Posted on 05/15/2010 7:50:29 AM PDT by markomalley
Well, actually,what you said and what I responded to was:
The greatest conservative revolution this world has ever known ... the American Revolution ... was started by Protestants who left Europe in large part to get away from the Catholic Church.
And the revolution was not started to free people from Catholic hegemony.
Prior to the Revolution, you had two primary groups: the Congregationalists / Puritans (who settled in the NE) and the Anglicans (who settled in Virginia). The Congregationalists / Puritans did flee religious persecution. This was the end result of the English Civil War. Which, oh, by the way, was between Congregationalists and Anglicans. The Congregationalists lost.
See, you have to remember that England was no where even close to being a Catholic-friendly country at the time. Look up the Law of Supremacy and the Law of Uniformity. There is simply no way that Catholics would have been in the position to persecute ANYBODY.
Germany had the peace of Westphalia which settled matters between Lutherans and Catholics in that country.
And, from the Catholic countries (with the exception of Ireland), there basically wasn't much immigration from either the religious majority or minority to speak of until the latter half of the 19th Century.
Just to carry on your modified premise, if we look at the initial waves of immigration after the Revolution, what we will find are the Germans and the Irish.
If you take a look at the German immigration wave in the early 19th Century, you will find that it was primarily for economic reasons and not religious or political ones. The predominant exception to that rule would have been the Anabaptists...and they were persecuted by both the Lutherans and the Catholics...In fact, the Church where I attend Latin Mass was originally constructed by that wave of Germans...Catholic Germans.
On the other hand, the (Catholic) Irish who came to this country after the revolution were being severely persecuted by their (Protestant) British overlords.
Raspberry!
Actually, the question is if you would like to refute de Tocqueville's premise stated in vol 2 chap 6 (reproduced above)?
This is so funny coming from a denomination that made up a whole new rule so they could look like they don't accept divorce, when for a proper price they sure do, and from the church that has a huge % of the abortions preformed on their members, that have primarily 2 child families ( no accident I am sure)
hypocrisy written all over it
Do as i say not as I do..
Just look at the current Supreme Court where Scalia, Roberts, Thomas and Alito represent a solid Catholic or Catholic trained group to battle the secular humanistic agnostic types. In the last part of the 20th Century William F Buckley was the major voice of the conservative intelligentsia while founding National Review to disseminate conservative ideas. O’Rielly, Michelle Maulkin, Sean Hannerty,Laura Ingrham, Ann Coulter lead the the conservative charge in the electronic media while many of the WSJ op-ed articles are written buy Catholics like Noonan. In politics, Jeb Bush ,Bobby Jindal, Sam Brownback are just a few of the staunch Catholic Conservatives whose religion is ignored by the secular media for obvious reasons. Sure, you can cite the list of liberal Catholics who join with the Episcopalians and other mainline protestants to support questionable causes but are these people really Catholics just by claiming to be Catholic?
Therefore, given the heavy presence of practicing Catholics in the vibrant realms of the current culture , while ignoring those Catholics who are CINO, one can justify the statement that given the small practicing Catholic presence in America, Catholics are indeed disproportionately representing the Conservative cause.
But are you going to have the courage to deal with de Tocqueville's premise: But I am inclined to believe that the number of these thinkers will be less in democratic than in other ages, and that our posterity will tend more and more to a division into only two parts, some relinquishing Christianity entirely and others returning to the Church of Rome.
(Note: not my words, de Tocqueville's)
Can this be proven ?? Source
I didn’t ignore the group of Catholics that voted correctly ... I just noted that the group of Protestants that voted correctly was significantly larger.
SnakeDoc
See Mark, I believe John 6 where jesus said NO ONE can come to Him unless the Father draw him.. So I never worry about the tares that run to Rome.. they are looking for things that make them FEEL holy.. If there are but 10 left on the earth that claim salvation by faith alone. in Christ alone, by grace alone.. then that is what it will be.. God knows those that are His..
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Please direct me. Please provide some links.
Are conservatives doing anything similar to what the organized world-wide campaign of disinformation that the KGB had? Where is the conservative version of the Frankfurt School among whose goals was infiltration of the culture?
The Tea Party is focused on immediate legislative problems ( as they should). It is not laying out a long term plan for RE-moralizing the nation.
As for our personal efforts, my husband and I are full members in the Hispanic church of our denomination . We run the Hispanic Cub Scout troop, and were assigned as Spanish speaking missionaries for the county. ( Yes, it took tons of time and a lot of money and travel to learn Spanish fluently.)
We also fully homeschooled three kids. We take care of my mother who is 96, and when it is her turn to return to the Lord my husband and I plan to be full-time missionaries.
These are individual initiatives on our part. However, if there is conservative version of the KGB, or a conservative version of the Frankfurt School please let me know. I will join.
You wrote:
“The fact remains, Catholics are more liberal than Protestants.”
Incorrect. The fact IS that some Catholics are more liberal than some Protestants. Some Protestants are liberal than some Catholics. Not all Catholics are more liberal than all Protestants. Your claim is logically impossible since liberalism was invented by Protestants.
“Thus, it seems to me that either (1) Catholicism is more prone to fostering liberalism in its practicioners, or (2) Catholicism is more prone to fostering apostasy in its practicioners.”
Neither is true. Again, Protestantism gave the world liberalism.
“In either case, the Catholic church needs to figure out why its practicioners are more liberal than Protestants ...”
They aren’t. Some are. Some aren’t. Thus, not all can be.
“and fix THAT before complaining about the effect Protestant Christianity is having on “conservatism and ordered liberty”.”
No, the Catholic Church needs to preach the truth on all things - including Protestant sects. All the needs to be taught - not just a portion of it.
“The greatest conservative revolution this world has ever known ... the American Revolution ... was started by Protestants who left Europe in large part to get away from the Catholic Church.”
False. The Pilgrims left PROTESTANT ENGLAND AND HOLLAND to get away FROM PROTESTANTS. I have seen so many Protestants stupidly repeat the idiotic idea that the early Americans left Europe to get away Catholics that I am stunned at how common that ignorant belief is. The Pilgrims lived in England and Holland under Protestant governments. Those are he facts. The Scotch-Irish - who were all Protestants - lived under Protestant governments in Scotland and Ireland. The only significant Protestant group, the Huguenots, and not even all of them, can claim to have come from a Catholic country - France. I suppose someone could through in the Waldensians as well. That still means the the real Protestant founders of America were descendent from Protestants escaping oppression coming from their fellow Protestants.
Did you go to public schools?
“I’ll skip over the “heretical” nonsense.”
Only liberals consider heresy to be nonsense. You’re Protestantism is showing.
how’d we get here?
progressives and a corrupted media combined with a persistent hatred for anything American infecting the minds of millions
>>> “The fact remains, Catholics are more liberal than Protestants.”
>> Incorrect. The fact IS that some Catholics are more liberal than some Protestants. Some Protestants are liberal than some Catholics. Not all Catholics are more liberal than all Protestants. Your claim is logically impossible since liberalism was invented by Protestants.
That you apparently cannot comprehend the concept of drawing larger conclusions from statistical sampling does not bode well for the sensibility of the remainder of your post.
>> You’re Protestantism is showing.
Thank you.
SnakeDoc
History tells us otherwise, markomalley. The Church of England, right from the beginning with Henry VIII, did not accept the label of "Protestant." Henry VIII detested Lutherans and never considered himself "Protestant" a single day in his pernicious life. "Protestants" continued to be persecuted under him and under the Church of England, just had been the case when Henry VIII was Catholic and "Defender Of The Faith." That's what drove so many actual Protestants to the North American colonies, to escape persecution at the hands of State religious authorities, Church of England in England, Roman Catholic Church on the continent.
The American Revolution was widely known in England and in Europe, even by the English King George III, as the "Presbyterian Revolution." Why, do you suppose, that was the case? You can make up all the revisionist history you want, you can inject some "principle of subsidiarity" into the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries that wasn't the acknowledged position of your church until the twentieth century all you want, but Catholics played no notable role whatsoever in the Revolution. Protestants played that role. There was, to my knowledge, one Catholic signer of the Declaration, from Maryland, a Carroll.
So, again, King George III was not Protestant. He rejected that label as did the Church of England. The Church of England in fact still rejects that label. The Church of England persecuted Protestants, as did the prior State church, Catholicism. The nation was founded in religious freedom in absolute and utter rejection of State-enforced religious doctrine. It was founded upon Christian Natural Law and freedom of speech, thought and action in accord with free will. By contrast, religious freedom wasn't even a topic that Catholics were permitted to write about until Vatican II and the Declaration of Religious Freedom of 1965 ... 1965!
That's going on two hundred years from the founding of this nation. It's ludicrous, this attempt to subtly coopt our nation's founding for your religion when the reality is so very, very obviously at odds.
Sir, I want to respond to the points. I think the points are well taken here. However, they left out the important point of birth control. How is the adoption of ‘birth control’ a conservative principle? I just don’t see it.
As for Evangelicals as a whole, I don’t really think it’s fair to tar them with the brush of the Episcopalians and the Lutherans. For now, they have held the line, we shall see whether this continues, or whether they will drink from the same well.
Perhaps this article will seem prescient in 40 years, and perhaps not.
“History tells us otherwise, markomalley. The Church of England, right from the beginning with Henry VIII, did not accept the label of “Protestant.” Henry VIII detested Lutherans and never considered himself “Protestant” a single day in his pernicious life. “Protestants” continued to be persecuted under him and under the Church of England, just had been the case when Henry VIII was Catholic and “Defender Of The Faith.” That’s what drove so many actual Protestants to the North American colonies, to escape persecution at the hands of State religious authorities, Church of England in England, Roman Catholic Church on the continent.”
Agreed. However, Henry VIII confiscated all the property of the monestaries, made it a crime to be a bishop and to serve the Pope in England, killed priests and killed Catholics. You need to read about the rising in the north.
This is why the Calvarts had a colony for Catholics to flee in North America. You are right that ‘dissenters’ per se were persecuted in Henry VIII’s England, but you are wrong that he is not Protestant. He hated the Pope. He wanted to be the head of the church himself and to remake the church in his image.
Does the Church itself teach that birth control is permissible? No, it doesn’t. That Catholics in name only prefer dissent to obedience isn’t exactly new. That Protestants make themselves the highest authority isn’t either.
It’s impossible to have ‘obedience’ per se if you and you alone are the only authority you have to answer too.
It was effective for me. I had to ask the serious question, if it could happen to the Episcopalians and to the Lutherans, could it not also happen to the Mennonites over time?
My answer to that question was yes, so I hopped skipped and jumped to the Church.
So, there is a rather large distinction that was made by our Founders, and by those who served in the Revolution. The same distinction was made by the English monarchy and in Europe as well. I've just endeavored to point out that distinction.
And, to the traditional Anglicans who will trot out George Washington, I'll point out that he was required by law to be Anglican by Virginia. He served, however, as the leader of a revolutionary army that disestablished that particular State religion. That's all anyone needs to know, as far as Washington's loyalties.
Well, I am currently on my mobile, so I have some limits on the research I can do right now, but I did find this quote from Luther:
“I confess that I cannot forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict the Scripture. If a man wishes to marry more than one wife he should be asked whether he is satisfied in his conscience that he may do so in accordance with the word of God. In such a case the civil authority has nothing to do in the the civil authority has nothing to do in the matter. (De Wette II, 459, ibid., pp. 329-330.) matter. (De Wette II, 459, ibid., pp. 329-330.)”
I haven’t been able to verify the quote yet...
And I found the following tidbit about the early anabaptists:
“In 1532, a radical group of Anabaptists took over the town of Muenster, Germany by election. Their leader, one John of Leyden, convinced the town elders to allow polygamy, thereby establishing “endless links of kinship.” He led the way by taking sixteen wives. All books except the Bible were burned; and Lutherans and Catholics were murdered. After sixteen months, troops sent by Lutheran and Catholic princes stormed the town and tortured the town leaders to death. A number of those tortured were women. Their corpses, mutilated by torture, were placed in an open cage in the church steeple. It remains there to this day. those tortured were women. Their corpses, mutilated by torture, were placed in an open cage in the church steeple. It remains there to this day.”
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.