History too kind to Puritans brutal intolerance

Ragman

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Just something to think about on this thanksgiving, IMO

History too kind to Puritans' brutal intolerance | Detroit Free Press | freep.com
By Eric Sharp

Detroit Free Press Staff Writer


Americans who worry about Muslim countries adopting Sharia law forget that our country was first settled by Christian fundamentalists who codified their own version of religious absolutism -- and had no qualms about killing anyone who objected.

And as you doze in front of the football game after Thanksgiving dinner, give a thought to the enduring myth this holiday perpetuates, that the Puritans who came to Massachusetts some 400 years ago believed in freedom of religion.

The truth is that the Puritans had no problem with religious persecution. They just wanted to be the ones doing the persecuting.

The "Body of Liberties," written in 1641 to govern the Massachusetts Bay Colony, incorporated many of the legal protections that would appear in the U.S. Constitution's Bill of Rights 150 years later. But it also said that anyone convicted of worshiping "any other God but the Lord God, he shall be put to death."

It threatened the same penalty for witchcraft and denying that the Bible was the inspired word of God, and a law passed by the Plymouth Colony in 1671 prescribed death as the penalty for those who rejected Christianity.

The new chosen people

The Puritans were no worse than most of their Christian counterparts in the European nations they had left behind. After they were kicked out of the Levant at the end of the Crusades and could no longer slaughter untold numbers of hapless Muslins, Jews and funny-looking Eastern Christians in the name of Jesus, Europeans had turned to murdering each other by the thousands.

The religious wars that followed Martin Luther's attempts to reform the Roman Catholic Church had the approval of the nations involved. And when they weren't killing each other, Christians often would vent their hostility on the small colonies of European Jews during murderous pogroms that continued in Germany and Eastern Europe well into the 20th Century.

But we should not teach our children that the Puritans were any more tolerant than most of their European counterparts. The Puritans believed they were the new chosen people, selected by God to take over the role that in Biblical times had been fulfilled by the Jews.

It was a convenient coincidence that their moral superiority and spiritual election allowed them to slaughter the Native Americans whose land they usurped.

Our children's history books sometimes allude to the fact that the Puritans did kill Indians, but the textbooks I've seen make those conflicts sound like justified retaliation for Indian depredations on the colonists.

They either fail to mention or simply gloss over the fact that the Puritans seized valuable agricultural lands the Indians had held for centuries. Nor do they mention that dozens of "heathens" were killed for every Puritan slain.

And it wasn't only Indians who faced the wrath of the Puritans if suspected of nonconformity. Roger Williams, a Puritan rabble rouser who wanted to separate from the Church of England and not just to reform it, was driven out of the Plymouth Colony for denouncing "inforced (sic) uniformity of religion."

Williams moved along the coast a few miles to found Rhode Island in 1636 and wrote that "forced worship stinks in God's nostrils."

Teach real history

The most notorious example of Puritan intolerance was the so-called Salem witch trials, which resulted in 19 people being hanged as witches and one man crushed to death under stones when he refused to plead guilty.

But they weren't the first victims of doctrinal wrath. Twelve others, 11 women and one man, were executed as witches starting in 1647. And four Quakers were executed in Boston between 1659 and 1661 under a law passed in 1646 that made Sunday church attendance in the Massachusetts Bay Colony compulsory and imposed the death penalty on those who denied the Puritans' interpretation of the Bible.

So when you bow your head over the Thanksgiving turkey this year, perhaps you should give thanks that you live in a much freer society than the one created by the Puritan founders of Massachusetts, and think about how teaching real history might give our children a better understanding of the world they live in.

That might also help them understand that many Muslim peoples in newly liberated countries still have to travel much of that road we started down 400 years ago.

Contact Eric Sharp: 313-222-2511 or [email protected] .
 

aristotle

Veteran Expediter
A deliberately provocative hit piece purposefully timed to take a public whiz on Thanksgiving. What an awful life Eric Sharp must live as all hatred is rooted in self-loathing.
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
I'm not sure what you mean by "hit piece". Is it hitting at Pilgrims? Those who think religious law is a bad thing, a good thing? It is aimed at those who have distorted history?

As far as the timing goes, it seems that Thanksgiving would be the most appropriate timing for a story about Thanksgiving and Pilgrims. Or, rather, at least I can't think of a more appropriate time for it.

I'll have to get back to you on the self-loathing being the root of all hatred, as there are several things I really, really hate, so I'm going to have to reconcile all my self-loathings with that. It'll take a while. I hate that.
 

BigWheeler

Seasoned Expediter
Ragman, Happy Thanksgiving, I am glad for the history lesson and glad that our country and history has been changing for 400 years. I am glad that I am able to change the face of intolerance 1 person at a time. It is often easy to criticize and make others feel less than, or easy to hate those that think or live differently then I, but it more difficult to love people right where they are and my hope is that we chose love.

There two commandments that Christ gives in the New Testament.

1. Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul and with all your might.
2. Love your neighbor as yourself.

Whether we believe this or not, It is a great way to live. My hope is that I make an impact each day right where I am at and that I am kind and caring no matter how difficult it may be
Today and every day I chose love.

Posted with my Droid EO Forum App
 

greg334

Veteran Expediter
Actually there Pilgrim, if one studies the time that this was written, it seems that many of the points made by the writer may be a bit more valid when you read the unabridged version of the Liberties of 1641. I think for the times, maybe it was more appropriate.

And here is the one thing that seems a bit excessive;

If any man or woeman shall lye with any beaste or bruite creature by Carnall Copulation, They shall surely be put to death. And the beast shall be slaine, and buried and not eaten.
 

Moot

Veteran Expediter
Owner/Operator
If any man or woeman shall lye with any beaste or bruite creature by Carnall Copulation, They shall surely be put to death. And the beast shall be slaine, and buried and not eaten.
Baaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
If one goes to those links and reads the "Body of Liberties", one will see that the author above is no expert, self-proclaimed or otherwise, and that he is merely repeating, rather than interpreting, segments of the document. The intent of the document's authors was, and still is quite clear, in that they wanted to create a society based on their own strict interpretations of the Bible. A religious community-state to the exclusion of others.

People think the Puritans fled England in pursuit of religious freedom, and that's true, but they fled England not because the Church of England was too restrictive, but rather because the Church of England was too lenient, not restrictive enough.


One of the bodies of liberties that many people should find interesting is this one:


58. Civil authority hath power and liberty to see the peace, ordinances, and rules of Christ observed in every church according to his Word. So it be done in a civil and not in an ecclesiastical way.


Some people read that and see a separation of Church and State, but it's actually just the opposite, and it goes even further than that, especially when you understand the intent of the authors. Not only do individual churches not have the power to create their own rules and ordinances, but they aren't even allowed to observe and worship Christ in their own way - they must do so in accordance with the Civil Authority. Meaning, not only are non-Christian churches illegal, but the Christian churches themselves are not allowed to interpret the Bible as they see fit, and must instead accept the Civil Authority's interpretations for the purposes of worshiping Christ. They were very insistent about this. Immigrants and foreigners were allowed in only if they professed the "true Christian religion". Others were turned away, or killed.

They were all about nation of Christians, and a strict interpretation of what that means, with Church and State being on in the same, to the exclusion of any and all other religions, serious about it to the point that those who worshiped any other God, or those who engaged in blasphemy against God would be put to death.

Funny how that sounds just like Islam, doesn't it?
 

tbubster

Seasoned Expediter
With so many different views on what it means I think we need to get Brad Meltzer's Decoded on this one.:D



As for Eric Sharp writting about the puritans killing anyone they did not like and tie it to thanksgiving he really should stick to writting about the outdoors
 

scottm4211

Veteran Expediter
Owner/Operator
Actually there Pilgrim, if one studies the time that this was written, it seems that many of the points made by the writer may be a bit more valid when you read the unabridged version of the Liberties of 1641.

Is that on audiobook:confused:
 

jimby82

Veteran Expediter
The long and troubling history of "Man's inhumanity to Man" continues to be written even today. Untold acts of violence and intolerance have been a large part of what it means to be "human", since, well, there have been humans. (And, of course, it gives something of a broad theme for college literary professors.)

Organized religion is often a useful tool that is used (misused) by those in power who desire a certain outcome (more power, more territory). But it is by no means the only tool in the toolbox. (Hate, misinformation, propaganda to name a few.)

I see no end to this in the near future.
 

Pilgrim

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Actually there Pilgrim, if one studies the time that this was written, it seems that many of the points made by the writer may be a bit more valid when you read the unabridged version of the Liberties of 1641. I think for the times, maybe it was more appropriate.

And here is the one thing that seems a bit excessive;

If any man or woeman shall lye with any beaste or bruite creature by Carnall Copulation, They shall surely be put to death. And the beast shall be slaine, and buried and not eaten.

That last one comes straight out of Leviticus 20:15-16, and the poor ol' beast doesn't get a break either. Maybe they figured it's morals would be corrupted for future breeding purposes:rolleyes:.

But you're right - this work was reflective of the culture in the mid-17th century and the whole issue needs to be considered in that context instead of launching immediately into Christian bashing. The difference between today's Christians and Islamic fundamentalists is that the Christians as a whole have evolved since the mid 1600's - the followers of Sharia law haven't.
 

Tennesseahawk

Veteran Expediter
I don't know about the rest of y'all; but this "history lesson" reeks of a PETA-like assassination bent on every reader remembering where their tainted celebration and feast of doom come from. Next, he'll be showing up at schools to tell kindergarteners there's no Santa. My guess is he's just a bitter atheist, and misery loves company.
 
Last edited:

Jefferson3000

Expert Expediter
I usually don't post in this section, but my iPad has this feature that sorts by newest posts. First off, the Pilgrims and Puritans were entirely different groups that came to this land at two different times. The Pilgrims, who came first, we're separatists from the Church of England. The Puritans came later and we a faction within said Church. The Pilgrims were not at all unkind to the natives of the land and were quite anti-war. To mix the events of the Pilgrims, the Puritans, as well as the events of Jamestown so that all are guilty is just bad history.
 

cheri1122

Veteran Expediter
Driver
A deliberately provocative hit piece purposefully timed to take a public whiz on Thanksgiving.

If so, it could only succeed with those who 'know' what they learned in history class in elementary school [where tender sensibilities aren't ready for the raw reality of American history], because the facts have hardly been buried. Cleaned up & polished for textbooks, but not hard to find if other perspectives are desired.
Problem is, not too many make an effort to question what they already 'know' - much easier to accept it as truth and get defensive if/when it's challenged.
'Shooting the messenger' [unfairly, with allusions and allegations, not with reason or fact] is a favorite tactic.


What an awful life Eric Sharp must live as all hatred is rooted in self-loathing.

The whole labeling of unwelcome criticism [deserved or not] as 'hatred' is really tiresome - do you 'hate' everything you find fault with?
"Hatred is rooted in self loathing"? According to whom, exactly? :confused:

 

aristotle

Veteran Expediter
Cheri... rather than making your comments personal, why not stay on topic? The topic of this thread can be found in the first post.
 

Pilgrim

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
I usually don't post in this section, but my iPad has this feature that sorts by newest posts. First off, the Pilgrims and Puritans were entirely different groups that came to this land at two different times. The Pilgrims, who came first, we're separatists from the Church of England. The Puritans came later and we a faction within said Church. The Pilgrims were not at all unkind to the natives of the land and were quite anti-war. To mix the events of the Pilgrims, the Puritans, as well as the events of Jamestown so that all are guilty is just bad history.
Gadzooks - A voice of reason based on fact!:eek:
Don't be a stranger - we need more of this.
 

cheri1122

Veteran Expediter
Driver
Cheri... rather than making your comments personal, why not stay on topic? The topic of this thread can be found in the first post.

Rather than shoot the messenger why not defend the statements challenged? The comments weren't personal - plenty of people fit the description, sadly. The history taught in school is a sanitized version, and further reading is required to get a better idea of what really happened & why. I'm not surprised by what strikes you as a "hit piece" because I already knew why the Puritans chose to emigrate, and what they hoped to accomplish, and why they were so unlike the group known as Pilgrims.
BTW: if the response was off topic, then the statements I responded to must have been also....just sayin.

 
Top