Current Events > Was America a theocracy in the very beginning?

(+) Yeah! (+)

The Pilgrims sound like a theocratic people.

---

They bounced to be Protestant

---

People came to the new world to practice freedom of religion. That is to say freedom to practice their religion. Not others.

---

some of the colonies were. The Unites States were not.

---

The pilgrims werent the USA?

---

It's a theocracy now
---

Yeah, the Puritans were pretty theocratic. Priests weren't literally in charge of government, but they had a ton of influence, and "secular" authorities based a lot of laws on religious mores. Providence, Rhode Island was actually founded by a priest the Puritans exiled, IIRC.

The early New England Colonies, and even the Anglican settlement at Jamestown, were all Christian Commonwealths that punished heresy, blasphemy, and dissent from the Protestant religion. Strictly speaking--however--this isn't the same as a theocracy because there was not any direct rule by the institutional church. For example, pastors were not typically invested with direct political power as they would be in a theocracy. The Puritan Commonwealths believed in the cooperation between church and state, but they also believed that church and state had distinct roles that could not be conflated. The Puritan leader John Cotton explained it thusly:

"The Word, and Scriptures of God do contain a short platform, not only of theology, but also of other sacred sciences, [such as] ethics, economics, politics, church government, prophecy, academy. It is very suitable to God's all-sufficient wisdom, and to the fulness and perfection of Holy Scriptures, not only to prescribe perfect rules for the right ordering of a private man's soul to everlasting blessedness with himself, but also for the right ordering of a man's family, yea, of the commonwealth too, so far as both of them are subordinate to spiritual ends, and yet avoids both the churches' usurpation upon civil jurisdictions, and the commonwealth's invasion upon ecclesiastical administrations, in ordine to civil peace, and conformity to the civil state."

Here we see a basic principle of Puritan political thought. Namely, that both the political society and the church are directly ruled by the Word of God, even if those two spheres are technically separate. There is here no acceptance of the secularist principle, espoused by Thomas Jefferson and many others, that "it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." The end of government is not simply the protection of an individual's natural right to life and property as Jefferson implies, but it is to cultivate a spirit of Christian community in which men can love God and, in doing so, learn to live with others in a way exemplifying Christian virtues of charity, grace and mercy. For the most illustrative exposition of Puritan political principles, I'd recommend reviewing John Winthrop's famous Model of Christian Charity, in which he outlines the Puritan vision of a Christian community.

The spirit of Puritanism was profoundly illiberal in that it rejected modern notions of individual rights and believed that there was a final end that political society should aspire to direct citizens to. For the Puritans and for Christians more generally, Christianity is the one right way of life. Puritanism suggests that it is impossible to accept the chimerical liberal principle of the "morally neutral" society because moral neutrality itself would undermine the dedication to Christian virtue that makes a flourishing and harmonious society possible. The Puritans assumed that the Bible was true and that its words proscribed binding rules for political life. At the same time, its illiberalism was not informed by feudalist or medieval concepts of monarchy. The Puritans were deeply committed to republican and even classically democratic principles. The English Puritan John Milton, for instance, connected biblical principles of servant leadership to republican simplicity, frugality and equality:

And what government comes nearer to [the political precepts] of Christ, than a free commonwealth; wherein they who are the greatest, are perpetual servants and drudges to the public at their own cost and charges, neglect their own affairs, yet are not elevated above their brethren; live soberly in their families, walk the street as other men, may be spoken to freely, familiarly, friendly, without adoration? Whereas a king must be adored like a demigod, with a dissolute and haughty court about him, of vast expense and luxury, masks and revels, to the debauching of our prime gentry both male and female; not in their pastimes only, but in earnest, by the loose employments of court-service, which will be then thought honourable.

The famous New England town meeting was the direct outgrowth of the Puritan commitment to republicanism and teaches us lessons about their concept of the cooperation between church and state. Because they believed the Bible to be the only way to organize a Commonwealth, they made it mandatory to be a church member to participate in political life. Both the church and the state were organized along democratic lines, with new church members making professions of faith and being voted into church membership by the congregation. The state, comprised of church members, allowed citizens to directly participate in the making of their own laws and to elect magistrates to enforce them. The Puritans have been presented as both radical theocrats and as proto-liberals, but neither of these presentations does justice to the actual beliefs that these people had in my view. If you are interested in exploring this subject further, let me know and I'd be happy to forward some documents and secondary sources on it.

---

ElatedVenusaur posted...

Yeah, the Puritans were pretty theocratic. Priests weren't literally in charge of government, but they had a ton of influence, and "secular" authorities based a lot of laws on religious mores. Providence, Rhode Island was actually founded by a priest the Puritans exiled, IIRC.

Puritans did not have "priests" as do the Roman Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox. They embraced the Protestant notion of the priesthood of all believers. There is a key difference between Protestant pastors and Roman Catholic priests. RC priests offer up the sacrifice of the Mass to atone for the sins of people and they also serve as direct intermediaries to God. You confess your sins to the priest, for example, and he absolves you. Protestant pastors are not anything like that. They preach the Word of God under the assumption that all believers--not just a select group of priests--have the capacity to perceive the ultimate divine truths in the pages of Scripture and to interact directly with God. Ordinary people do not have to go through the papacy or the priesthood to receive solace and the assurance of forgiveness. They find it in the words of Jesus Christ recorded in Scripture, taught by pastors.

Duncanwii posted...

People came to the new world to practice freedom of religion. That is to say freedom to practice their religion. Not others.

This is one of the classic fallacies in the popular mind about Puritanism. It is the result of an effort to simultaneously cast the Puritans as devotees of nascent liberalism ("they wanted to practice freedom of religion") and then to punish them for not living up to the liberal principles that supposedly informed them. But this fails to understand the Puritans on their own terms--to understand them as they understood themselves. They did not come to America to create a society informed by modern notions of freedom of religion. They came to America, as John Winthrop explained in his Model of Christian Charity, to create a Christian Commonwealth that could show the world that an unabashedly Protestant republic could succeed where other pagan and Roman Catholic societies had failed. Their frustrations with England were less about being unable to believe what they wanted to, but were more due to their reticence with the capacity to reform a church that seemed hopelessly committed to quasi-Romanist practices. A fresh start in a new place was seen as a better prospect for Protestant Christians than further efforts to change an unchangeable society.

---

the founding fathers werent even christian, idk why americans think that america was intended to be a christian country
most of them were deists

---

Effectively, but not literally

---

some of the colonies were de jure theocracies, but the usa itself was explicitly secular, albeit a de facto theocracy at the cultural level until it was eroded by modernist movements from the mid-20th century onward

---

Ryuko_Chan posted...

the founding fathers werent even christian, idk why americans think that america was intended to be a christian country
(almost?) all of them were deists

This is only true if you know nothing about Founding Era American history and thus reduce "the Founding Fathers" to a handful of elite heretics. In this category, it is quite clear that Thomas Paine, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and John Adams were unbelievers. James Madison is debatable in that, while he initially intended to become a Presbyterian minister as a young man, he seems to have become extremely private about his religious beliefs later on and never really spoke about the extent of his fidelity. Alexander Hamilton, who for much of his career was a secular deist, actually converted to Christianity later in life, writing:

"I have carefully examined the evidences of the Christian religion and if I was sitting as a juror upon its authenticity I would unhesitantly give my verdict in its favor. I can prove its truth as clearly as any proposition ever submitted to the mind of man."

And:

"Mortals hastening to the tomb, and once the companions of my pilgrimage, take warning, and avoid my errors. Cultivate the virtues I have recommended. Choose the Savior I have chosen. Live disinterestedly, and would you rescue anything from final dissolution, lay it up in God."

George Washington also spoke frequently about the importance of Christianity to the operation of American republicanism:

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and cherish them.

While it is true that he was quite ecumenical in his mindset, paying little attention to matters of theological dogma and emphasizing the capacity of religion to elevate the morals of citizens, there is indisputable evidence that Washington often prayed and attended church. Whether he accepted the divinity of Christ is disputable, but his respect for the Christian religion is not. On his tombstone is engraved John 11:25: "I am the resurrection and the life. The one who believes in me will live, even though they die." I struggle to see how a Deist could have allowed anyone to put this passage on his tombstone, and he himself requested it.

Most importantly, it is undeniable that deeply important Founders such as Samuel Adams, Patrick Henry, John Witherspoon, John Dickinson, Roger Sherman, John Hancock, Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton, and James Wilson were all orthodox Protestant Christians who spoke frequently about the relationship between Christianity and the free society. "All those concerned in consulting and labouring for the redemption of their country, must be very exemplary Christians," Samuel Adams explained, "For no political measures can possibly be reasonable or just, which are not dictated by men of piety and real Christianity." Before you arbitrarily retort that these people do not matter because they are less famous than Washington or Jefferson, it is worth considering that they were all signers of the Declaration of Independence--a document of no small significance--and also that many of them were deeply involved in the writing and ratification of the Constitution. The Declaration itself makes its religious sentiment quite clear, invoking the Puritan sense of dedication to others for the glory of God:

"We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent StatesFor the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."

Even the blatant unbelievers who I listed above often spoke of their deep respect for Christianity and their conviction that a free society depended upon citizens defined by Christian morality. While Jefferson denied Christian truths such as the Trinity and the resurrection, for example, he nonetheless insisted that the morals of Jesus presented the "the most perfect and sublime system that has ever been taught by man." In Notes on the State of Virginia, Jefferson wrote:

"Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep for ever."

John Adams, in like manner, said that "our constitution is made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other." And: "The Christian religion is, above all the Religions that ever prevailed or existed in ancient or modern times, the religion of Wisdom, Virtue, Equity, and Humanity. Let the Blackguard Paine say what he will; it is Resignation to God, it is goodness itself to man."

The "Deist Founding" is far more mythical than the Christian America theory. But modern day Atheists find comfort in the idea that the Founders were all deists because, if they were men who respected Christian beliefs and found them important for the flourishing of a republican society, it would obviously suggest that they are bad citizens who are rebelling not only against God, but against the nation's guiding principles.

---