Beyond Arrogance: Leaving the Puritanical Legacy Behind

truthteller's picture

“America is the light of the world,” President George W. Bush proclaimed in a 2001 speech. I was reminded of Bush’s words recently when a well-meaning friend insisted on reading the so-called “prophecies” of Kim Clement, a regular on the Christian fundamentalist channel, Trinity Broadcasting Network, to me. I politely sat and listened until she came to the part where he said, “America, America, you are the salt of the earth. America, America, you are the light of the world.” My mouth dropped open, and I must have had a look of undisguised disgust on my face, for I felt disgusted. I reminded her that Jesus said he was the light of the world. I went on to explain Clement had misappropriated a verse in the Bible, and substituted the word “I” for America. Unfortunately, she was nonplussed by my remarks.

Clement is not the first one to think of America as having what I term a ‘divine magnate from God.’ The idea stems from the teachings and theology of a group of English colonists referred to as the Puritans.

The Puritans city on a hill

The first group of Puritans to settle in America came from England via the Netherlands. The Virginia Company brought them to Cape Cod on the Mayflower. They decided to organize themselves into a political body under the English crown, but with local autonomy. The second group of Puritans came directly from England to Plymouth, Massachusetts. In contrast to the first group, they had not separated from the Church of England, but wanted it to be reformed, and seeing no hope for that in England, set sail for America. Both groups had a desire to found communities based upon their religious beliefs. In essence they wanted a theocracy.

The right to vote in Puritan colonies was limited to those who were members of the Puritan Church, which excluded half of the men, and all of the women. (It must be said that no country then allowed women to vote.) The Puritans of Massachusetts Bay made the Congregational Church the official church, and banned members of other denominations from holding worship services. The Congregational Church was supported by taxes.

The Puritans believed that their colony must be a “city on the hill,” a reference to a Bible verse, and for that to occur laws must be based on the Bible. The idea came from a 1630 sermon by John Winthrop, the governor of the Massachusetts colony, in which he told the colonists, “For we must consider that we shall be as a city upon a hill. The eyes of all people are upon us.”

Puritan culture influenced the other non-Puritan colonies, thus influencing American culture. The “city on a hill” morphed into “manifest destiny” in the early 19th century.

Manifest Destiny

On a December day in 1823 the fifth president of the United States declared in his annual congressional address, ”the occasion has been judged proper for asserting, as a principle in which the rights and interests of the United States are involved that the American continents, by the free and independent condition which they have assumed and maintain, are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any European powers.” In other words, if Spain tried to assert power in her former colonies the U.S. would intervene.

At first a declaration of foreign policy, President James Monroe’s position later became known as the ‘Monroe Doctrine’ in the 1840s. The Monroe Doctrine seems very benevolent as the U.S. wanted to ensure that the former Spanish colonies remained independent, but internal and external events in America (the annexation of Texas, the acquisition of California, and the Spanish-American War), caused the Monroe Doctrine to be used as justification for American expansionism.

In 1845 many Americans supported the annexation of Texas, then a part of Mexico. Journalist and diplomat John Louis O’Sullivan wrote an editorial in support of annexing Texas for the July/August 1845 edition of the United States Magazine and Democratic Review. O’Sullivan proclaimed that America, “the nation of many nations is destined to manifest to mankind the excellence of divine principles; to establish on earth the noblest temple ever dedicated to the worship of the Most High,” thus coining the phrase ‘manifest destiny.’ Historian Walter McDougall refers to manifest destiny as a “corollary of the Monroe Doctrine because expansion was necessary for the doctrine to be enforced.

President James Polk used the concept of manifest destiny to support America’s territorial expansion. In Polk’s 1845 State of the Union address he declared that the annexation of Texas occurred because of “the choice of the people themselves to share the blessings of our union.” Polk went on to include the western lands of the U.S. where “Indian title may have been extinguished at the time of settlement,” recommending that the policy of continuing to grant “preemptions in its most liberal extent to all those who have settled or may hereafter settle on the public lands.” In other words, immigrants of European descent would be allowed to settle on land owned by Native American tribes.

Modern Day Puritans

Puritanical theology never truly disappears from American Christianity. It lingers like a slithering rattle snake, waiting to bite. Gary Bauer of the American Values group has an essay on his website titled, “Culture and Religion” in which secularization is considered the root of all that is evil in America: “We realize that one of the main underlying causes of all of these problems is the secularization of our country.”

Bauer fails to mention that our founding fathers, the creators of the constitution, created a secular government as a response to the abuses of the Puritans and their descendants. Perhaps one of the most telling remarks on Bauer’s website is this one: “We can once again be ‘the shining city upon a hill’ that our founders envisioned.”

The former Republican strategist Kevin Phillips pointed out in his book American Theocracy that “the belief that America has been elected by God for a special destiny in the world” has taken on the stature of “motivational myth.” As Americans we continue to cling to the myth that our country is the greatest in the world. It is little wonder the rest of the world thinks we are arrogant.

Beyond Arrogance

In 1967 Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. proclaimed, “And don't let anybody make you think that God chose America as his divine, messianic force to be a sort of policeman of the whole world.” King went on to tell his listeners, “God has a way of standing before the nations with judgment, and it seems that I can hear God saying to America, ‘You're too arrogant! And if you don't change your ways, I will rise up and break the backbone of your power, and I'll place it in the hands of a nation that doesn't even know my name. Be still and know that I'm God.’”

Whether this country will finally listen to the warnings of Rev. King or continue to believe in the motivational myth remains to be seen. Let everyone with ears to hear heed the warning.

0
Your rating: None

Comments

Patriotism or nationalism?

Rev_Roger's picture

I consider myself quite patriotic.
I do not consider myself nationalistic.
Patriotism, IMO is an appreciation for the gifts and opportunities afforded by ones home country, coupled with a strong desire to see her improve in those areas in which she is lacking.
Nationalism, though is more a blind allegiance to country that sees little wrong, nor acts to improve, but only to defend.

just my $.02

re Patriotism

wpeltz's picture

Roger,

One way to bridge the gap is to use the famous quote from an Illinois Senator, Carl Schurz, in 1872.

In a Senate debate, he rebutted a bullying senator who had used the part of a Stephen Decatur quote that just said "my country, right or wrong".

Schurz countered him by reframing it: "My country, right or wrong: if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right."

The senate gallery audience loved it and responded with "deafening applause".

17 years later, he used a shorter version in a speech at an Anti-Imperialistic Conference, dropping the words "right or wrong".

I've had a couple of occasions to use it in arguments with right-wing 'patriots' opposed to any criticisms of national policy (other than their own). It had the effect of shifting the argument away from the bogus issue of "patriotism" and onto the substance of the policies in question.

I phrase it as: "My country, right or wrong. When she's right, keep her right. And when she's wrong, set her right."

Bill

patriotism

rungavagairun's picture

As Stephen has already expressed, we're glad to have you aboard truthteller. We've had a number of new folks show up here lately that have posted some great material. That's very exciting.

My second thought related to what you've actually said here is that I've often felt a bit apprehensive about patriotism in general. The Pledge of Allegiance for example bothers me as a Christian. Are we supposed to pledge to a flag or a country as Christians? I've had an increasing sense of uneasiness about the matter over the last several years.

I am willing to make a pledge of devotion to Christ, to serve my neighbor and uphold justice and liberty so far as that is in my power. I like the Constitution and I think that the system that we have inherited in the United States is amazing in that it was fashioned with justice, liberty, and equality as foundational principles. However, I don't see any indication that Christians ought to devote themselves to a system, a human authority, nor to symbols (a flag) used by those entities. What do you all think about this?

David

Jehovah's Witnesses

Jehovah Witnesses won't say the pledge to the flag. We said "The Pledge" every morning in my grade school and one boy wouldn't say it because he was a Jehovah's Witness.Some of the teachers gave him a harsh look and the meaner kids teased him without mercy.Poor kid, he was just doing what his parents told him to do. To not say the Pledge is a bold statement.I think the Witnesses' explanantion is that the flag is a graven image.

I have the same apprehensions

truthteller's picture

I have the same apprehensions about the Pledge of Allegiance. The past year I have come to almost detest it. Last February I bought a copy of Howard Zinn's "A People's History of the United States." Reading Zinn's book caused me to view the Pledge of Allegiance as a way for the establishment (the elite that really run the country) to keep us all in line and not dissent.

I also have reservations about the Pledge of Allegiance as a Christian. My ultimate allegiance is to Christ. I love the U.S. because it's my country. Like you, I like the constitution. However, I will honor my country by dissenting when it is wrong. Dissent is the highest form of patriotism.

How old is the Pledge of Allegiance? I think it was created during the 20th century.
Gina-Marie Cheeseman

The Pledge of Allegiance's history

wpeltz's picture

Actually, the pledge was written in 1892 as part of an advertising campaign to sell flags to schools. (I learned all about this during the Bicentennial when I was making anti-corporate speeches for the Peoples Bicentennial Commission.)

There was a very popular children's magazine called "Youth's Companion". They had a project to sell flags to public schools as a premium for subscribing to the magazine. By 1892, they had sold 26,000 flags and sales were slowing down. With the 400th anniversary of Columbus reaching the Americas coming up, plus the World's Columbian Exposition in Chicago, the time was ripe for a new promotion of a National School Celebration of Columbus Day which would require every school to have a flag for the children to recite a pledge to. And if they could turn it into a daily classroom event, eventually each classroom would need a flag. What a concept!

So the magazine's owner and editor had an assistant in the premiums department, Francis Bellamy, write a pledge in time for Columbus Day in 1892. It was published in "Youth's Companion" on Sept. 7 or 8, and the promotion began right away. Bellamy got himself elected to chair a committee of the National Education Association to promote the pledge, the flags, and the "Bellamy salute", which, as I remember from grade school, began with a hand over the heart when you said "I pledge allegiance" and then, with the words "to the flag", the right arm was extended as in the Nazi salute, but with the palm up. (It was replaced during WW2 by keeping the hand over the heart the whole time.)

President Harrison issued a proclamation and the pledge was first used on October 12, 1892. Congress made it an official national pledge only in 1945. "Under God" was added in 1954 after a campaign by the Knights of Columbus.

Bellamy was an interesting guy -- a Baptist minister in Boston who, before being hired by "Youth's Companion", had lost his pulpit because of his Christian Socialist sermons. His cousin, Edward Bellamy, is famous for the socialist utopian novel "Looking Backward: 2000-1887". He wrote a sequel, "Equality", which expanded on some of the ideas in "Looking Backward" and which emphasized women's rights.

Bellamy thought about using the words "equality" and "fraternity" in the pledge but they were too controversial, being applicable to blacks and women. His words on what he was thinking when he wrote the pledge: "Just here arose the temptation of the historic slogan of the French Revolution which meant so much to Jefferson and his friends, 'Liberty, equality, fraternity'. No, that would be too fanciful, too many thousands of years off in realization. But we as a nation do stand square on the doctrine of liberty and justice for all..."

One of his purposes was to teach the virtue of nationalism and the meaning of the indivisible Republic.

The union of patriotism and commerce. It makes one quietly proud....

Thank you!

truthteller's picture

Thank you for telling me all about the pledge of allegiance. It cemented my distaste for it. I will not say it again. I can't in good conscience.

I love your comment, "The union of patriotism and commerce. It makes one quietly proud...."

I wonder what the prophet Amos would think about the Pledge of Allegiance and its history?

More on Puritans

Stephen Rockwell's picture

Truthteller, this is very insightful post. I hope you continue to offer your thoughts here.

I would encourage folks to read our book of the month, American Christianities by Gary Wills that delves into these topics about the Puritans and the Founders. Essentially Puritans represent pre-enlightenment religion and the founders, many of whom were deists are products of the enlightenment. All this talk about a Christian nation intention of the founders is a lot of hogwash revisionist history.

Amen! I completely agree

truthteller's picture

Amen! I completely agree with you. While sitting in a class at a Mennonite seminary, I had a moment where I almost fell over. A Canadian student gave a presentation about colonial American religion and said, "No offense, but your country was not founded on Christianity, but deism from what I have researched." All the revisionist propaganda I heard through out my life became huge lies to me.

I am going to read Gary Wills book. It sounds very insightful.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
register