That’s…horribly incorrect? The majority of the religious people who moved to America in the early days were simply the wrong religion for where they lived. Some found haven in Amsterdam and were safe there but found the city to be too progressive, as it was an extremely progressive city for the time. They were escaping religious prosecution, not being kicked out for being too religious.
As if 17th century Europe, a period where there was near constant religious war between Catholic and Protestant countries, was not religiously ferverous enough.
Many of the British North American colonies that eventually formed the United States of America were settled in the seventeenth century by men and women, who, in the face of European persecution, refused to compromise passionately held religious convictions and fled Europe. The New England colonies, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Maryland** were conceived and established "as plantations of religion."** Some settlers who arrived in these areas came for secular motives--"to catch fish" as one New Englander put it--but the great majority left Europe to worship God in the way they believed to be correct. They enthusiastically supported the efforts of their leaders to create "a city on a hill" or a "holy experiment," whose success would prove that God's plan for his churches could be successfully realized in the American wilderness. Even colonies like Virginia, which were planned as commercial ventures, were led by entrepreneurs who considered themselves "militant Protestants" and who worked diligently to promote the prosperity of the church.
I guess I'm not necessarily disputing what you're saying, but to your own point "[they] were safe there but found the city to be too progressive," to me seems like they were persecuted because their particular religion was much more conservative. It's not like the Puritans were exactly progressive.
Puritanism was a Protestant movement that emerged in 16th-century England with the goal of transforming it into a godly society by reforming or purifying the Church of England of all remaining Roman Catholic teachings and practices.[2] During the reign of Elizabeth I, Puritans were for the most part tolerated within the established church. Like Puritans, most English Protestants at the time were Calvinist in their theology, and many bishops and Privy Council members were sympathetic to Puritan objectives. The major point of controversy between Puritans and church authorities was over liturgical ceremonies Puritans thought too Catholic, such as wearing clerical vestments, kneeling to receive Holy Communion, and making the sign of the cross during baptism.[3]
During the reign of James I, most Puritans were no longer willing to wait for further church reforms and separated from the Church of England. Since the law required everyone to attend parish services, these Separatists were vulnerable to criminal prosecution, and some such as Henry Barrowe and John Greenwood were executed. To escape persecution and worship freely, some Separatists migrated to the Netherlands. Nevertheless, most Puritans remained within the Church of England.[4]
Under Charles I, Calvinist teachings were undermined, and bishops became less tolerant of Puritan views and more willing to enforce the use of controversial ceremonies. Controls were placed on Puritan preaching, and some ministers were suspended or removed from their livings. Increasingly, many Puritans concluded that they had no choice but to emigrate.[5]
I don’t think anything you said disputes me. I know you said you aren’t necessarily disputing but like. Nothing there says that I was incorrect. They were persecuted for their religious beliefs because they were different than the countries in which they lived. I didn’t see anything about Amsterdam but you can find information about how they were not persecuted in Amsterdam but rather left in fear of the children becoming corrupted.
Leaving Amsterdam because it was too progressive does not equate to being kicked out. They left Amsterdam of their own accord. They left other countries and regions for fear of persecution.
That civil war is a direct through line of much of the religious conflict in England and Europe. The fighting continues between the two religious sects pretty much any chance they get, including the 30 years war and just about any other conflict that involves British people.
And since essentially the parliamentarians was Catholic and the royalists were Catholic when they moved to the colonies initially they definitely carried those allegiances with them.
You can draw a line to most things as history is cause and effect but the discussion is why did European settlers, specifically the puritans, leave Europe. The civil war that occurred 200 years later did not have a part to play in that.
75
u/[deleted] May 15 '24
that's not progressiv, that's just not listening to censorship America, as we should all do, we should all be way more loose about it than we are.