Hi everyone.This seems like a loaded question but I am not a Christian of any stripe so don’t think I am anti-Catholic.I actually like Catholicism because of the rituals and history.
Catholics and Prostestants,historically,didn’t get along.Surprise.They still don’t get along in northern Ireland.Suprise again.And in the balkans the Catholics and the Serbian Orthodox don’t get along too well that I know of.Correct?
In Germany where the numbers are pretty even(with protestants)they seem to get along,obviously,however,Germany is a very rich country and,at least now,very stable.This is a bit of a balm on sectarian issues,n’est-ce-pas?
Anyways if I were Emporer of 18th and 19th century America I wouldn’t have let them in.I don’t think it makes sense politically to allow strongly differing sects close proximity.That is why I don’t think it makes sense letting Islamicists in America today because of their phenomanally strong belief system.That is nothing against Musulmans,however,as I think their belief system is awesome from an anthropological standpoint.Probably makes alot more sense than Christianity.Though I don’t think they let christians emmigrate to their countries.At least the mojority of them don’t
Nonetheless if the essence of Politics is stability why were Catholics let in? I know Catholics and Protestants doctrinally differ pretty much only on the eucharist,however,culturally they are phenomenally different.Is it because during the Civil war,Irish catholics made good Confederate cannon fodder.I know that sounds cold,however,that is what I am thinking why they were let in en mass.Thanks tons,Roland.
Well, there was no emperor in America, there was a president. And since a large portion of the first settlers in America were escaping religious persecution, it wouild be pretty damn hypocritical to deny people from one religion. Added to the fact that when it was founded (or a few years after) America was seen as a place for ANYONE to come and start a new life, not anyone except Catholics, Muslims, Hindus, etc…
“Musulmans?”
Anyway, during a good chunk of the Seventeenth Century, the British monarchy pretty much alternated between Protestant and Catholic. When one was in the ascendancy, members of the other group would leave for the colonies, resulting in successive waves of British colonists alternating between Protestant and catholic dominant.
Also, France had some interest in the North American continent, and France was predominately Catholic.
As “Emporer of 18th and 19th century America” the colonies is exactly where I would send dissident groups, the better to keep them from bothering my core constituency. I presume you mean the British monarchs for the 18th century; by the 19th century the United States at least were pretty much running their own show. It was policy to try to recruit as many immigrants as possible to fill the open spaces on the map, and Americans have never been too fussy about doctrinal issues as long as those frog-faced heathens can be sent to Nebraska or some other God-forsaken place.
Stability in Politics is best developed through the interaction of a multiplicity of viewpoints. Monoculture in civic life is as unhealthy as monocultural agriculture. It is essential to have persons whom you can honestly disagree with in order to ensure that the interests of ALL Americans are aired. If all the representatives of the civil body agree on everything, that leads to the tyranny of the majority, which we have seen can lead to discrimination, pogroms, and the attempted destruction of the disenfranchised minority.
Catholics were in American before there was an United States. Maryland, for instance, was set up as a colony for Catholics; the King of England allowed Lord Baltimore to establish it.
England went back and forth between protestant and Catholic rules during the 17th Century, when the colonies were being formed. This led to displaced people of many religions who wanted to leave (not to mention the Dutch in New Amsterdam, who had no problems with a multireligious colony).
During the period of the Commonwealth in England (1649 - 1660), after Charles I was executed, the monarchy was abolished, and Parliament was controlled by the Puritans, many Irish Catholics who fought Cromwell’s conquest of Ireland were sent in exile to Virginia. This happened again with Irish captives after the restoration of the monarchy, when William III defeated the Irish forces of James II at the Boyne (1690) and elsewhere.
When the Revolutionary War began (1775), there were about 26,000 Catholics in what would soon become the United States.
The draw of America was escape from religious persecution, but an even bigger draw was the promise that religion would not be part of government, especially after the United States was formed. In Europe, most countries endorsed the religion of its leader. So, at various times, Catholicism was out of favor and at others, Protestantism was out of favor. Unfortunately, the “ruling” religion did not usually tolerate any other religion. The Church of England was formed when the Roman Catholic Church refused to grant a divorce to the king (forgot the name), and it still underwent many changes to arrive at its modern form.
And of course there were the Spanish who were strongly Catholic.
Plus of course you forget that in the early centuries it was impossible to stop people entering America - it was too big to patrol. And once a community has been established it is very difficult to remove it - consider the Catholics who remained in England during Henry viii’s and later Elizabeth 1’s reign - not to mention the Protestants during Bloody Mary’s reign. It just goes underground until it is safe to resurface.
I’m not sure about your assertion that people of different faiths should not inhabit a place. I live in a community that has Islam and Christianity as the main religions with a healthy sprinkling of other religions/atheists mixed in. There seems to be very little religious tension as most people just respect others and get on with life. Of course there will always be a few dissidents but if it was not about religion it would be about something else. I have learnt a lot from the people in my community and i feel i am richer for it. I certainly would not advocate religious seperatism or any other kind.
I can’t think of any period when England was under Catholic rule in the 17th century. Between the reigns of Mary Tudor and James II (1558 - 1685), it was one long anti-Catholic persecution.
And then there is Louisiana, which used to be a French (i.e. Catholic) colony.
The OP probably speaks some kind of Romance language as his/her first language. “Muslim” translates to “musulman” in French, “musulmanes” in Spanish, “musulmani” in Italian, etc.
Hi guys.Thanks for the wonderful answers,however pertinent and relevant they are I feel they are insufficient and possibly some historical errors.
Incidentally I am a good socialist,laissez-faire type.Hence I have alot in common with liberals,however this is a subject I don’t broach with them because it is unwinnable.Not even by attrition.I would rather be in the cage with Tank or Tito than a 90 lb. liberal on this,at least I have a prayer.
I mentioned this subject,about restricting other religions entry into America to some of my liberal friends around 9/11.At that time,and only at that time did they seem less righteously indignant.But they still were intransigent:any religious group at anytime.
Yes you surbanites with your nice multi-religous neighborhoods are a marvel of social engineering however your only kidding yourself.Those people hindis,moslems,buddhists etc.,etc. have no real power in this country.They are completely tame and it is oh so easy to like the tame,everyone does.Christians,mainly Protestants,white or black,control the reins.Go to a country like the Balkans,Kashmir or present day Iraq(sheas and sunnis) if you want to see some real power sharing and posturing.It ain’t so rosy.Don’t go if you have kids to feed-disclaimer.
Anyways the original settlers,Puritans,left to flee the Anglican church.They were fleeing religious persecution.Yes they were Protestant and hence liberal,you know its scions,scientific inquiry and openess,Gallileo,Newton,Darwin, and their ilke,however,like the Lutherans(the original reformationists) they weren’t exactly “liberal” when it came to religious toleration.They had lilttle toleration for other protestants let alone the followers of the anti-christ themselves,the papists.
It may not have been on the books but it was (whispered tones here) de facto policy to restrict Catholic emigration.Then that changed.Why?
Perhaps the outcome of Protestant liberalism itself?Too much free reign and license.Not alot of realism.Kind of like what Marx said about Capitalism,it will eat itself.Thanks tons,Roland.
This is going to end badly.
Speaking of historical errors, the original settlers were in Jamestown (1607), and were not Puritans. The Puritans were confined primarily to New England(1620), and had no influence over the other colonies. As mentioned above, Maryland was originally founded as a Catholic colony (1634), and neither Virginia nor Plymouth Bay had anything to say about who emigrated there.
I only commented because it is a very anachronistic term in English, even if it were spelles correctly.
Roland64, your posts are in violation of the SDMB Registration Agreement:
Repeat this and you will be banned.
This is closed.
-xash
General Questions Moderator