Posted on 12/29/2015 5:41:12 PM PST by Coleus
This article is by Jerome Tuccille, FYI.
Time to bash the stereotypical Puritans. No doubt we will see some outrageous comparisons.
“Time to bash the stereotypical Puritans.”
So the Puritans did not outlaw many Christmas celebrations?
“No doubt we will see some outrageous comparisons.”
Really? Such as?
The Puritans were a group of English Reformed Protestants in the 16th and 17th centuries who sought to purify the Church of England from all Roman Catholic practices
Say no more, say no more. It doesn't take much internet searching to see how this would include the deprecation of Christmas, and indeed the word "Christmas" itself explains the matter.
It is lunacy to call this something that was done in America. Its the same when the liberal progressives try to peddle out the Salem Witch Trials as though its something Americans did. They use such casual linkages to diminish Christianity...no other reason.
Christmas: Banned in Early America
http://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/protestantisms-anti-christmas-crusade
The Puritan crusade against Christmas was really a crusade against Catholicism
Many may be surprised to learn that Christmas used to be illegal in America — all thanks to Protestants.
The story begins in England, just before Puritan leader Oliver Cromwell came to power. After crushing royalist uprisings throughout England, Wales and Scotland in the English Civil Wars and overseeing the trial and execution of King Charles I, Cromwell declared himself Lord Protector of the Realm in 1653. He ruled for a brief five years, but during that time did what he could to do away with “papist” elements, implementing his Puritan reforms with zeal.
...
It was done by the dour Puritans up in Massachusetts, the spiritual forebears of today’s northeastern liberals.
Down in Virginia Christmas was always celebrated, usually with weeks of feasting and parties.
If the Massachusetts Bay Colony comprised all of "America" this statement would be correct. It obviously did not, however. Church Of England, no problem with Christmas. Lutherans, no problem with Christmas. The vast majority of Protestantism, no problem with Christmas.
Freedom of religion, now there's a sticking point for the Catholic Church of that era right up to the twentieth century and Vatican II. They condemned it.
My direct ancestor was murdered by Cromwell. he wasn’t much of a Christian. Don’t have any problem with Christmas.
The anti-CHRISTians just hate public displays of joy and love.
One of the marvels of the American experiment was its acknowledgment and tolerance of diverse religions despite Europe's history of religious wars.
(NOT an impediment to public exercise of any religion).
The system has worked pretty well for over 200 years but with success comes complacency and dissent.
Today we have complacency & dissent in both the religious and secular fabric of society...in the face of the cyclic rise of an unenlightened & unreformed Islamic socio/political/pseudo religious society (Not a race) that was devised in opposition to what were then the dominant religious entities across the region.
A system that was & is inherently expansionist and brutal.
Today we are in the grips of complacency/dissent versus the same unreformed & unenlightened movement that Martel fought off two centuries ago.
Those who do not learn from history...
The adage doesn’t account for the desire to repeat (or retry) what history recounts as failure.
Good points regarding complacency.
He allows it.
All He asks is that we choose sides - then He will conduct the battle.
“The Puritans wanted to eliminate the celebration of saint’s days and festivals such as Christmas, especially because of the pagan practices that came with them.”
There really were no pagan practices. No pagan gods were worshiped, for instance. If doing some of same things pagans do is “pagan practices”, then we’ll have to stop eating, wearing clothes, sleeping. etc.
“You can’t say they weren’t consistent about it.”
Sure I can. Here’s the proof: the months of the year and the days of the week - all pagan names. Puritans used them like everyone else. Their very calendar then was “pagan” by your standard.
“They came to New England (a great hardship for them) so they could do it their way.”
And there they oppressed those who disagreed with them - after fleeing a land because they wanted “freedom”. Again, that inconsistency thing.
“Say what you will.”
I always do.
“Changing the days of the week, the planets, etc., would have been quite a feat even for the resourceful Puritans.”
Wrong. In their own country - right here in North America - they could have easily done it. Also, Puritans used “pagan” marriage practices: wedding rings, exchange of vows in public, etc. Even their clothing could be called “pagan” according to your standard.
“The modern idea of religious pluralism was quite foreign to the 17th-century way of thinking. The Puritans never pretended otherwise.”
Hence, their inconsistency and hypocrisy.
Puritans didn’t use wedding rings. “Popish.”
“Puritans didn’t use wedding rings. “Popish.—
Excellent, because that not only proves they were stupid bigots but it also proves they could have changed the names of days and months if they wished. After all wedding rings were an ancient Christian practice long before the Puritans showed up.
Thanks for proving my point.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.