Many of the Founders (G.Washington, Th.Jefferson, B.Franklin and others0 separated ‘bellief’ from organized religion and were concerned about the power of the latter.

I would argue then, that the fear of religious tyranny (like that of the Puritans) was as much a part of the thinking that went into the final draft of the Constiturion as the individual religious beliefs of the Founders.

What impresses me most about the Founders is how well read and well informed most of them were about the history of Europr, in addition to America, and the ideas of major thinkers of the day. They put our current Washington posse to shame.

Personally, I find that inclusion of the word ‘God’ into a national document can mean as many things as the reader wishes it to mean, so long as God is not defined. For me, ‘God’ represents man’s search for inspiration or moral clarity, not an end product to that search.
In fact, God dies when we think we have all the answeres and have no more need to seek and question.

but what Totten was referring to is the direct link to the parallel of Exodus and the rise of Exceptionalism.

Yes, but I was wondering what they do spend attention on and what they don’t teach.

It takes an effort for those of us within the US to take that mental step outward to look inward. I was aware of the Puritan/Pilgrim heritage and how it has affected both the government and the fundamental culture of the US. An example not cited often is it is that heritage that prompts the American bipolar behavior towards sex. There is an entire book’s worth of things to discuss, we are merely scratching the surface here. In the next few days I’ll try to put together a post on this topic from my point of view within the US as someone who does make the effort to look in from the outside.

Really? Do you think that nobody involved felt quite a bit like the Pilgrims did?

Oh, no, I’m not saying that at all- in fact I know that it was quite a heated debate. I’ve also seen that certain men among the “founding fathers” were quite a bit more in the camp that you’re describing. George Washington, for example, spoke often of those ideas of religion being a pillar of society, and I remember a quote from Ben Franklin that stated that we won the Revolutionary War because God was on our side.

But I am saying that those who did NOT want the Constitution to be a religious covenant were the ones who won the argument. From there, I think that what happened (my own view, perhaps distorted through the lens with which I’ve been taught to see it) is that the views of God and religion are seen as being prevalant because they have historically been held by the majority. That’s different than being imposed by the state, but can still be problematic of course, as in what is described as the “tyranny of the majority”. Toqueville had interesting observations of that phenomena, and he seemed to have felt that it was largely a positive influence because people weren’t coerced into religious beliefs forcefully but subtly. He felt, I think, that this was a stabilizing influence and sort of a compromise between true unbridled religious liberty and outright coercion. That point is arguable, of course.

I’m arguing that this may have been their wish but those who drafted the actual US Constitution decided otherwise- deliberately.

Really? Do you think that nobody involved felt quite a bit like the Pilgrims did?

You know what idea dates back to the Pilgrims as well? “One nation under God”.

The President who says “God bless America” – where do you think that came from originally?

You’re right, of course, that this doesn’t mean that all who dissented from that decision didn’t just go away or change their minds, and that this thinking still doesn’t exist today. I also agree with you that we ought to better understand that history. But I think it’s important to also understand how the question was settled and to make sure that is well understood, because that way people won’t be as susceptible to those who try to misinterpret the Constitution on this issue.

Isn’t it fascinating? I’m sorry, I get a little bit passionate about this kind of thing, about the connections, etc….

I had no idea the connection was this explicit either. There is an especially great distortion of pre French and Indian War history. In elementary school we’re taught the Puritans were basically the original Founding Fathers in the vein of Franklin-Adams-Jefferson which is not true…and this perception was never really corrected in the upper grades (at least for me).

It’s certainly not true indeed.

Also: you all know what the difference is between Puritans and the Pilgrims, right (not trying to belittle, just wondering).

C.S.:

What I recall the most is that the idea of the Pilgrims fleeing religious persecution is stressed, and while I recall being taught in later years that they in turn were religious persecuters themselves, I think that is brushed over too much in many American history courses. It’s sort of treated as an aside

That’s what Lawrence pointed out… In essence he said don’t believe the Pilgrims when they said that they fled intolerance and persecution as such…

Now, that’s too simplistic, to a degree at least, but there is certainly quite some truth to it.

The Pilgrims were certainly not tolerant.

American exceptionalism has been adopted by many people. The origin of it? The Pilgrims.

Listen, you have to remember that your country is incredibly young. Combine that with the fact that the ones who first moved over there, who made the impact in the beginning at least, were people shared the views as described in the post and… do you really think that’ll die out?

Of course not. At least, not for a long time to come.

The following is absolutely true and of major importance: if you want to understand America today (whether Americans like it or not) one has to read and analyze the earliest accounts of the immigrants who, de facto, created America.

I also mentioned something in my post about the Constitution by the way.

In elementary school we’re taught the Puritans were basically the original Founding Fathers in the vein of Franklin-Adams-Jefferson which is not true

I don’t know that I’d go that far but certainly agree that there was some implication along those lines. What I recall the most is that the idea of the Pilgrims fleeing religious persecution is stressed, and while I recall being taught in later years that they in turn were religious persecuters themselves, I think that is brushed over too much in many American history courses. It’s sort of treated as an aside..as in, “Oh yeah, they were actually rather intolerant of religions other than their own, but now we understand that those who want religious freedom must also be willing to grant it to others.”

So, I think that when Totten and Oren both admit to not knowing about this part of our past, perhaps it’s because Americans would rather forget it; maybe our history courses are engaging in a bit of revisionism by downplaying the religious goals of our early days.

How right Lawrence was. I quote him a couple of days ago: “Never trust the artist. Trust the tale.”

If we look at American literature, from the earliest days, there is no denying that it came forth from Pilgrims and Puritans.