Here's a good one from Warren Throckmorton attacking a Christian nationalist:
"Without banishment due to the intolerance of the dominant Puritans, [Roger] Williams would not have established religious freedom in Rhode Island...The America given to us by the founders is much closer to Roger Williams’ Rhode Island than John Winthrops’ city on a hill. That is a good thing and a story worth telling and retelling."
What's funny about the above quote if it wasn't sad is Williams didn't establish religious freedom in Rhode Island. He persecuted Jews, Catholics, atheists and agnostics. In fact, the founders formed a nation with more religious freedom than Rhode Island did.
Here's another distortion Throckmorton makes about this article:
"For instance, Metaxas briefly describes the Flushing Remonstrance and Roger Williams’ settlement in Rhode Island. The Flushing document was a petition to the leader of New Netherland settlement Peter Stuyvesant asking for relief from his ban on Quakers. Metaxas rightly heralds this action. However, Metaxas fails to set it in context. Despite the noble purpose, the petition failed and Stuyvesant cracked down on dissent. He jailed two leaders of the petition effort. Others recanted their dissent in the face of punishment."
It's Throckmorton who doesn't put it in context nor does he explain why Stuyvesant cracked down on the dissent, which wasn't dissent at all. Those people violated the laws of Holland and even those of the Toleration Act of 1689. In fact, New Holland commended Stuyvesant's actions. The Quakers were disturbing the peace, preaching in the streets. History proves Stuyvesant was an upright man.
Throckmorton, like the other secularists, fail to understand what dissent really is.
16 comments:
Can't find a single thing anywhere to support this.
What's funny about the above quote if it wasn't sad is Williams didn't establish religious freedom in Rhode Island. He persecuted Jews, Catholics, atheists and agnostics. In fact, the founders formed a nation with more religious freedom than Rhode Island did.
When you're good, Jim, you're very good. When you're not...
What took you so long? Lol. Where's the cavalry? I figured even throckmorton would show for this.
"Like Locke, Williams persecuted: Jews,Catholics,atheists and agnostics."
--Thomas Cuming Hall, Professor of English and American History and Culture, University of Goettingen in The Religious Background of American Culture. Boston. Little,Brown and Company, 1930, p. 93.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Cuming_Hall
This guy was a secularist who believed Wyclife was the founder of the Dissenters in the colonies. It's quite profound actually. However he doesn't give Calvin and Luther the credit they deserve.
Jim, you're kidding, right? Some guy born in 1858 is your source?
He's closer to the founding than us and history proves he's right. Both Williams and Penn discriminated against people under today's flawed understanding of freedom of conscience. The toleration act of 1689 gave no dissenter the right to proselytize in the streets.
secondary source from 200 [!] years later!
How Barton destroyed his own reputation
tsk
Doesn't matter if it's quadruple source from 1000 years later. How do you not know that Roger Williams, Penn and Locke discriminated against other sects? It's common knowledge.
Dude, stop talking shit and give me something I can use!
You already know this but here it is:
"And now to the end that we may give, each to other, (notwithstanding our different consciences, touching the truth as it is in Jesus, whereof, upon the point we all make mention,) as good and hopeful assurance as we are able, touching each man’s peaceable and quiett enjoyment of his lawfull right and Libertie, we doe agree vnto, and by the authoritie above said, Inact, establish, and confirme these orders following."
--Acts and Orders of 1647. This is the first true constitution of Rhode island.
The key words are "peaceable and quiet." Rhode Island did not allow proselytizing and blasphemy of Christ. Williams wasn't the authority anyway. He signed his name as "assistant of providence." Mr. Coggeshall was the president of the colony.
Even if throckmorton doesn't buy it, that's his problem. The morality is all from the bible, quoting Paul prohibiting homosexuality with death, along with buggery, rape, fornication, etc., quoting Paul as the authority of the common law.
All women and most men weren't allowed to vote or participate in government.
All of this is discrimination to the modern secularist. Freedom to be atheist in your home is not freedom of conscience libs talk about. Geneva was a haven for many Jews.
In one of the most well-known provisions of the Charter, King Charles II granted the
colonists of Rhode Island religious freedom in 1663, declaring that:
"our royall will and pleasure is, that noe person within sayd
colonye, at any tyme hereafter, shall bee any wise molested,
punished, disquieted, or call [sic] in question, for any differences
in opinione in matters of religion, and doe not actually disturb the
civill peace of our sayd colony; but that all and everye person and
persons may, from tyme to tyme, and at all tymes hereafter,
freelye and fully have and enjoye his and theire owne judgments
and consciences, in matters of religious concernments, throughout
the tract of lande hereafter mentioned; they behaving themselves
peaceablie and quietlie, and not useinge this libertie to
lycentiousnesse and profanenesse, nor to the civill injurye or
outward disturbeance of others."
This is consistent with the Toleration Act of 1689 as I've said all along.
The key words are "peaceable and quiet." Rhode Island did not allow proselytizing and blasphemy of Christ. Williams wasn't the authority anyway. He signed his name as "assistant of providence." Mr. Coggeshall was the president of the colony.
You need to show how and when it was enforced. You said
He persecuted Jews, Catholics, atheists and agnostics.
Cut the crap, Jim.
Ask throckmorton or any lib secularist if limiting freedom of speech and freedom to assemble "they behaving themselves
peaceablie and quietlie, and not useinge this libertie to
lycentiousnesse and profanenesse, nor to the civill injurye or
outward disturbeance of others"
By a direct command from the king is not discrimination?
Being enforced is irrelevant. It's on the books.
Tom,
The fact remains you need to show the government violated their rule of the people's "quiet" enjoyment of freedom of religion.
You are inferring the government violated the king's orders and their own by allowing proselytizing and church plants for heresy.
I'm saying no, they didn't allow that and am relying on the Rhode Island constitution and the king's orders for evidence.
Freedom of conscience in Rhode Island was not free in the way throckmorton believes.
You need to show how and when it was enforced. You said
"[Roger Williams] persecuted Jews, Catholics, atheists and agnostics."
So far, no proof. Show us the charges, show us the trials, show us the punishment.
You are saying Williams and Rhode Island did not enforce the constitution or the will of the king. The discrimination resides in the constitution (law) itself. The burden of proof is on you.
oh dodging burden of proof is so boring
if you had proof you'd give it
instead of playing this game
Post a Comment