From: gpalo@digi.lonestar.org (Gerry Palo)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Small Historical Question here
Date: 26 Jan 93 15:42:20 GMT
Organization: DSC Communications Corp, Plano, TX

In article <1993Jan25.163432.14612@lclark.edu> snodgras@lclark.edu (Bil Snodgrass) writes:
>In article <C1F1IB.G7F@boi.hp.com> jburrill@boi.hp.com (Jim Burrill) writes:
>>drieux, just drieux (drieux@wetware.com) wrote:
>>: jburrill@boi.hp.com (Jim Burrill) writes:
>>: ] 
>>: ]       The United States was founded by Christians, as a Christian Nation
>>: ]                                Jim Burrill                       
>>: ] 				10/23/92
>>: ] 
>>: ]     History shows us that Pilgrims were in search of Religious Freedom when
>>: ] they came to the new world. King James was king of England.
>>: 
>>: ok, 
>>: 
>
>
>Actuall what I read was that the Pilgrims were causing so much
>trouble in England, by shoving their Puritanical ideas, which differed 
>greatly from those of the Church of England!  Then they left
>for the Netherlands where their, the Pilgram's intolerance was so great, that
>there was a public outcry for them to leave.  So they headed over to
>North America.  They were so restrictive, as far as people practicing
>freedom of Religion, that Roger Williams was forced to leave.....
>
>World Book Encyclopedia.......
>
>"In 1636, Roger Williams established Rhode Island's first permanent
>white settlement, at Providence.  Williams, a minister, had been driven out
>of Massachusetts because he called for increased RELIGIOUS and POLITICAL 
>FREEDOM.......He established a policy of religious and political FREEDOM.
>
>In 1638, William Coddington, John Clarke, Anne Hutchinson, and others left
>Massachusetts in search of religious freedom."
>
>How dare you bring the Pilgrims in to the picture, because they
>were a oppresive people!  It is historically there for all the world
>to see!
>
>Of coures the group that moved to Rhode Island for religous freedoms 
>themselves had to split up because of their own religious intolerance.
>
>Bil Snodgrass III
>
>>: So which were the RealChristians[tm]????
>>: 
>>: The Puritans? The Pilgrims? The COE????
>>:
>>    A study of the the history of this time period shows that the Puritans
>>were also in search of religious freedom and freedom from repression from the
>>corrupt Church of England and King James at this time. I chose to discuss the
>>Pilgrims on the basis of references I had available from William Bradford's
>>"History of Plymouth Plantation". If you would like a discussion on the
>>Puritans, I will refer you to the book I mentioned in the basenote.
>>
>>Jim Burrill 

Too often we assume that our idea of religious freedom is complete and
the only possible one.  The modern notion is that each individual must
be absolutely free to determine his or her own beliefs and moral values.
This is a valid and noble ideal, but it is not the whole of freedom.

Three centuries ago the issue was indeed freedom of conscioence, but 
also connected with the idea of freedom of association.  What the
oppressive regime in England did was to forbid communities formed by
nonconforming believers to establish their own community values, which
they indeed, on the basis of mutual agreement, imposed on themselves
as a community.  For them community, congregation, and Church were as or
more important thanthe total liberty of the individual is to us today, 
and perhaps more so.

Even the Quakers, who have defended tolerance and freedom far in advance
of other religious communities, imposed strict discipline of behavior
and belief on their members and often, though not as often as the Puritans,
drummed out dissenting members who threatened the common unity.  One thing
they did not do was to kill or make war for their beliefs.

Our sense of self has evolved much in the mean time, and looking back
it seems that the Pilgrims were awfully repressive by comparison.  But
seen dynamically in the flow of history, they made important progress,
and in the mean time established, not merely the foundations of individual
freedom, but also the real beginnings of an American society.  Had they
embodied our modern ideas of "freedom of the individual" in the mode of,
say, the American Civil Liberties Union, it is very likely that the 
colonies would never have developed to the point where the Republic
was finally founded.  Today, we have much individual liberty, but a weak
sense of community.  For the latter we rely more and more on the political
state to solve our problems, with all the dangers that embodies.

Whenever the individual asserts himself, then community comes forward
and makes its just claims.  And vice versa.  There is always a tension
between these two legitimate aspects of the human being.   The parameters
are different today, but the problems are similar.  We should take care
not to judge the past as we would judge in the present.

Gerry Palo (73237.2006@compuserve.com)