (prior and thanks to the success of Parliament) became a day not just of religious instruction, but political instruction too, and a day to enforce family and communal discipline and unity.

Dr. John Pocklington on the Puritans:

"They must gain elbow room for their Sabbath's exercise, or preaching falsely so-called; being for the most part (as their hearers will justify) but violent discourses and personal invectives against the present state and settled laws of the land, with the governors."

J. Pocklington 'Sunday No Sabbath', 1636.

The House of Lords ordered his book burnt in 1641.

Luther and Calvin had both been against Sabbath observance for its own sake, as were Tyndale and Milton in England.