gekkogecko,
I remain unpersuaded. Consider:
Quote:
|
... What they were seeking is the ability to impose on the Church of England, their own fairly strict view of Protestantism ...
|
Actually, if you take the time to read the
1559 Act of Uniformity, you will discover that you have your history exactly backwards. This act, passed by Parliament in 1559, functions to reestablish “... one uniform order of common service and prayer, and of the administration of sacraments, rites, and ceremonies in the Church of England, which was set forth in one book, intituled: The Book of Common Prayer, and Administration of Sacraments, and other rites and ceremonies in the Church of England ...”. (first paragraph)
In a free society, we each worship what we choose to worship, in the manner we chose. You agree that this group left England ‘claiming “persecution”’.
“Claiming persecution?” Let us consider some facts before deciding if the claim was, in fact, warranted.
Under the Act of Uniformity, it was illegal to not attend Church of England services, with a fine of 12d (about $7) for each missed Sunday and other holy day. The penalties for conducting unofficial services included larger fines, exclusion from promotion, loss of position, imprisonment for a year (second conviction), and life imprisonment (third conviction). It was under this policy that Henry Barrowe and John Greenwood, two of the Puritan Separatist leaders, were executed for sedition in 1593.
Now, perhaps you feel that treatments by the State such as these do not constitute persecution or harassment, but I do, and I suspect that most people do.
Having provided a fact based explanation for the motivation these Puritan Separatists had for leaving England, we come to two other points of agreement. Yes, they traveled first to the Netherlands, and yes, they then settled in “the New World”. Good.
Quote:
|
... The Puritans explicitly claimed the right to set up a theoracy in the "New World", and further claimed the right to impose their religious view on anyone living within their colony, regaqrdless of whether or not a given individual was originally an emmigrant from England, a Native American caught within their area, or a slave imported by force from elsewhere in the world. Oh, they also claimed the right to expand their colony at the expense of the Natives living in what later became Massachusetts ...
|
While interesting, and doubtless accurate, the above has no relevance to your assertion that the claim ‘the pilgrims emigrated to this continent to "seek religious freedom"’ is a lie. That is, after all, the issue at hand, not whether we approve of the behaviors of this group, or not.
Quote:
|
... The fact numerous societally-accepted histories have repeated the lie about "religious freedom" impresses me not at all. To accept these various accounts as the "truth" is merely to participate in the concept advanced by Goebbels of the "big lie" ...
|
A couple of points may be made here. First, the historians who wrote the histories which fail to impress you customarily do so after examining the primary sources. An example of such a primary source would be the 1559 Act of Uniformity, referred to above. Once they know what they are talking about, historians are well placed to provide useful insights into past events. This may be why these explanations are preferred to other, unsubstantiated ones. Second, I note that you have reverted to referring to the religious freedom notion as “a lie”. Do you have any plans to substantiate your claim, or should it be accepted as true because you said so?
Thank you for not calling me a Nazi. It is best to keep disagreements civil.