Comments on: The Christian Right Circa 1839 http://helian.net/blog/2009/09/12/worldview/the-christian-right-circa-1839/ The world as I see it Thu, 02 Feb 2012 12:54:06 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Pat Patterson http://helian.net/blog/2009/09/12/worldview/the-christian-right-circa-1839/comment-page-1/#comment-493 Pat Patterson Fri, 23 Oct 2009 00:33:06 +0000 http://helian.net/blog/?p=925#comment-493 I would probably agree somewhat concerning a desire for special treatment but you still haven't really addressed that most of the Christians, outside of the Tory Church of England, were supporters of the Revolution. Believing that all men are equal is simply incompatible with being charged with supporting divine rule. In fact Protestantism made the Revolution not only intellectually possible but most of the bitter resentment to the Crown came from those counties in the colonies that were settled by people from shires and boroughs in England where England's parliamentary revolutions received much of its muscle. Plus they were people extremely resentful in the colonies as well as when they were in Britain of having to pay taxes that supported the Church of England. If you want to identify the Christian right of the Revolution as Tory then fine. But the Church of England and its successors have had little sway in the US since then. In fact something like 70% of the Church of England hierarchy fled the country for Canada or England. As to the fetishism of symbols I would like to point out that no one has forced you to become a believer or pay taxes to support one particular church. I would probably agree somewhat concerning a desire for special treatment but you still haven’t really addressed that most of the Christians, outside of the Tory Church of England, were supporters of the Revolution. Believing that all men are equal is simply incompatible with being charged with supporting divine rule. In fact Protestantism made the Revolution not only intellectually possible but most of the bitter resentment to the Crown came from those counties in the colonies that were settled by people from shires and boroughs in England where England’s parliamentary revolutions received much of its muscle. Plus they were people extremely resentful in the colonies as well as when they were in Britain of having to pay taxes that supported the Church of England.

If you want to identify the Christian right of the Revolution as Tory then fine. But the Church of England and its successors have had little sway in the US since then. In fact something like 70% of the Church of England hierarchy fled the country for Canada or England.

As to the fetishism of symbols I would like to point out that no one has forced you to become a believer or pay taxes to support one particular church.

]]> By: admin0 http://helian.net/blog/2009/09/12/worldview/the-christian-right-circa-1839/comment-page-1/#comment-490 admin0 Thu, 22 Oct 2009 11:02:49 +0000 http://helian.net/blog/?p=925#comment-490 You've completely missed the point. I refer explicitly in the post to "the Christian right" and "political Christians," not to Christians in general. In fact, taking the Bible as our guide, these people bear little resemblance to Christians. They are not meek, nor are they are not poor in spirit, nor do they pay any heed to the biblical injunction to “judge not lest ye be judged.” Rather, they claim special privileges not enjoyed by other citizens, and they insist that the state recognize and protect those privileges. Far from insisting on a wall of separation between church and state, as did, for example, the early Baptists you allude to, they deny that any such wall should exist. For example, they insist that the motto “In God We Trust” be retained on our coinage, with its implication that this “We,” meaning the citizens of the United States, does not include those, such as myself, who have no such trust. They insist on the inclusion of the phrase “under God” in the very pledge of allegiance to our country. As a result, even though I voluntarily laid my life on the line for my country in Vietnam, I am precluded from pledging my allegiance to my country using the established formula. They insist on the establishment of a privileged status by the display of Christian symbols on state property and in state buildings. The very phrase “Christian nation” is meaningless unless understood as a claim to such a special privilege. In a word, while the adherents of the Christian right may not be recognizable as Christians, they are certainly recognizable as an “in-group” of the type I have referred to in earlier posts on the Amity-Enmity Complex. In that respect, they are entirely similar to another in-group; the Tories at the time of our revolution. Both insist on special privileges, special rights, and special status, all of which should be sanctioned by state power. You’ve completely missed the point. I refer explicitly in the post to “the Christian right” and “political Christians,” not to Christians in general. In fact, taking the Bible as our guide, these people bear little resemblance to Christians. They are not meek, nor are they are not poor in spirit, nor do they pay any heed to the biblical injunction to “judge not lest ye be judged.” Rather, they claim special privileges not enjoyed by other citizens, and they insist that the state recognize and protect those privileges. Far from insisting on a wall of separation between church and state, as did, for example, the early Baptists you allude to, they deny that any such wall should exist. For example, they insist that the motto “In God We Trust” be retained on our coinage, with its implication that this “We,” meaning the citizens of the United States, does not include those, such as myself, who have no such trust. They insist on the inclusion of the phrase “under God” in the very pledge of allegiance to our country. As a result, even though I voluntarily laid my life on the line for my country in Vietnam, I am precluded from pledging my allegiance to my country using the established formula. They insist on the establishment of a privileged status by the display of Christian symbols on state property and in state buildings. The very phrase “Christian nation” is meaningless unless understood as a claim to such a special privilege. In a word, while the adherents of the Christian right may not be recognizable as Christians, they are certainly recognizable as an “in-group” of the type I have referred to in earlier posts on the Amity-Enmity Complex. In that respect, they are entirely similar to another in-group; the Tories at the time of our revolution. Both insist on special privileges, special rights, and special status, all of which should be sanctioned by state power.

]]> By: Pat Patterson http://helian.net/blog/2009/09/12/worldview/the-christian-right-circa-1839/comment-page-1/#comment-488 Pat Patterson Thu, 22 Oct 2009 07:06:32 +0000 http://helian.net/blog/?p=925#comment-488 You're sort of correct if the comment is used to describe the priests and bishops of the Church of England who were definitly Tories and made the catastrophic mistake of supporting the Crown during the Revolution. But the other Christian churches for example Baptists, Methodists, Quakers, Roman Catholics and even Jews were almost unanimous in supporting the Revolution and I suppose would have been identified as Whig. And to use as an example of Tory or Christian thought in America from a pamphlet written in 1839 by an Englishman completely ignores the Second Great Awakening in the US which repeated the idea that all men are equal and all could be saved. Hardly a ringing endorsement of Tory thought. You’re sort of correct if the comment is used to describe the priests and bishops of the Church of England who were definitly Tories and made the catastrophic mistake of supporting the Crown during the Revolution. But the other Christian churches for example Baptists, Methodists, Quakers, Roman Catholics and even Jews were almost unanimous in supporting the Revolution and I suppose would have been identified as Whig.

And to use as an example of Tory or Christian thought in America from a pamphlet written in 1839 by an Englishman completely ignores the Second Great Awakening in the US which repeated the idea that all men are equal and all could be saved. Hardly a ringing endorsement of Tory thought.

]]>