This is History in the Making

[Repat]

Hobbit,
You said you like controversy. Try this article on for size. It came in on the wire about 11:15 pm, CST 10 September.

Opinions, anyone?

Middle East - AP
Saudi Clerics Hit More Rights for Women

RIYADH, Saudi Arabia - Prominent Saudi clerics and academics warned Wednesday against calls for equality and increased rights for women, saying such efforts aim to make Muslim women more like "infidel" Western types.

Efforts to give women greater rights are part of an anti-Islamic campaign spearheaded by the United States, said 130 Saudi sheiks and academics in a statement obtained by The Associated Press Wednesday.

Women in Saudi Arabia are segregated in public places, they cannot drive cars, and they must be covered from head to toe in public in this strict conservative society.

Islamic laws protect women and their rights, the statement said. It said efforts to change such traditions are "a vicious campaign from (the Muslim community's) enemy, led by the American government, to divert it from its faith."

U.S. criticism of Saudi Arabia's lack of democracy and support for militant Islam in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks on the United States have forced the government to open up somewhat. Newspaper and magazine articles and television programs began to discuss reform, and even host women, something that used to be taboo here.

The statement said equality between men and women is not possible under Islam.

"Any calls for absolute equality is an illegal and illogical call," the statement said. It said allowing women to drive, a repeated request in the kingdom, would lead to "many evils."

The religious establishment is one of the most powerful voices in conservative Saudi Arabia, which ascribes to a puritan form of Islam known as Wahhabism.

[Sponsored Links]

[jjwq8]

Frankly R commenting on such drivel is an exercise in futility. Nothing you can say will amend or otherwise influence the enlightened individuals responsible for such pronouncements.

On a more positive note is the "crackdown" on the Mutawas (religious/thought police) that occurred after the fire in which the school girls burned coz the mutawi refused to let the firemen enter the dorm.

Comparisons with the west cannot be made.

Surely a far more important question to ask these mullahs is this:

"Are the practicing moslem women in the west, any less moslem because they have the rights that you deny the Saudi womenfolk?"

[John Bridge]

"Surely a far more important question to ask these mullahs is this:

"Are the practicing moslem women in the west, any less moslem because they have the rights that you deny the Saudi womenfolk?"
"

There's no question the answer would be yes. And although restrictions against women were never so severe as those abroad, we in the States are not that far removed from the tendancy.

[Steven Hauser]

Further the comments:

To say that repressing women is derived from the Koran is parsing text and absolute drivel.

Steven

[Repat]

You guys are right, of course. Our objections will no more change their attitudes and beliefs than they're objections will change ours.

My point was that the fundamental differences that exist today will be the minor points of this historical story in the future.

The current growing confrontation between Islam and the non-Islamic people of the world will be viewed in the future much like we today view the Crusades. From the distance of 900 some-odd years, we see only the major movements of armies, the major battles, the capture and recapture of cities, and so on.

We don't see, or know, or remember the myriad factors that went to make up the oriiginal motivation to proceed. Will it be that way in another 900 years? Or will our "Information Age" provide more details to future students of history about what caused these confrontations?

[smee]

As a woman I would like to chime in,

This is such a convoluted subject. There are so many cultures around the world where women are horribly suppressed - it's difficult for the west to understand ( although, in my opinion we[U.S] have a 'suppression' unequalled in the world today packaged and presented as freedom and equality)...

I digress; Whether we like it or not, it's been part of the Arab culture not just the muslim culture for centuries - Although the west has evolved to some extent, let's not forget (forgive me John) our own founding fathers attitudes towards women.
Yes, absolutely horrendous how they are treated. Yes, If I could change it, I would. Yes, all women in America from other cultures free to act in many ways touted as irreligious who still decide to honor their religion in a way they feel is important to them makes them no infidel.

these points are mute; they are obvious. These muslim clerics are fundamentalists. And in my most humble opinion if you get down to the bottom of it suppression of women on any level in any society screams of Fear.

Religion has simply put become the skirt ironically these men hide behind to mask the endemic fear they feel towards women.

suppression of women is the same as suppression of any peoples. Fear generates the control, domination and subjugation of any one people against another.

The muslim world is in the spotlight. But take a look at your history and the other places of the world - besides the west - there aren't many places in the world where women enjoy the rights of the west.

phew. well, there you go.
is that controversial enough for you Repat.

[Repat]

Smee,

You go girl! as they say on TV.

Maybe it's because I lived over there for long that the confrontation with Islam bothers me so much. My only in-depth contact was with Saudi's and only in Riyadh. The Eastern and Western regions are somewhat different.

Slavery was legal and prevalent in the Kingdom into the sixties and some of the people act like it still exists. This is one of the few countries where you need an exit visa to be allowed to leave. The Saudis have no due process of law as we know it. Their law is Sharia, the law of Islam. Its enforcement is a bit more arbitrary than one might like.

I'm not slagging on the Saudis as such. Their country is their country, after all. The poeple there are grumbling about the Al Saud family always being in charge and are beginning to ask why others can't take over for a while.

My concern is that I see real trouble coming between Islam and the rest of the world, trouble that will be serious enough to make the history books of the future. What we are seeing now are the building blocks of that story.

Also, I'm not trying to be controversial. i just thought perhaps we might trigger a few responses from other forum members.

[Steven Hauser]

Hello All,

I suppose that I don't post as much as I read because I don't typically feel that I have as great a grasp on particular subjects. In this case you invite critique...

First, Whether one is speaking of Islam. Christianity or Hinduism; it is cultural norms that are imbedded within the society that allows such things (suppression, revocation of freedoms, glass ceilings, gender specific roles, etc.) These cultural norms are perpetuated by individuals.

Linda,


Why do you say there is " we[U.S] have a 'suppression' unequalled in the world today packaged and presented as freedom and equality"?

I think that most systems written achieve a balance or are changed over time. Like ours by the way..

Whether you speak of religion, government, or something more specific like actions of small groups how do you address the freedom and suppression dynamic within the context of laws and moral acuity that is necessary for a society to prosper?

Best regards, Steven

[smee]

Repat - I'm all for a little controversy. Discussion is healthy. I think hearing someones view on things is always stimulating when presented well. Even if I disagree, it makes me rethink my own position....bring on the sensitive subjects, I say!!!

I confess I have never been in the middle east. So, I have no visual image of my own to help me be really angry at how women are treated and the other abuses that are a part of every day life there.

however, are you aware of a writer Bernard Lewis?

http://www.princeton.edu/~nes/profiles/Lewis.htm

there is a link about him. He is a Middle Eastern Medievalist - but obviously we here know the value of history - and he has recently written some books on the issues of the middle east today. Very well written, very well thought out and presented viewpoints. I saw an interview on CSpan booknotes with him and was facinated!

check him out.

oh, I think they recently did an interview with him in Atlantic Monthly as well. I'll see if I can find out about that one....

Once again, welcome aboard. No matter the subject - it's a beautiful day when I get to talk about history!!!!

Linda

[smee]

Steven -

Glad you posted. You should post more often. I can speak for myself - I am NO master on any subject of history - so always welcome someones questioning....

What I was vaguely alluding to is a reference to womens exploitation in America. Although, it's as pervasive in European Culture...it's become big business in America. that's what I was referring to.

In my late teens and early 20's I was a Model. I was part of the modeling culture for approx 5-6 yrs. I did not have any bad experiences or horror stories - I just saw things most people don't see. America is so marketed so commercialised it's not even recognized, it's just part of our everyday lives. Exploitation is a by word. I know this spills onto so many other issues in our culture and society that it rapidly gets out of control which is why I left it very open ended initially.

Linda

[John Bridge]

I remember a little about the Crusades, but it's been years since I've done any reading in that area. It seems to me the roles have changed inasmuch as we are now the Infidel. ;)

Linda, I couldn't disagree with you more on the suppression of women in this country. If I could have been a model I probably would have jumped at the chance. What's the difference between a male model and female model insofar as basic rights are concerned?

As for the founders, I know how people hate to hear this -- they take it as a cop out -- but the founders were men of their times. Nowhere in the world did women have more freedom than in this country. I'm not attempting to justify the actions of the founders or anyone else. I think it's important to keep things in the proper time context, though.

You are going to have to get much more specific to convince me that women have a problem in this country nowadays. ;)

[Repat]

I just read an article in the last couple of days that stated women are worse at negotiating salaries than men. That's why they get paid less.

It was on the Netscape home page but I can't remember the source they quoted. The jist was that a man values himself because of what he has done, and will tell the boss his accomplishments as he asks for a raise. A woman values herself according to what she 'deserves' and will ask for a raise because it's the right thing to do. Needless to say, this doesn't work as well.

I consider myself to be a liberated man compared to the archaic position I started out in. I grew up at a time when the woman's 'place' was clearly defined and understood by all. When the Women's Lib movement began, I had a lot of unlearning to do.

Not being a cave-man in the first place, I had little problem 'emancipating' the women in my life but I'm sure there is a lot of the old habitual stuff still in there.

As an old-fashioned southern boy, I still say please and thank you, and Sir and Ma'am (to ladies of any age). That got me in a bit of trouble in England where the only lady you refer to as Ma'am is the Queen.

[Hobbit]

Interesting conversation......

Repat, you may have an excellent grasp of the issues at play in the region. However, I am not ready to forecast a long crusade like confrontation with Islam---or with the Arab states......yet.

The information in the article you quote is relatively old news. The article, however, is interesting to me from one standpoint. It lends credence to other sources because of its quasi-official nature. But let's look at the bigger picture. The attempted democratization of an Arab country and the fallout from it.

Could this explain some of the views of the clerics, Repat?? Or is it just regurgitated tripe? AND...Is it a valid interpretation or just the rantings of a fundamentalist terrorist??


Killed by security forces in Riyadh last June, Yussuf al-Ayyeri was the key intellectual for al Qaeda. His book, The Future of Iraq, clearly explains why the West has to win. "If democracy comes to Iraq," he declares, "the next target for democratization would be the whole of the Muslim world." He is not referring to military action. He means democracy's "seductive capabilities." They will persuade "the people that they are in charge of their destiny and that, using their collective reasoning, they can shape policies and pass laws as they see fit." People will, therefore, begin to ignore the "unalterable laws" promulgated by God for the whole of mankind. Democracy will "make Muslims love this world, forget the next world and abandon jihad." If established in any Muslim country for a reasonable length of time, democracy "will lead to economic prosperity," which, in turn, would make Muslims "reluctant to die in martyrdom."
In Iraq, he concluded, "there are only two sides. Here we have a clash of two visions of the world and the future of mankind. The side prepared to accept more sacrifices will win." Americans, "faced with mounting casualties," will "just run away." This is because Americans "love this world and are concerned about nothing but their own comfort, while Muslims dream of the pleasures that martyrdom offers in paradise."

[Repat]

Hi Hobbit,

I wish I did have an 'excellent grasp of the issues". Even when I lived in Riyadh, it was very difficult to get the straight story on anything because they were so secretive. There were always multiple undercurrents in anything anyone said. I only came home in march so things are just beginning to take on recognizable patterns.

I don't claim that there will be an actual Crusade by either side against the other. Actually what I'm saying is the the intent of America's government to impose our way of life on any part of Islam will heighten their resolve to resist it.

The Arabic mind is a convoluted and strange thing by western standards. Whereas we tend to recognize individual countries united in intent as in the United Nations, the Muslims think of all the countries of Islam as one within Islam. An attack on any of them is not just an attack on that country, but rather an attack against all of Islam.

The fact that we are trying to help the Iraqis set up their own government doesn't cut any ice with them. Saudi Arabia will not allow any evidence or practise of Christianity within the Kingdom but they are not impressed that we are supporting the Iraqis in their own religion. All the Muslims can see is that an islamic country is somehow a purified place and our presence there somehow sullies it and insults Islam.

I can't speak for the other countries but I can speak a little about Saudi Arabia. Over half the population of Saudi Arabia is under 21 and they are desperate to enjoy some of the western lifestyle they see on international cable TV, while the Religious leaders are desperate to expunge all western influence from the country and maintain fundamental Islam.

Unemployment is rampant, with 18-20% unemployment, closer to 30% in the younger ages, and there are no jobs for them. They all want a piece of the pie but the Royal Family wants to maintain their own share of the shrinking income of the Kingdom.
There are militant factions that want all westerners out of Muslim countries but the governments know they need the help of westerners to continue training their won people.

The youth are showing incipient 'civl disobedience' as youth has always done. The fundamentalists will literally give their lives to stop western influence.

The Royal family is trying desperately to mollify all sides so as to maintain their control of the Kingdom.

With all the stresses existing in that one counry, no wonder they look a little flaky at times. I'm ceratinly not wise enough to be able to predict anything over there. There are too many forces at work and I haven't got them all sorted out yet. That's why I would like to hear what others understandings are about the situation.

[Steven Hauser]

This is a very interesting thread...

Linda, Thank you for your observations.

I still will maintain that women in the US do not need to feel suppressed. They can change that.

Many times we tend to address things in the historical context as from the perspective that it is a dry and fact based presentation.

All people who have posted here have shown a grasp of the fact that historical documentation is far from fact based. All writings are done from a particular point of view.

I readdress this point to help expand the debate on our current world which is frightening and intriguing now.

Let's start analyzing these things from the perspective of everyone is right and wrong at all times.

Best regards, Steven

[smee]

howdie fellas - Well, I'm positive I didn't explain myself well....:crap:

John - the thing is, I agree with you as well. I also want to clarify that I absolutely 100% agree on your point about our Founding Fathers. We cannot define a period based on our own social norms - although we do - they were indeed truly exceptional men of their age.

I was posing an argument for the realities of women in the arab world and trying to say hey - let's look at the rest of the world - we all have our suppressions - not to condone or to argue - simply to avoid comparison. We cannot inflict our norms on a culture that is so far removed in that context that it's amazing to think we very self righteously do?

We are so far removed from the Islamic culture.
It's possible many arab women would not flourish in our environment. I brought up the argument of womens exploitation in America simply to say - that it's part of our lives - it happens. AND a woman in this country can make herself - and we have freedoms women have never had anywhere - yes, there are examples of that.

One point I would make is even though women have choices they have never had, and they can choose to make them or not - some don't, and for the ones who do - commercially - does it make it any less exploitive? I am not defining an agrument - I am just illustrating one aspect.

America is such a unique place in the world - so unique that one can promote any opinion, arguement for or against anything. We break every rule ever made - make new ones - break them and make them again. It's in our nature. At it's best, it's so remarkable a place it's almost too big to put to words.

In our own country, I believe we are in a time where the ripples of the womans' movement are still being felt. I think the gender roles have changed but have yet to find a comfortable place. It's such an interesting time in the world, so many changes on so many levels - it's really exciting and yes also frightening.
It's impossible to compare ourselves to history because this is a very unique time....and of course we cannot relate history to ourselves either - but we do.

Steven - thanks for appreciating my thoughts. You made a great point. History is always in the making and it's always going to be controversial and there are SO many interpretations. That's why it's always rewritten, reinterpreted and so bloody interesting.

I am hoping I clarified myself a little. I have many different feelings on the subject and simply presented one to get into the swing of this string.....:)

linda

[Repat]

Steven,

Very well said. For some reason, your comments and Smees reminded me of Alvin Toffler's book Future Shock. The premise was that technology is advancing so rapidly, man cannot keep up with it and it is a disorienting experience.

In reading history recreationally, I tend to tunnel into a period in the past. Sure I draw the odd inference about what came out of that to influence today's world, but not being a serious student of history, I tend not to analyze very deeply or well. I have not been viewing history as a continuum of Past-Present-Future.

I'll be off to the library to reread Future Shock and other Toffler works. There is also a website called Futurist.com that might present some interesting triggers. If I come up with any epiphanies, I'll pass them along.

Thanks for the mental jog!

[John Bridge]

Jumping ahead to the Civil War era, and since this thing doesn't seem to be going in any specific direction, I'm reminded that equal rights have always meant different things to different people. During the Lincoln-Douglas Debates old Abe defined what he got out of the Declaration. Did he believe that blacks were equal to whites in all respects? No, he believed they were equal in their right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That's all. Speaking of the founders he said, "This they said and this they meant." Nothing more.

And so I think equality has always been and will always be qualified. I'm a born again women's righter, but I don't believe women are equal to men in all respects. For one thing they are usually not as physically strong. On the same token, men may not be equal to women (although, I can't imagine how.) :D I'm joking!

What I hate is preferential treament. So women are allowed in the army, but standards for physical fitness have to be qualified for them, or they wouldn't be able to make the grade. To my thinking, women should be allowed in the army, but they shouldn't be given special treatment at all. When my son joined the service back in the eighties he was assigned to Fort Jackson, S.C., for basic training. Turns out his head drill sergeant was a female. Consequently, the men had certain hours during which they could not be undressed or partially undressed in the evening (after duty hours) so that the drill sergeant could walk in unannounced to make an inspection of the barracks should she decide to do that. After a certain hour the men could go about their business in the usual state of dress that has gone in barracks since armies began.

These things cause me discomfort. We talk about a level playing field, and I long for it, but it doesn't exist and cannot exist so long as certain "factions" are given special treatment. There is a program going on in Houston (and I'm sure most major cities) that gives a certain amount of city work to "minority and women-owned businesses." Where is the level playing field?

I won't ramble further, and I thank you for putting up with my little rant. There is one thing I can boast of when it comes to equality: On the John Bridge Forums a weekend warrior is a weekend warrior, period. :D We don't make any distinctions between the sexes or races or colors or anything else. You either do the work and become super proud of yourself, or you move along. :D

[jjwq8]

Dammit John I thought you were going to give us some invaluable insight into the crusades ....... as a participant. :D

I have something to say on the issues raised by Repat but need some time to get my ducks in a row. Primarily because I am married to an Assyrian (Christian) Arab and half my inlaws are Moslems, and secondly coz I have spent the past 26 years living amongst them.

I earnestly suggest you try to find a copy of the Seymour Hirsch book "Sand Castles" that deals with the politics in the region leading up to the 1991 Gulf War. It appears to be out of print and damned near impossible to find. I had a copy leant it out and lost it. :bang:
This comment is absolutely not intended as bigotted but it came as something of an eye opener given Hirsch's reputation and background. Hobbit you may find it in your college library.
For now I retire to cogitate.

[Steven Hauser]

Hi all,

I am still fascinated, thank you for that.

Linda- Thank you for expanding your thoughts. I understand what you are saying but will still maintain that you as the individual can accept or reject any particular dogma or exploitive action. Speaking as one who has garnered unjustified praise and preferential treatment at times, sometimes the exploitive behavior of others does not conflict with our own personal goals and sometimes it does. I know that it requires mental clarity at all times becuse it is easy to get derailed, deriled, and spit out.

John, I interpret what you said to mean that all individuals are egalitarian (equal in pursuit) yet because there is equal pursuit does not imply that equal in talent,strength, fortitude, mental processes or humor.

When we stop talking in generalities of course we are not equal.

Then again when we stop talking in generalities our democracy is really a republic.

Best regards, Steven

[John Bridge]

Well, our democracy was indeed a repulic in the eyes of the founding generation. It was either to be that or a constitutional monarchy. :) I have never seen mention of democracy excepting when the founders were deriding the Greeks for conduction one. In fact, I should think the old boys would find the word itself offensive if used in association with the United States. :)

I meant exactly what Honest Abe meant, that all people are not equal, except in their God-given right to essential freedoms. And the strong should not be compelled to support the weak through force of law. To me that should be a matter of charity and a personal choice.

I believe that women have the same rights as men, and they should enjoy the same freedoms. It doesn't necessarily follow, though, that women should play the role of men -- or visa versa. They have the right to do that, but I should not be compelled through force of law to make special provisions for them.

[jjwq8]

I have determined that on reflection it is best that I leave Repats initial thoughts without detailed response since we share a commonality of location but probably divergent experience on which the thoughts are based. This not to say that R is incorrect, simply that much of his reality is too different to my own so we would be comparing apples and oranges.

I would however offer a gentle reminder that the USA was founded by colonists considered religious zealots in their British homeland which they left to establish the Christian equivilent of an Islamic Republic.

[Hobbit]

Jeremy.....I am looking for the book, Sand Castles. So far, no luck. I have some contacts that may be able to locate a copy for me. I'm waiting to hear back.

I would encourage you to put your thoughts down "on paper" here. Diversity, especially in opinion, is highly sought after. No two people can live duplicate existences. The reality of any situation is frequently dependent upon the environment in which we find ourselves. Even if we do not like to think about it (or admit it) everyone is a product of their environment. As long as our responses are based in reason, not in emotion, they are valid (at least for that particular person at that point in time). So...tell us what you think. This is a very difficult situation to understand completely. I am always interested in a well reasoned response.

:):)

[John Bridge]

Geez, can't let that one slide by. :D

Jeremy,

I will agree that the folks who originally arrived here from England could be classed as zealots, perhaps, but fortunately for us, they were not the founders of our nation. They founded a colony or two, but as you know, the bulk of our original colonies were chartered by various business interests, people whose religion was far from their minds when they set out the parcels. :)

The men who later managed to unite the Colonies and incite them to rebellion were versed in the Enlightenment and the freedom of thought that movement begot. Religion and nature were pretty much the same thing in their minds, to my thinking. Among their heroes were some noteworthy Brits and Scots. Locke, Hobbes and others, and their voices can be heard in the passages of our founding documents.

The founders were far from religious zealots. In fact, I'm convinced that a number of the most prominent were nearly irreligious. There were Christians for certain, but there were also Deists at the forefront of politics during what I like to call the Founding Period. There may have been more than one agnostic in the group, although I can't prove that. But I can assure you that no one founded a "Christian" nation here, even though many modern-day enthusiasts would like to believe that.

We are a country where religion seems to be quite important, but we are also a country with a very serviceable set of parameters respecting that sort of thing.

Now I don't intend this as a means of shutting you up. Far from it. I hope you continue. This happens to be one of the few areas in history where I do claim to know just a little. ;)

[Steven Hauser]

Jeremy,

Go man go!!! :D

Religious zealots not many, consider the South, religious conservatism today but not then.;)

Steven

[smee]

John -

Weren't most of the founding fathers Masons?

Linda

[Steven Hauser]

Sorry to jump in,

No Linda the Mason jar for home grown brew didn't come until later.:rofl:

Anyway if the organizations membership was based on secrecy and every piece of data released is a spin or at the very least is colored by agendas, why use it as a counterpoint?:confused:

Most rhetoric that is attributed to our government Founders implies that they employed religious speech to make sure all factions of the colonies came together, i.e they worked hard to create a compromise. Not unlike today in many respects.

Steven

[jjwq8]

Interesting that none of you seem to question the notion that the founding fathers were those responsible for the spirit of '76 rather than the original colonists. The notion of a republic free of the bonds of monarchy went with those on the Mayflower, it wasn't a notion born in the continental congress but it was nurtered and given voice there.

[John Bridge]

No, most of the founders were not involed in Freemasonry, but a number of prominent characters were, George Washington being the most famous of them. In fact, Washington used a Masonic Bible when he was sworn in as president. Many of his top officers in the Revolution were also Masons -- Hamilton, Knox among them.

Folks like Jefferson and Hamilton were not, however. Ben Franklin was inducted as a printer in the 1740s, but it wasn't a big deal for him either. At that time the organization was still primarily one of tradesmen with a few wealthy merchants thrown in.

On the religion or religiosity of the founders, people tend to get things out of sequence, sometimes missing the timeline by decades. The big evangelical push in this country didn't really get going until after the birth of the nation -- actually in the 1820s. The movement was called the Second Great Awakening.

Most of the founders were dead by that time. Adams and Jefferson died in 1826, leaving Madison behind until 1836. As I stated earlier, the very well educated men who got this place off and running were "enlightened." There were staunch Christians among them, but not as many as one would think.

[smee]

uh, not much.....

I have so little knowledge on the subject. I can see how easy it is for people to get things way out of context.

Masonry is not a religion is it? It's a brick, right? :D

I never had the impression that the forming of the nation rested very heavily on religion. Another example of imposing a view on the past.

linder

[jjwq8]

Off topic note:

Billy Connolly has an interesting narrative on the Masons the he swears is true. He alleges that part of the initiation requires that the blindfolded inductee be asked a specific question whilst having a razor sharp dagger held against his jugular. Wrong answer and......
Right answer.................

Now remember this is Connolly........


"I feel a little prick."

At this point his narrative stops.

[John Bridge]

"Another example of imposing a view on the past."

There is a lot of that going on, especially here in the Bible Belt. :)

Consider, though:

George Washington was the most famous man in the world for many years before he died. Virtually all of his writings have been preserved -- thousands of documents. Not once is Jesas Christ mentioned. Washington belonged to a Christian church, to be sure. It would have been expected of him.

Jefferson so distrusted the New Testament that he compiled his own version -- sans the miracles and other dogma. He likened the process to plucking "diamonds from the dunghill." Jefferson also belonged to a church, but he hardly ever attended.

Franklin once said the only thing worth saving of the New Testament was the Sermon on the Mount. Franklin also counted himself a Christian, though. The common thread to my thinking is that none of these men considered Jesus to be God.

Thomas Paine, who wrote "Common Sense" (which played no small part in kicking off the Revolution) also wrote "The Age of Reason," a diatribe on organized religion and a testament to Deism. He could not have gotten away with that in a fervently "Christian" setting.

John Adams, who counted himself a Christain, supported Jefferson in his compilation of the New Testament (which, by the way, is usually refered to as "Jefferson's Bible."

Christianity is neither mentioned in the Declaration of Independence nor in the Constitution, an unthinkable omission for men founding a "Christian nation." :)

Jeremy,

I understand the Brit perspective on American History, and I even support some of those views, but I've never considered that any of the early Pilgrims meant to found anything other than a "colony." They had no thoughts of founding an independent nation.

[Steven Hauser]

Thanks John,

That specific info was what I did not have time to procure.

Steven

[jjwq8]

Interesting divergence of historical perspective. In the UK during my time within the formal eduaction framework, I was given the distinct impression that the Pilgrim Fathers and the Founding Fathers are synonymous. Evidently we are wrong, though much of your national celebration appears to stem from that period...Thanksgiving? for example.

Could this be more than a smidgen of self agrandisment on our part? That the US nation of today is the direct and almost sole result of British Colonization?

Could it yet be that having the benefit of clearly recorded and referencable history stretching back a millenium or so, we take the view that the founders of a nation are those that stake a claim rather than those who institute the political change that forges it's extant identity. A nation must surely be more than its political parts.

Were this to be so then the UK as a nation would have had innumerable founding fathers. Most notably perhaps Ollie Cromwell.

Somehow that notion of nation won't float.

My initial comment on the founding fathers was perhaps poorly phrased and maybe intended to incite a response. More polemic than systemic argument. Those on the Mayflower were certainly escaping what they deemed religious persecution. They were considered zealots by the authorities they left behind. The fact is that the rest of the UK at that time was largely uninformed of their status or departure. Their classification as zealots was thus entirely subjective.

The fact is however that had they not proven the viability of colonizing the east coast, by simple dint of survival in incredibly harsh conditions and a large to the indigenous peoples who made survival a reality, then the business ventures that actually spread the colonization may not have followed in on their coat tails.

It has just occurred to me that colonization is in fact cultural cancer. Well done JJ. An epiphany at 1 in the morning. I've impressed myself enough for one night. And so to bed.

[John Bridge]

Perspectives have always diverged from one side of the pond to the other. :)

I don't think you'll find many historians on this shore who will buy into the idea of the Pilgrims as founders of our nation, even though the "Puritans," as they were properly called, had a great cultural effect on the generations that followed them in New England. I can almost guarantee you the consensus here would be that the nation was founded by the leaders who over a period of several decades prepared the rank and file for revolution.

There is, however, a bit of controversy over who the founders actually were and how many there might have been. So a distiction is usually made between "founders" and "framers" of the Constitution, the Constitution being our most important of the three primary founding documents, the others being the Declaration and the Articles of Confederation.

But back to the Puritans, we must recall that other states or colonies were influenced differently. The Quakers in New Jersey and the Dutch and Germans in Pennsylvania (as well as in New Jersey), for example. The people who colonized Rhode Island were breakaways and not at all in religious accordance with the folks in Massachusetts.

And the Puritans had virtually no influence in the South, say, from Maryland on down. The very first British Colony in the New World was not Plymouth, by the way. It was Jamestown, Virginia, and the folks who settled there were anything but Puritans. :)

The story of the first Thanksgiving has been pretty much relegated to myth. There was no tradition at all until the Civil War era.

Oliver Cromwell may wall have been the founder of modern Britain. ;)

[Steven Hauser]

Hi Jeremy,

At the risk of being contentious, it strikes me as if you are striking a conciliatory position with the region that you live in. What John says is correct and not only known here. The Dutch, French, English and Spanish settlers in the various regions that make up the US contributed socially.

As John says a distinction should be drawn between framers and founders, as one would draw when discussing the colonizing influences of New England,Virginia, South Carolina, and Louisiana.

In the 16th and 17th centuries the colonizing world powers were not about religious freedom for such a small minority as the Puritans. They were in it for land & money.

Your statement about religion being the fundamental tenet makes me wonder whether or not your were making a cultural reference to the position of the Taliban, al-Qaida, and certain Shiite positions. Which by the way I find indefensible.

Steven

[flatfloor]

How come I just found this thread? I just read the whole thing and I want to comment on a lot of it but I'll start with what caught my eye on the first page.

Linda said...( although, in my opinion we[U.S] have a 'suppression' unequalled in the world today packaged and presented as freedom and equality)...

I thought you were going to express a view that I have felt for a while. The supression is wielded or used if you will by the zealots of the womens rights movement in the form of guilt imposesd on women who do not want to "have it all baby". They espouse the view that unless you have a career and babies too you are less of a woman and a failure.

Don't get me wrong on this, I firmly believe in equal rights for women but I also believe in freedom of choice for women.

[jjwq8]

Steven
I have been called many things but an apologist for extremism?
Thanks.... it's a label I will try to ignore.
My views must be influenced by my surroundings. I am not surrounded by extremists, in spite of the perceptions peddled by some.
I can find no self evident truth that may convince me that Islam is "the one true religion."
Indeed I consider any thing that has to be sold as hard as Islam is in the countries where it is the state religion, as obviously and fundamentally lacking the obvious truth that must be the base of any religion.
My opinions expressed earlier were I thought clarified. Evidently I was wrong.
Exremism is anathema to me.

[Steven Hauser]

Hi Jeremy,

Again, I am not labeling you but I am questioning you. My questions are not to defame or incite anger.

Please help me understand this:

Jeremy wrote:
I would however offer a gentle reminder that the USA was founded by colonists considered religious zealots in their British homeland which they left to establish the Christian equivilent of an Islamic Republic.

I am only a public school educated southen american with natural cultural biases coloring my world view, but in my neck of world we wake up when someone says this these days.

Sorry and generally I enjoy your missives and will be willing not to respnd again if I totally just am too stupid to play.


Steven
:confused:

[jjwq8]

Steven,
You are neither stupid nor biased. Neither exist in this forum except when I choose to prove my own.
My original point was that at the time of the pilgrim fathers, Britain was in the throes of a second reformation. Another shakeout of the organised church. the pilgrims were deemed seditious by the church. I do not believe they were thought of as heretics and I have seen no recorded threats of excommunication. Perhaps someone with contrary knowledge may correct me if I am wrong. Howard?
I chose a modern analogy, one frequently cited, to indicate the loathing in which the "church councils" held the pilgrims.
There was never any intent to suggest that the pilgrims were either extremists in fact or that they established extremism as a trait in American Christian Worship, though you do appear to tolerate them, and that speaks volumes of the tolerance that the framers/founders/whoever engendered through the constitution etc.

[Hobbit]

Jeremy.......Steven..JB..

I think you have it right. Of course, perspective is a strange thing. Remember this though...Most of the religious "activists" of this time, the ideologically strong "zealots," were Protestants. In England, James (I or II..???) is strongly going Catholic. The official "line" of the Church and of the country was to cast these early adventurers in the light of extremism or as religious zealots. While not officially excommunicated (a very serious step), these folks were "encouraged" to leave to avoid fomenting rebellion or even open discourse within the Catholic church. Interestingly, I believe the settlers in Maryland were mostly Catholic......

If I might be so bold, I believe that we have placed too much emphasis on Christianity here, and not enough on religious freedom or tolerance. These early settlers left England because of religious intolerance. They were branded as "zealots" because of the Catholic church and the religious stance of the Monarchy.

This is a very interesting period because so many different views were present in the colonies. JB...the Enlightenment was certainly one of the most influential things in the colonies during this period. However, I will contend that the Great Awakening was very contributory as well. Religious thought expanded greatly during this period. Remember, the American "Enlightenment" dates roughly from the 1680's. During the years preceding this time France had become a Catholic country and was fighting with England. France had become almost an absolute monarchy under Louis XIV and English political activists were taking notice. These activists were known as the "commonwealthmen" and espoused republicanism theory.

Meanwhile, over in England, James issued the Declarations of Indulgence which granted freedom of worship..........to Catholics. The colonists were taking notice of all of this. The absolutism demonstrated by the Catholics in France, the Catholic leanings in Britain, and the Declarations of Indulgence were real worries. About the only place in the colonies that was without strife at the time was Maryland.

The first of the true movements toward independence in the colonies occured at the end of the reign of King James. News of the "Glorious Revolution" had reached the colonies and the first fighting and rebellions occured in the late 1680's. And...these openly rebellious acts were almost exclusively caused by the religious intolerance exhibited in England and France and exported to the colonies.

Remember also that Thomas Paine wrote Common Sense in '76. He was not an early American thinker. He didn't arrive in the colonies until 1774 (I think..???). Common Sense was merely a summation of his thoughts. And while it was certainly a moving force in the discussions taking place, the basis for the thought had taken place over many years, most of which was in England.

I will contend that early political thought in the colonies during the founding period was formed by a mixture of Enlightenment, the "republicanism" of the commonwealthmen, the religious foundation provided by the original colonists and the "Great Awakening," and the unique common experience of colonial life.

[jjwq8]

Give that man a ceegar:D

[Steven Hauser]

Howard,

Thank you.

Jeremy,

It appears that I was not in the frame of the conversation the way you were.

I apologize for creating the polemic discourse that was obviously out of sync with your point.

Regards, Steven

[jjwq8]

Now an interesting point to remember is that the good book to which most of the christian english speaking world subscribe is the King James Bible. A translation/reinterpretation commissioned by the very monarch that the "zealots" were fleeing. A jaundiced view might suggest that Jimmy Rex won every which way and ultimately the great escape was for nothing.

[Steven Hauser]

Further the jaundiced view,



As drawn from A Brief History of English Bible Translations by Dr. Laurence M. Vance,

James I"...calling of the Hampton Court Conference in January of 1604 "for the hearing, and for the determining, things pretended to be amiss in the church."Here were assembled bishops, clergymen, and professors, along with four Puritan divines, to consider the complaints of the Puritans. Although Bible revision was not on the agenda, the Puritan president of Corpus Christi College, John Reynolds, "moved his Majesty, that there might be a new translation of the Bible, because those which were allowed in the reigns of Henry the eighth, and Edward the sixth, were corrupt and not answerable to the truth of the Original."


The king rejoined that he:


"Could never yet see a Bible well translated in English; but I think that, of all, that of Geneva is the worst. I wish some special pains were taken for an uniform translation, which should be done by the best learned men in both Universities, then reviewed by the Bishops, presented to the Privy Council, lastly ratified by the Royal authority, to be read in the whole Church, and none other."
Accordingly, a resolution came forth:


"That a translation be made of the whole Bible, as consonant as can be to the original Hebrew and Greek; and this to be set out and printed, without any marginal notes, and only to be used in all churches of England in time of divine service."

It sure looks like those Puritans were the instruments of their demise doesn't it.

Steven
:D

[flatfloor]

Religious dogma by committee. :rolleyes:

[jjwq8]

Jim,
Show me a committee that does not produce dogma and I'll show you a committee failing to function in its mandatory manner. Dogma or taxes are all any of them know, particularly those promulgated by the "dear leader" of the day.

[John Bridge]

This is really good stuff, folks. :)

I know what Jeremy meant originally in comparing the Puritan society in the New World to an Islamic theology. What he said was essentially true. If you lived in Plymouth Colony in the early days you were not afforded religious freedom, and you toed the line or else. :) Still, though, I would not overestimate the influence these events had on the ultimate "founding" of the United States. I think that's where I was going in my previous remarks.

As far as the Puritans being ushered out of England is concerned, that had pretty much happened previously. The Dutch were just as happy to see them immigrate to the New World as were the English. ;)


I've read that there were indeed many Catholics or "Papists" in Maryland. I don't think they ever held sway, though. Protestants ran things, as far as I know.

The Great Awakening's most memorable result was the complete turn-around in the Christian understanding of human inclination. At once, humans are inherently evil and doomed to eternal damnation with few means of escape, and in the next moment humans are no longer evil but good. Okay, so there are a few bad apples in the barrel, but there is at least hope for humanity. :)

Obviously, the founders were influenced by that thinking. I do believe the Enlightenment, however, over-shadowed the religiosity of the Great Awakening in their minds if not in the minds of the rank and file. And I do believe that it is lack of knowledge of the Enlightenment, or a gross underestimate of its effect, that allows certain factions in this country to assume a mood at the "founding" that really didn't exist. It's as if nothing of religious significance occurred between the latter years of the Great Awakening (1750s) and the Second Great Awakening of the 1820s.



Steven,

I'm glad you got over the hump. Your insight is impressive. ;)

[Hobbit]

Steven....nice passage. Thanks for looking that one up.

One thing though......I think we must be talking about different monarchs. My fault probably. I didn't research the James lineage. From what I remember of the KJV (1611..??), your James I must be an antecedent to mine. That would probably explain his more conciliatory position with respect to the Puritans. My James (II..??) reigned around 1680 ++. He was a Catholic and leaned heavily toward a state religion (Catholicism). James allied himself with Louis XIV of France who had demonstrated his absolute authority. Interestingly, he didn't rule for long. The "Glorious Revolution" took care of that.;) William of Orange (from Netherlands ..????) defeated James and his alliance with Louis XIV. William became King around 1690.

There was a really interesting period of time in England when for many years the monarchies took turns abolishing the Parliament only to have the Parliament reassert itself. James II was one of those. He wanted to have an absolute monarchy modeled after Louis XIV. This would have led to a state religion (Catholicism) and a major change in England. England was largely Protestant at the time. I believe that the House of Commons was almost entirely Protestant (???). Might be the same today........Jeremy??

[Hobbit]

JB..............

You're right. By this period, most of the Puritan ideology that was leaving the continent had already done so. I was commenting on the religious intolerance theme that still held great public interest in the colonies at this time.

I think its particularly important to note that the almost bloodless coup that overthrew James II in England was cause for celebration both there and in the colonies. This in the late 1680's or maybe 1690. The citizens in England did not want their Parliament usurped, and especially did not want a state sponsored religion. This "Glorious Revolution" was very well received in the colonies and indeed sparked the first vestiges of revolt about the same time.

These early "revolutions" were almost entirely based on religious tolerance (or lack of it). Since the "Enlightenment" is dated from the "Glorious Revolution" as well, to say that these acts were of little importance seems to contradict Enlightenment thought...????

I don't know....maybe I'm over my head here. The last time I started talking about the "Enlightenment" I got stuck reading Voltaire, and lost several days in the process.;)

:):)

[jjwq8]

Howard
I'm not so sure.
Most of the MPs were from the aristocracy who tended to be largely monarchist and catholic in surprising numbers. Simply look at Cromwell and against whom (as a group) was his principal beef.
One thing is for sure though......today our parliament is chock full of non denominational assholes.(sorry if I digress). To suggest that our parliament was represntative of the people at that time is a fine notion but in modern terms I believe you are painting too rosy a picture. Parliament then as it always has and sadly likely always will, represents the interests of those willing to suffering the prostitutions necessary to get elected. I suppose that parliament was somewhat purer then, there being fewer prostitutions around to impinge upon the process.

Give me dictatorship or a nice fat pension! :shades:

[Steven Hauser]

Howard & Jeremy,

I don't know about either conclusion.

Chew on this for a while,

Everone in England had been suffering under James II, in 1689 the Glorious Revolution filtered unevenly to the colonies. Albeit it is true that Maryland with its strong catholic population received the Grand Indulgence nicely but all the other Protestant colonies did not. So a series of revolts started taking place in the colonies.

The salient point I wish to draw is twofold.

1) Empire building was not something that England was accustomed to, consequently the colonies had been somewhat autonomous. James II, by not recognizing charters, imposing laws and taxes arbitrarily, and being catholic caused most of the problems. The interesting issues to add are the political theory of the colonies were based on John Lockes' Two Treatise on Government, English polical extremists known as Commonwealthsmen, Scottish commonsense philosophy, english common law, Puritan Theology, and obviously colonial life was wholly different than that of English living. So summation point 1 is that theology was not the driver.

2) My original point of it being based more on land and money can be historically applied like this... Let's go into the 18th century and look back on the 17th century. How could Britain translate into policy two important questions. A)Collect revenue from the colonies to cover military and administrative costs that primarily benefitted the colonies. Britain being locked in a series of conflicts with France. B) Exercise parliamentary control while allowing self rule granted in the original colonial charters.

My contention is that England) being ill prepared to manage an empire, had poor leaders in the monarchy, were locked in conflict with France, incurred escalting coststhat had to be paid, thus fomented radicals there and here, couple this with poor communication networks. Voila, we see collectively that the relationship between colonies and Britain wore very thin.

Humorously, to bring back to current dilemmas do we see any parallels in the world today?

Best regards, Steven

;)

[smee]

Steven, John, Howard and Jeremy -

this is great stuff guys!!! :)

I know next to dirt about this period and this is great reading!

History is a joy in'it?

:D thanks again for the debate, the wonderful insight into a "new" area for me, and generating interest in something I've not been interested in before.

linda

[Steven Hauser]

Uh Howard,

Sorry I did not read your note to me. Somehow I missed it and picked up the conversation right beneath yours.

Yes James the I of England took over after Elizabeth I he was James from Scotland I don't remember what #.

James II was in the period you described and got his due when William of Orange took over.


You are correct.

Best regards, Steven

[John Bridge]

Well now dammit, Howard, you've gone and done it. You've forced me to think. :D

I'll admit my knoweledge of the two or three Jameses is limited. Who was the "Old Pretender"? James the Third?

I guess I'll let the Founding rest a bit and follow along while the rest of you lead me up to it.

Steven, I think we would agree that theology was a minor player in the events leading up to the Revolution. I'll take that back. It was less important that often purported.

On the Great Awakening v. the Enlightenment, it could be that the elites had a much different view of things that did the rank and file.

[Hobbit]

JB....Thinking is good for us.....keeps us young!!

I will admit to having some second thoughts about the plurality of religion in England after Jeremy painted a less than rosy picture of the process. I assumed too much.

Without spending an inordinate amount of time to research all of this, I will still contend that the Protestants were by and large the controlling power in Parliament. I know the Catholics of the period were very loosely organized in England and the rest of the Crown. Until long after Ireland was formally "adopted," the Protestants ruled there as well. When the two parliaments formally became one, life became a little easier for Catholics.

I think I might have overstated my position earlier. I think the crux of my argument is that at the time of the start of the "Enlightenment" period, Protestants were a very strong majority both in England and in the colonies. When James II took the throne he was the first Catholic king in many decades (maybe 150 years??). James II started to copy Louis XIV and attempted to shut down the Parliament and set up a Catholic absolute monarchy. The resulting "argument" accomplished several things. It started a move to depose James II, who by this time had allied himself with Louis XIV of France, and it caused a similar response movement in the colonies. The revolts of the late 1680's were the first vestiges of the revolution that formed our nation. James II went down to defeat when the Protestant king, William, took over the Monarchy.

I believe that the founding period started earlier than you allude to JB. I believe that the thought processes that ultimately led to the revolution started in the late 17th century. They were markedly influenced by revisionist thought in England (Enlightenment) and by the secularizing of religious thought in the colonies that marked the "Great Awakening." Compound all of this "thinking" with the loss of autonomy that the colonists had enjoyed from the beginning, add a few years to let the pot boil, and.................;)

[Steven Hauser]

Howard said,

"I don't know....maybe I'm over my head here. The last time I started talking about the "Enlightenment" I got stuck reading Voltaire, and lost several days in the process". STeven says better Voltaire than Rouseau. I just got stuck reading his dry views.:crazy:

Though dry it helped me formulate this idea. Enlightenment in the US was a strange dynamic between the English, which as I said earlier provided political ideals and evangelical theology and the French which provided concepts of deism, language of natural law, including inherent freedoms and self-determination. Interestingly that makes discussions like this difficult because all the French Enlightenment ideals were wrapped in traditional religion.

John,

I did not mean to say religion was insignificant it was quite the contrary. I meant to say that there were other powerful needs and gross inequities that was pushing toward the eventual American Revolution. One salient point to make is that the religious significance in America during the Enlightenment came out of the Great Awakening.

First, let's agree that it was not one great wave but several minor waves.

If we agree about the basic tenet of Enlightenment-- deism, self determination, and inherent freedoms-- then I can trace a few Great Awakening events that supported Enlightenment ideals.

1) North and South included, at least 80% of Americans shared an Evangelical view of life. (This provided great commonality among the colonies.)
2) Dissent and dissenters had greater respect than ever before. ( This was obviously important in establishing common laws.)
3) Greater emphasis on education. This started out as Protestant concern for souls but did provide education for all(Howard is probably happy about that! :D )
4) Greater sense of responsibility for slaves and Indians. ( Eventually led evangelicals to denounce as sinful)

These basic tenets from the first Great Awakening established a foundation for the Enlightenment ideals.

That is what I think this week.

Best regards, Steven

[John Bridge]

I don't know about the 80 percent figure, but I can agree that a resounding majority of Americans shared evangelical views during that period. I will maintain, though, that the elites (as I call them) were by and large not a part of the majority and didn't care to be. As I stated earlier, they were certainly Christians on paper and maintained the trappings of that faith; but I don't believe they were earnest in what I would term the "Christian belief," and I define that as believing that Jesus is God.

They were politicians mostly and understood the importance of being well received by the masses. That's not to say they would have actually called themselves politicians. Heaven forbid. ;)

And that is certainly not to say that men of letters were not included in the evangelical majority. I'm only saying that many of those who would be at the forefront of politics in the sixties and seventies were not devout believers.

[jjwq8]

Off topic John but you quoting eras reminded me of one of the best lines ever in a movie. Dennis Hopper to Keifer Sutherland at the end of Flashback.

"Son after the Eighties, the Nineties are gonna make the Sixties look like the Fifties".

Quite why that so appeals is frankly something of a mystery.;)

[John Bridge]

Surely not "deja vu all over again." :D

[jjwq8]

Nope. Deja vu was a different movie. 14 different movies actually (dont believe me? check it out). now that really is deja vu all over again.:D