There is an interesting discussion going on in my history class; I would like to share a discussion post I wrote and see what you think. It is about the dilemma of liberty that Protestant societies faced during the early part of the Puritan colonization--a dilemma which still applies today, I think.
"The dilemma at the heart of every pefect Protestant society is the balance between liberty and justice.
"This is a really tough subject to tackle, and the fact that so many Puritan thinkers spent a lot of time on the very same thing proves that they thought so too. The line between restricted liberty and unrestricted liberty is a very fine one, and both have their pros and cons.
"Restricted liberty: Restricted liberty means that societal peace is more easily attained. The rules are clearly laid out and there are certain things that one cannot do. This is what Plymouth was like. However, the question arises: is this liberty at all? Whose restrictions are right? I firmly believe, of course, that God's "restrictions" are what makes true liberty, but non-Christians don't believe that. Is it right to force them to live under a Christian society, even against their will? Granted, it would be a great improvement to our society, but is it ethical? I'm not sure. Part of me--much of me--would like to say that it is, but it would take a great deal of study and prayer before I made a firm decision in that regard.
"Unrestricted liberty--The United States of today is at least a close approximation of this...anything not actually criminal is allowed (interesting that those "restrictions" still apply, though, isn't it? Even in a society that is supposedly completely free--free in the 'I can do whatever I want' way--much of the Biblical laws are still in effect). Any religious belief can be held. Anne Hutchinson could walk around a free lady in modern America. But the cons of this policy are obvious...it has created the morally degraded society we live in today.
"Of course, the above difficulty presents itself, but certainly one cannot sit passively and watch America destroy itself without doing something.
"But I don't think John Winthrop's solution is necessarily the right one. Simply changing the outer framework of the way our laws and goverment work is not enough; it could never be maintained by sheer force against an unwilling population.
"The key, I believe, is in men's hearts. Change them by God's power and the exercise of liberty simply means having the freedom to search God's truth and, if you come to a slightly different conclusion than the main body of the church, you do not have to run for your life. Of course, this would inevitably result in heresy eventually, and that is the price of a sinful world. Of course, whether or not those heretics could be forcibly expelled is another matter entirely. (Dilemma indeed! This is tough! ) But that, of course, is a problem that will continue to present itself--and which must be continually fought against--until God begins the redeeming process that leads to the Second Coming. At that point, we won't have to worry about heretics anymore. "
Your thoughts? :-)
P.S. Unrestricted liberty has not created the degraded society we live in today; I misworded that. It has allowed it to take place. (Not that a monarchy or dictatorship or anarchy wouldn't also lead to degradation...like I said, it's a difficult dilemma.)
~Connor
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Robert,
Thanks for commenting! Ok, let's see.
As to the question of why the Mass. Bay colonists began repressing religious dissenters, even though they were technically dissenters themselves, at least in England--according to some of the Puritans themselves freedom was not their original intent. I was kind of surprised to find this in _A History of the American People_:
"When in 1681 a congregation of Anabaptists published an attack on the 'tolerant spirit' of the firs settlers there, Samuel Willard, minister to the Third Church in Boston, wrote a pamphlet in reply, with a preface by Increase Mather, saying: 'I perceive they are mistaken in the design of our first Planters, whose business was not toleration but were professed enemies of it, and could leave the world professing they died no Libertines. Their business was to settle and (as much as in them lay) to secure Religion to Posterity, according to that way which they believed was of God.'"
Interesting, huh?
So, were you comparing the Roman decadence to the Victorian age as an example of the pendulum motion of morality? :-P Because Victorian England and Rome are pretty far apart...
And yes, the question of morality has little to do with legislation, but legislation has a lot to do with the question of morality, if you get my meaning. Bad laws do not make bad people, but bad people make bad laws. :-)
Being Robert the Philosopher, I imagine some of what you said went over my head. ;-) So if there is anything I didn't answer, please call me on it. :-P
With much brotherly love,
~Connor
Post a Comment