History repeats itself

[Freedom06]

How will the controversy over Islamic women wearing veils end? The debate about religious freedom versus society's norms has strong similarities to a row that engulfed England in the 16th Century, says Steve Tomkins.
These may seem like unfamiliar and uncharted waters that British society is moving into - controversy over religious clothing, and fearful tensions between a religious minority and the mainstream. In fact, we've been here before, 400 years ago - or somewhere uncannily like it.

In the days of Elizabeth I and James I/VI, the English church was riven by the Puritan controversy. The main issue - at least on the surface - was what ministers should wear: traditional robes or ordinary clothes. The difference is that then it was the establishment that demanded distinctive clothing and the radicals - the Puritans - who insisted on everyday wear.

The government came down fairly strongly on the dissidents. Religious ministers who refused to back down and button up were sacked.


Shakespeare's Malvolio, played here by Alec McCowen, was mocked as a "Puritan"
Then as now, public opinion was divided on the subject. Puritan ministers were supported by a sizeable minority who hated what they called the "Popish rags" and demanded freedom of religious conscience.

Others hated and feared Puritans as dangerous fanatics dividing English society. Puritans talked about freedom of conscience, it was said, but if they got into power wouldn't they just impose their own narrow-minded scruples on everyone else?

One such critic was Shakespeare. In a Daily Star moment in Twelfth Night, he has Malvolio described as "a kind of Puritan", to which Sir Andrew Aguecheek replies, "O, if I thought that, I'd beat him like a dog."

You can just imagine the response that line would have got - especially as Puritans wanted to close the theatres.

Then again, others thought the whole issue of religious clothing was completely trivial, and ought to blow over quickly. "It is scarcely credible how much this controversy about things of no importance has disturbed our churches," said the Bishop of London.


The issue of religious clothing seemed superficial, it was in fact just the surface of much deeper disagreements

But it did not blow over. It dragged on for decades, and exploded spectacularly in the English Civil War in the next century.

The problem was that though the issue of religious clothing seemed superficial, it was in fact just the surface of much deeper disagreements, religious and political.

Religiously, Puritans saw the robes as a revival of Roman Catholicism by the back door - a religion they violently opposed as anti-Christian blasphemy. For the establishment, the robes represented a moderate religion that combined the best of old and new.

This provides a valuable perspective on today's debate. Seemingly trivial disputes about religious togs can mask a conflict between whole world views. To one side, it was obvious that good religion is moderate, middle of the road and orderly. To the other, it was equally apparent that true religion demands radical purity and commitment, and so-called "moderation" meant compromise with the powers of darkness.


Puritans advocated plain, unadorned, clothes
Politically, the most radical Puritans came to see the robes as an emblem of a whole godless society, while the government increasingly saw non-conformity as dangerous fanaticism, capable of overthrowing the state.

It is worth noting the results of the government's refusal to meet the Puritans halfway - or anywhere at all. The Puritan movement was split, more moderate Puritans accepting the status quo, while the most radical quit the Church of England and started their own churches. This is where the non-conformist denominations, such as the Baptists, first began.

Separatist leaders were executed in 1593. Surviving followers fled the country to Amsterdam, and eventually to north America on the Mayflower.

Why did the government react so violently against people whose only crime was not going to church?

The answer has further resonances with today's situation. Twenty-five years before Elizabeth became Queen, a group of radical Protestants seized the German city of Munster, a move which ended in the deaths of thousands. This horror traumatised Europe, and from then on all radical Protestants were suspected of plotting such acts of terror.

The English separatists were in fact totally peaceable, but were damned by association. Additionally, the more they were shunned by mainstream society, and the longer they separated from it, the more extreme and implacable their condemnation of it became.

On a more optimistic note, however unsympathetic the radical Puritan movement may seem today, it brought forth from one of its leaders, Robert Browne, the first defence of universal religious freedom in British history. A reminder, perhaps, that even those who seem to take indefensible positions on controversial issues can have something valuable to say.

Steve Tomkins


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6087360.stm

Isn't it funny that history has such a habit (no pun intended) of repeating itself. Is there anything new under the Sun? Hopefully it will not end in civil war this time! Although I guess the major difference is the Puritans were a home grown movement ( although my historical knowledge of this is shaky) as such and radical islam is imported?

[annihilation]

I guess so. so what do you want to do different apease islam?

This line is a load of crap, its **** like that, that start wars...
it was equally apparent that true religion demands radical purity and commitment, and so-called "moderation" meant compromise with the powers of darkness.

[Freedom06]

hmmm appease radical islam-that is the very last thing that i would want to do, but the funny thing is the more I see the analogy here between history and what's happening now, the more it seems clear that some sort of engagement is going to be neccessary to avoid the radicals becoming even more radical and the moderates turning radical.

What that means in practice I don't know, but I hate to think that we would be rewarding terrorism in any way or backing down in the face of intimidation by doing this..

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Very interesting.

It's worth noting that the radical Islamists are, dogmatically, right about where the Puritans were 500 years ago. But larger European society is miles and miles from where they were 500 years ago. So the split between Islam and Europe today is orders of magnitude larger than the split between Puritans and Catholics 500 years ago.

Society was unwilling to go back then - and I doubt very much they're willing to go back now. Unfortunately, IMHO unless something is done to stem the inflow and/or "naturalize" the current immigrant population, it will just be a matter of time until the militant Islamists commit an act of sufficient magnitude to spark a very, very ugly widespread reprisal. It just seems to be how things work out.

[Freedom06]

it will just be a matter of time until the militant Islamists commit an act of sufficient magnitude to spark a very, very ugly widespread reprisal.


If you believe the current threat level reports that the police here and others occaisionally make public then I am afraid that you might be right and we won't have to wait all that long. How many 7/7's ( or worse)would the public tolerate before thing got out of hand-or am I underestimating the tolerance of our society-maybe we are more sensible than we think?

Besides, we could always make a large boat-name it 'Mayflower 2'-pack it with a few undesireables- and send it over to you colonials, I'm sure you would welcome a new wave of immigrants... p-)

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Besides, we could always make a large boat-name it 'Mayflower 2'-pack it with a few undesireables- and send it over to you colonials, I'm sure you would welcome a new wave of immigrants... p-)

Heh heh, I was thinking the same thing. To bad there's nowhere the radicals can go to set up shop by themselves, just sit and rock back and forth and not bother anybody.

The conundrum, as I see it, is that they want the trappings of modern society, with the handouts, and the support, and the convenience, and technology, and medicine - but not only are they unwilling to live the kind of lives required to produce that prosperity, but they won't allow others to either. So they wind up moving to a prosperous nation, only to attempt to transform it back into the sh*thole they came from. Curiously - were they to seize a valuable commodity - such as oil - they would simply be able to buy themselves into prosperity, rather than work to build it. Which kind of seems like what they're trying to do.

[annihilation]

Besides, we could always make a large boat-name it 'Mayflower 2'-pack it with a few undesireables- and send it over to you colonials, I'm sure you would welcome a new wave of immigrants... p-)

You mean australia.......

[Jobu]

Please forward the route of 'Mayflower 2' to the USS Dallas.

[Freedom06]

Please forward the route of 'Mayflower 2' to the USS Dallas.

I imagined the Mayflower 2 more like an exact replica of the original-maybe the USS Dallas is overkill? I think maybe just a man in a rowing boat with a giant corkscrew or something-he could waylay them at the Azores......

[Freedom06]

The conundrum, as I see it, is that they want the trappings of modern society, with the handouts, and the support, and the convenience, and technology, and medicine - but not only are they unwilling to live the kind of lives required to produce that prosperity, but they won't allow others to either.

I don't actually see it this way-I don't think they do want the trappings of modern society its just that other arab countries are much tougher on them and fight with the gloves off-they find Britain a much easier place in which to operate....

[Lt. James Anderson]

Muslims regard "modern West" as weak and despise it for its weakness .... They just claim what is rightfully theirs ....

[Lazy Lob]

Freedom06. Excellent thread. I can't add to it as I'm presently a bit off colour but I am enjoying the posts immensely.



....... it will just be a matter of time until the militant Islamists commit an act of sufficient magnitude to spark a very, very ugly widespread reprisal. It just seems to be how things work out.

Those are my gut feelings as well.



The conundrum, as I see it, is that they want the trappings of modern society, with the handouts, and the support, and the convenience, and technology, and medicine - but not only are they unwilling to live the kind of lives required to produce that prosperity, but they won't allow others to either. So they wind up moving to a prosperous nation, only to attempt to transform it back into the sh*thole they came from. Curiously - were they to seize a valuable commodity - such as oil - they would simply be able to buy themselves into prosperity, rather than work to build it. Which kind of seems like what they're trying to do.

I could not agree more. I would go a bit further but I'll keep shtum.

[Freedom06]

Speedy recovery LL.... you never know when Mirror will re-appear...

[Freedom06]

Muslims regard "modern West" as weak and despise it for its weakness .... They just claim what is rightfully theirs ....

Can you eloborate on this?

[Lazy Lob]

rofl Thank you kindly.

BTW Anderson's statement is correct.

[annihilation]

Well its time to change the western worlds immigration and refuge policy.

[AZRON]

The theme of this piece is somewhat of a stretch.

We have a living experience here in the U.S. about radical religious dress.

Maybe some of you saw the news recently pertaining to those war mongering radical jihaddists in Pennslyvania with strict dress codes.
You know ! The Amish.
Let's throw in the Mennonites and Quakers also.

The comparision is a big stretch.

As to the Puritans you had better watch out for them. About 35,00 migrated to America.
In the last presidential election we had two candidates with strong Puritan roots in their ancestory .
Bush's ancestors are mainly Puritan and Kerry's mother was a direct descendant of Gov. John Winthrop , Puritan gov. of Mass Bay Colony.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

The theme of this piece is somewhat of a stretch.

We have a living experience here in the U.S. about radical religious dress.

Maybe some of you saw the news recently pertaining to those war mongering radical jihaddists in Pennslyvania with strict dress codes.
You know ! The Amish.
Let's throw in the Mennonites and Quakers also.

The comparision is a big stretch.

As to the Puritans you had better watch out for them. About 35,00 migrated to America.
In the last presidential election we had two candidates with strong Puritan roots in their ancestory .
Bush's ancestors are mainly Puritan and Kerry's mother was a direct descendant of Gov. John Winthrop , Puritan gov. of Mass Bay Colony.

Point taken, but you may notice that the Amish - who choose to dress radically different than the rest, and act radically different as well - have also chosen to live peacefully apart from us. They do not insist that the rest of us adopt their ways or conform to their standards. Essentially, they have already figured out that our systems are incompatible.

[Freedom06]

The theme of this piece is somewhat of a stretch.

We have a living experience here in the U.S. about radical religious dress.

Maybe some of you saw the news recently pertaining to those war mongering radical jihaddists in Pennslyvania with strict dress codes.
You know ! The Amish.
Let's throw in the Mennonites and Quakers also.

The comparision is a big stretch.



Yes but the piece makes the point that the dispute about religious attire was just the tip of the ice-berg of other deeper issues, an icon of a fundamental tension between two incompatible world-views. With the Amish /Quakers these deeper issues just aren't there...at least they don't make an issue of them in a violent way.

The Puritans were seen as a threat in Elizabethen England because of their violence in Munster- no one is saying they are a threat today!

[Jobu]

It's true!

http://watkins.gospelcom.net/newspicosama.jpg

[Belrick]

The theme of this piece is somewhat of a stretch.

We have a living experience here in the U.S. about radical religious dress.

Maybe some of you saw the news recently pertaining to those war mongering radical jihaddists in Pennslyvania with strict dress codes.
You know ! The Amish.
Let's throw in the Mennonites and Quakers also.

The comparision is a big stretch.

As to the Puritans you had better watch out for them. About 35,00 migrated to America.
In the last presidential election we had two candidates with strong Puritan roots in their ancestory .
Bush's ancestors are mainly Puritan and Kerry's mother was a direct descendant of Gov. John Winthrop , Puritan gov. of Mass Bay Colony.


You point out that puritans have evolved somewhat in the last 500 years.
In your mind do you think that Islam is capable of evolving? That Muslims can ever change, ignore or discard less desirable aspects (from a modern societies perspective) of the Koran?

[number nine]

You have not asked me, but I'll voice my opinion that such thing if possible, with moslem youth not raised as bigots. Yes, majority are simply put bigots, just like white supremist *sshats. And should be dealt with in same manner for voicing religious intolerance, belittlement of weaker ***, and the similar, if they pursue such uncivil conduct. Freedom of religion must not allow freedom of being a *ucking *sshat.

[AZRON]

You point out that puritans have evolved somewhat in the last 500 years.
In your mind do you think that Islam is capable of evolving? That Muslims can ever change, ignore or discard less desirable aspects (from a modern societies perspective) of the Koran?

Oh boy, rough question. Besides my ancestors are a mix of Puritans and Mennonites.

The Muslim civilization was the most tolerant and advanced about 1100 - 1300 A.D. Scholars , traders , math and generally more tolerant than other cultures.

Some say the Turks ruined it and Muslim culture when they were the toughest of the Muslims and destroyed the Arab Muslim culture.

Right now it seems to be on a collision course with every other culture including Hindu and Buddist not just Western and Orthodox. Mainly it is Arab driven nurtured in the Madrassas and it feeds on lives filled by frustration and anger. As some Muslims see it they are a second rate power because they aren't worthy to be a first rate power so only by dedicated Jihad can they regain the worthiness and the glory of 1000 years ago.

We do have an emerging Shia vs. Sunni conflict which may weaken them instead of strenghtening them . Maybe they can fight each other to exhausten. Then a more enlightened attitude may emerge.

I don't see a solution until someone gets badly beaten or totally exhausted.

[Lt. James Anderson]

Can you eloborate on this?

The weak(er) get pushed aside and disapear in history .... That's the way it's always been.

[AZRON]

The Puritans were seen as a threat in Elizabethen England because of their violence in Munster- no one is saying they are a threat today!

We are definetly reading different versions of history.

What happened in Munster seems to have involved Anabaptists- Mennonites being slaughtered by Catholics and Lutherans which basically involved Swiss and Germans .

From what I've read English Puritans weren't involved at all.

[Crazed Aussie]

Ther are some very intelligent points made here. It would seem that Quakers and the like wish to live in peace, somewhat segregated but basically obeying the law and other social norms. I often wonder if they'd be made welcome in certain parts of the world where Radical Fundies were in charge. I guess what i'm trying to say is, in most westernised countries, despite our "moral decay"(sic) , a person or group can still enjoy true freedom whilst living within the countries social structure. I can't imagine what it would be like to live otherwise. May freedom prevail.

[LRPV]

We are seeing a fundamental shift in what we know as "western society". Our tolerance is our weakness. Fundamentalist islam is violent, imperialistic and it is winning. Today we fight for the survival of our societies and communities as we know it.

Many of us have fellow servicemen or countrymen fighting in foreign countries against this non-State force of aggression. Concurrently different elements of this evil are active in our home countries.
The war at home is fought in mosques, the media and in some cases like Paris and Sydney, openly on the streets. In a previous era we put such groups in internment camps for the duration of hostilities to protect our society from such fifth columnists. Sadly, despite our love of freedom and open-ness, it might be time to re-visit the ways of our fathers.

[emiljoe]

Islamic militants are very intolerant & violent. They should be expelled & dump to their Islamic country of origin.

[Freedom06]

We are definetly reading different versions of history.

What happened in Munster seems to have involved Anabaptists- Mennonites being slaughtered by Catholics and Lutherans which basically involved Swiss and Germans .

From what I've read English Puritans weren't involved at all.

yeah, sorry-for Puritans read 'radical protestants'-the point is the english at the time made the same mistake I did and didn't distinguish between the two-anyway I won't argue the history with you, I was relying on the article, I don't know diddly squat about this part of history...( as you might have noticed..)

[Freedom06]

We are seeing a fundamental shift in what we know as "western society". Our tolerance is our weakness. Fundamentalist islam is violent, imperialistic and it is winning. Today we fight for the survival of our societies and communities as we know it.



I don't know whether our tolerance is our weakness-it certainly allows extremists a certain room to breathe-but as far as our society goes it is one of our fundamnetal strengths and has made Britain/US rather special places...But having said that the line has most definetely been crossed in this case (7/7, Madrid.9/11, etc) and you know what they say-beware the anger of a patient man..

But it is a bit like a chinese finger puzzle thingy-the more you struggle against these groups the more ammunition you give these people-they turn round and say hey-told you we were being oppressed-told you it was a war on islam! and they gain some further sympathy...

In that sense it's a bit like fighting an insurgency I suppose in that the more you fight the less likely you are to win in the long run-the key is in doing as little 'fighting' as possible-the art of winning without fighting'.

[LRPV]

Freedom06, I have lived outside of Australia in several Asian countries and in, if briefly the middle east. In the west we take open-ness and accountability for granted. I have yet to spend a lot of time in any country that is as tolerant as Australia. From my friends I understand the UK, US, NZ and western Europe are similar. We are being over-run at own expense. We make it too easy to grant residency, legal aid rights, welfare and citizenship. Call me an alarmist if you like, but someone has to ring the bell.

[Freedom06]

I wouldn't call you an alarmist and yes, keep the iron fist ready inside the velvet glove, but tolerance is a strength it makes us stronger in many regards-it promotes our economy, our technological ( scientific endeavour) base, our willingness to be open to change, to accept other viewpoints-all of these things mean that in the long run we will win this struggle-the key in my view is to maintain the Law, the Law is blind..Do not give muslims special treatment or be pc about it, if they f_ck up, preach hatred or incite, send them to jail or deport them-tolerance does not mean appeasement. But try to do this by changing as little as possible, maintain our poise, don't suddenly rush to pass new laws or appear like we are acting unfairly towards the muslim community-we've got to be clever about this, not popularist.

And in my view education-slowly get rid of all faith schools-including the islamic ones-although this one might be controversial.

[Lazy Lob]

We in the West have been living the life of Riley. In Britain we like to scoff at the Yanks for being insular and introspective. But in reality they are a reflection of us. We have not been paying attention, taken our eye off the ball so to speak.

The Muslim world, over many years has been going through a transformation with a tendency to a stricter interpretation of their scriptures laced with very strong political and cultural overtones. At times their perceived victimisation in reality has little to do with the West.

The more fundamental groups within Islam, some of which have a trend setting influence, don’t even enter the debate of victimisation. Allah created the world therefore they are the chosen ones and the rightful owners, that is their POV. Proselytism by hook or by crook is the name of the game.

We have to learn how to discuss and separate several issues. Amongst these are Palestine, Lebanon, Islam, muslim immigration and last but not least the radicalisation of the muslim world. We have to view these independent issues like Venn diagrams which at times overlap. But we must not be lead to believe that one has lead fully onto another.

Britain has been moving towards a secular and even agnostic society. We now find ourselves not only at loggerheads with a very strict faith (or the politico-cultural movement of Islam) but our trends are moving in the opposite directions.

Whether British secular society is weak because of this or will the secular state save the day has to be seen. But what is undeniable and using another well worn expression we are tolerating intolerance. People who ask for mutual respect are spewing crap. Respect is a two way street and we have given and still are giving shed loads of it. There are hard times coming. I just hope we get through them quickly.

[Freedom06]

We have to learn how to discuss and separate several issues. Amongst these are Palestine, Lebanon, Islam, muslim immigration and last but not least the radicalisation of the muslim world. We have to view these independent issues like Venn diagrams which at times overlap. But we must not be lead to believe that one has lead fully onto another.


Yes I think this is key-radicals like a black/white view of the world-we should not fall into that trap. (Bush fell for that one)

In my view peace in Israel/Palestine will not make as much difference as everyone seems to think it will. The violence will just shift focus a bit-their beef with us is a far larger issue in the minds of some radical islamists than the existence of a jewish state in the middle-east-in a sense haven't a lot just jumped on the band-wagon with that one( excluding Hamas, Islamic jihad, Fatah etc-though what they will turn their attention to after a peace sttlement is another matter)-not really giving a damn about the palestinians. What they have done is borrowed the idea of suicide bombings and enlarged on it (although I think suicide bombings started in the Iran/Iraq war-maybe someone else knows).

As regards the radicalisation of the muslim world in general-is that our responsibility to tackle? I don't think so. Neither can we.

[Lazy Lob]

As regards the radicalisation of the muslim world in general-is that our responsibility to tackle? I don't think so. Neither can we.

Depends on what our fuel of choice is going to be in the near future. Also we have a large Muslim population within our borders. That second part is our responsibility.

[Freedom06]

Depends on what our fuel of choice is going to be in the near future. Also we have a large Muslim population within our borders. That second part is our responsibility.

Agreed, having a muslim minority makes it our problem as well, but its not one we can solve, its not our responsibility-the best we can do is help those within the muslim community who are trying to redress the balance...

That would be interesting to imagine what happens to the middle- east if oil and gas suddenly became obselete... and to Putins wet-dreams...

[Freedom06]

I guess it would be bye bye Saudia Arabia, good luck Iraq, hard cheese Iran...

[Lazy Lob]

Agreed, having a muslim minority makes it our problem as well, but its not one we can solve, its not our responsibility-the best we can do is help those within the muslim community who are trying to redress the balance...

That would be interesting to imagine what happens to the middle- east if oil and gas suddenly became obselete... and to Putins wet-dreams...

If we can't solve it we should address the political and social aspects of it, and firmly.

As far as oil becoming obsolete I doubt it but I would like to see the price of petrol/oil/gas at the pump include a large proportion of military expenditure on the safeguarding of supplies. That would show us that some alternatives may not be that expensive after all.

[Freedom06]

As far as oil becoming obsolete I doubt it but I would like to see the price of petrol/oil/gas at the pump include a large proportion of military expenditure on the safeguarding of supplies. That would show us that some alternatives may not be that expensive after all.

I hadn't really heard of that particular tax idea before-but I doubt you could combine both that and the hike due to carbon footprint-it would just be too much. One or the other I guess. Bottom line is oil is too 'cheap' to our society whichever way you cut it-environmentally or militarily...

[2Sheds_Jackson]

I thought we had already learned that allowing an enemy to accumulate unchecked wealth and power was an incredibly bad idea. And no matter how your 256 shades of gray allow you to look at the external black/white jihadists - they will continue to see you as the enemy, and will continue to wage war on you. Even if you're not fighting back. So I'm not really sure what use a purely "internal" solution would be. I don't think there's even such a thing as purely internal any more.

[Freedom06]

I thought we had already learned that allowing an enemy to accumulate unchecked wealth and power was an incredibly bad idea. And no matter how your 256 shades of gray allow you to look at the external black/white jihadists - they will continue to see you as the enemy, and will continue to wage war on you. Even if you're not fighting back. So I'm not really sure what use a purely "internal" solution would be. I don't think there's even such a thing as purely internal any more.

I agree with you that we should not pour money into the coffers of our enemies-so why hasn't the US spent more on alternative energy research? I would far rather having a clean energy source than paying more for oil. If they really focused and knocked a few heads together in the USA surely we could dispense with the need for dependance on foreign oil/gas.