Mencken and the Puritans

I am not sure what to make of Mencken's comments on the Puritans. Based on the quotes it sounds very dry and saterical. There may not be any serious analysis in his assessment, but if you are going to take something from it there is a message.

Like it or not, the Puritans are part of American heritage. They did set the tone for what would become the culture of America. But there were many aspects of their customs that do not fit into what America is today. The Puritans were against many things like drinking, dancing, and theatre. These are means of free expression that few Christians today would decry. But it's worth looking into the Purtians reasoning for these bans. They believed that these forces were corrupting and they distracted people from their Christian duties. Whether or not we agree with them is a personal matter, but it's hard to deny that these restrictive views are not compatible with a free society. Some of their beliefs like those of property rights did take hold. But their extreme religious views could not propogate in a free society.

I read the article about praying and I commented on it. The way I see it, nobody has a right to tell anybody they can't pray to whatever supernatural deity they want. So long as nobody imposes their beliefs or customs on anybody else, they may do as they please in a peaceful way. I am put off by atheist organization and extremists that want to expunge religion from public places. As far as I'm concerned, that's no different than religious groups wanting to expunge secularism from the public place. If you can do one you can do the other and in a free society, freedom to worship comes with the package.

How easy it is to impugn the Puritans. Who would dare defend them? The problem with our nature is that we concentrate on the sins of others and especially of those with whom we disagree. This allows us to justify the rejection of everything else they did that may have been good.

We owe a debt to the Puritans for the very existence of constitutionalism, including the basic concepts of rule of law, federalism, representative government, separation of powers, check and balances…These are all based on Biblical Theology.

The name Puritan refers to their desire to reform the Church and England to adhere to the Scriptures as their authority for faith and practice. The original Pilgrims were called Separatists, meaning they had given up on the Church of England and wanted to separate from its authority. The English Church persecuted them and the Puritans so they fled to America to establish a free church. All of these factions where reformed in their doctrine; they differed in their view of church and state.

The Separatists and Reformed Baptists were successful in achieving religious liberty as the law of the land embodied in the first amendment. The Puritans changed their Confession of Faith (The American version of the Westminster) to reflect this change in their theology (most notable under the paragraph on the civil magistrate).

These men did most of the fighting and dying in the American Revolution. Their motivation was not only a free state, but also a free church. To disparage them is to demonstrate ignorance of the first things of liberty and prosperity. To be ignorant of these things is to lose them.

Valiant, I am not condemning the Puritans or making light of their role in America. I stated that they did play a significant part in setting up institutions that would later become the American Republic. And they deserve respect for this. I also agree that it is easy to single out their sins as a people with respect to the American principles of freedom. But while they did lay the foundation, there are aspects of their influence that were negative as there are with anybody.

The Puritan's restrictive ideology was extreme, even by the standards of the time. And while in a legal sense they did espouse freedom to speak and live, those that said anything out of line were still stigmatized and in many cases persecuted. The best example of this is when someone was accused of being a witch. It wasn't always due to religiously driven ignorance. Sometimes they just didn't like what someone was saying and an accusation could easily get someone killed and rob them of their land and property. This unofficial restriction on free speech was reinforced by the system at the time. But when the founding fathers came along, they saw the problems with these matters and pushed for a strict separation between the state and religion.

Many who don't look at history in context may see them in a negative light. But that doesn't take away from their influence. I don't condemn the Puritans, but they are not immune to criticism. And as Mencken showed, they aren't immune from jokes either.

Thank you for your comments on the public square as common ground for all forms of thoughts and expression (within the bounds of civility, of course).

I grew up in a part of the world where freedom of thought, expression and property are highly prized. Alaskans will still shoot one another over those issues. There's a relative newcomer to my neighborhood who annually objects to anyone putting out religious Christmas decorations. I started putting them out myself just because of her. Up to that point, I wasn't much into outdoor decorating at 20 below zero, but if she was going to push the issue, my Alaskan spirit was going to push back. It also keeps her off my front porch with her annual petition. She knows where I stand.

On the other hand, there's a hindbound old curmudgeon who lives across the street from my church. He's an admitted atheist. Has no use for God whatsoever. He mows our church lawn if we don't get to it. Why? Just being neighborly, he says. And, he likes Christians generally. He just doesn't have much use for God.

There are those who disbelieve in God who still hold to the Constitution's freedom of speech, religion and assembly clauses and then there are those who do not. Civilized people should be able to disagree and still function as an overall unified society. Just so long as we remember that whole civility thing.

Thank you for sharing your story about your neighbors, Aurora. They make a strong point. I think John Stossel said it best when he stated that the essance of a free society is the freedom to do anything so long as it is peaceful. If someone wants to pray in a public place in a peaceful manner, that's fine. If someone wants to show religious or non-religious symbols, that's fine too. But the line is drawn when either group, religious or not, starts harassing people and annoying them.

When I was in college there were these campaign groups for certainc candidates in the upcoming election. Most were peaceful, but I remember there was this one group for Mike Huckabee that were a little more obnoxious than most. They would literally stand in peoples' way and start ranting to people that Huckabee was the only hope for America. Of course they said that about all the candidates, but when people become obnoxious about it that's a problem. I decided to respond and I called them out on a few issues, which I quickly learned they knew absolutely nothing about. It caught them off guard and it shut them up.

I'm opposed to any extremists, religious or non-religious, heckling people in public places. Just because we don't believe in the same things doesn't mean we can't live peacefully.