A taste:
These foundation stones of American democracy were laid a century too late to save Mary Dyer's life. Dyer, a middle-aged mother of six, was hanged in 1660 for defying a Puritan law that banned Quakers from the Massachusetts Bay Colony. The Christians who cruelly deprived this woman of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness were dead certain (so to speak) that they were on a mission from God, protecting their "divinely ordained" civic order against Mary Dyer's seditious belief in the Inner Light.
As a spiritual descendant of Mary Dyer, I'm profoundly grateful that America is not a Christian nation. If it were, my Quaker convictions might get me into very deep oatmeal. And as a Christian who does his best to take reason as seriously as I take faith, I find it impossible to understand America as a "Christian nation" -- and I believe that there are vibrant possibilities in the fact that it is not.
8 comments:
MOST of us base our decisions upon rational principles, not "the inner light". And this is the problem with the theologically driven, who believe the rational should be driven by "theology".
"The inner light" is understood to be a "subjective", too, "beyond" scrunity to be judged. Therefore, it is suspect to religious Authority.
America was founded to as a nation of laws, but the laws were to protect not make demands upon the person's own conscience. Liberty was of a primary value to understanding and interpreting the law as we were not a theocratic State, nor a Military one!
And when I say that America is not a Theocratic or Military State, I am affirming civil rights of the individual in a Constitutional Republic!
In 1660, America was still part of Britain, where persecuting Quakers was also happening. What an egregious misuse of history.
"In regard to religion, mutual toleration in the different professions thereof is what all good and candid minds in all ages have ever practised, and, both by precept and example, inculcated on mankind. And it is now generally agreed among Christians that this spirit of toleration, in the fullest extent consistent with the being of civil society, is the chief characteristical mark of the Church. Insomuch that Mr. Locke has asserted and proved, beyond the possibility of contradiction on any solid ground, that such toleration ought to be extended to all whose doctrines are not subversive of society."
---Samuel Adams, The Rights of the Colonists, 1772
Tom
But there you have it; to all who are not subversive to society....
Don't we disagree as to what constitute subversiveness? Some are minimalists when it comes to law, but others thing laws should control all aspects of existence, as if laws can protect society from those that abuse the system of liberality....
AND, society is only made up of individuals, anyway!!!
Locke was referring to Catholics [because of their allegiance to a "foreign prince," the pope] and atheists [because they couldn't swear before a God they didn't believe in]. But America loosened up on them too.
The point being that as we got closer to the actual Founding, Quakers [or Catholics or atheists] weren't being hanged, and certainly not after 1776 or 1787.
Further, Britain is still technically a "Christian" nation, with an established church, the Church of England. But its own tolerance for religious diversity parallels that of America's, before and after our independence.
Look at what Sam Adams wrote in 1772---"that this spirit of toleration, in the fullest extent consistent with the being of civil society, is the chief characteristical mark of the Church."
The entire essay is built on a faulty historical premise.
In 1660, America was still part of Britain, where persecuting Quakers was also happening. What an egregious misuse of history.
But those claiming America a Christian nation go back to the Mayflower Compact of 1620 to establish their claim. Think also Thanksgiving.
In 1692, in Salem, Mass., witches were being killed by the state/church alliance - well within the lifetime of immediate family members of the founders.
Saying that the colonists were only doing what their European counterparts were doing seems a strange defense (although founders such as Madison and Jefferson - in the least - were well aware of the traditional alliance and its dangers). But, your point that the colonists were'nt Americans is absolutely true - they were European colonists. The colonists weren't Americans until 1776 at the earliest but I say not until the war for independence was conclusive (until then we were rebellious colonists and would have been held accountable as such if we'd lost the war).
Further, Britain is still technically a "Christian" nation, with an established church, the Church of England. But its own tolerance for religious diversity parallels that of America's, before and after our independence.
Well, there ya go. In the Medieval and early modern world, terms such a "a Christian Nation" had meaning when the government and church were in alliance to forge order and forcefully coerce a single world view (or as close as they could get). Now days, what with the diverse nature of national populations in free societies it's rather pointless.
I can understand why this strikes fear into those who seek order and conformity.
But those claiming America a Christian nation go back to the Mayflower Compact of 1620 to establish their claim.
Well, JRB, you---or the author in question---can argue against the dumbasses, or you can argue the whole story.
The point about Britain is that the same tolerance developed in a formally "Christian" nation, so that part of it has nothing to do with tolerance, meaning the whole essay is based on a premise that is irrelevant, the argument a non sequitur.
Because his argument is that we have tolerance for Quakers explicitly because we're not a Christian nation. But that does not follow from his premise, because such tolerance exists both in [what he claims to be] a non-Christian nation, America, and Britain, which is formally Christian.
His argument doesn't survive simple logic: we don't even have to hit the history part.
The point is that the tolerance was cultural, and many arguments for tolerance [including Locke's] were that it was unChristian to persecute people for their religious beliefs!
Post a Comment