"Foreign Enemies" will complete the trilogy.
Posted on 05/09/2004 6:38:43 PM PDT by quidnunc
America 2004? Actually, no. This was the lamentable state of affairs in mid-17th century England, as it teetered on the brink of civil war. But there certainly is something disturbingly familiar about this description of a body politic dividing into two unbreachable camps.
Like England under Charles I, when the Cavaliers — the royalist supporters of the king — and the Roundheads — Puritan upstarts led by Oliver Cromwell — went at it for seven years of war, the United States today is becoming two nations. This is not merely the age-old split between income groups, as Sen. John Edwards kept suggesting in his unsuccessful campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination, but something even more fundamental — a struggle between contrasting and utterly incompatible worldviews.
Some describe the conflict as one between the "red" and the "blue" states, the right and the left, conservatives and liberals. But even though no one is about to behead our ruler and overthrow the government, as Cromwell's forces did when they captured Parliament in 1649, I find the parallel of the Cavaliers and the Roundheads to be the most apt. They grew to hate each other so much that they could no longer accommodate a common national vision. "I have heard foul language and desperate quarrelings even between old and entire friends," wrote one Englishman on the eve of conflict, and much the same could be said of us today.
The questions in our own uncivil war are: Is anyone winning? Which America most likely represents the future of our country?
The political division has grown wider in recent years. Now a clear geographic and cultural divide is emerging as well. Demographic studies show that Republicans and Democrats are less likely to live next door to each other, attend the same churches or subscribe to the same media.
America's Roundheads cluster in the South, the Plains and various parts of the West, while the Cavaliers inhabit the coasts, particularly the large metropolitan centers of the Northeast and Pacific Northwest. Each side has its own views, confirmed by its favored media. Fox TV, most of talk radio, the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Sean Hannity speak for the Roundheads, supporting President Bush and America's global mission. The mainstream media, the universities and the cultural establishment, including most of Hollywood, are the voices of the Cavaliers, whose elites, like many of England's Cavaliers and Charles I's French wife before them, are most concerned with winning over continental opinion and mimicking the European way of life.
-snip-
(Excerpt) Read more at seattletimes.nwsource.com ...
No. I'm telling you that they directly evolved from it.
That's as neatly done a taxononomy of the Left as I've seen lately. Hat's off to you, sir! May I quote you?
Which is still wrong. They "directly evolved" from a rejection of their Puritan heritage.
But regardless, you denied that modern evangelicals are the successors of the Puritans because of theological deviation from classic Puritanism. (And because of geography, which is too idiotic to be worth addressing.) Unitarians deviate right out of Christianity.
Please do, at every opportunity.
Regards,
LH
"Foreign Enemies" will complete the trilogy.
Nope. The Puritan heritage has always remained. What you trace back to common origins within that heritage is the product of separate hivings away from the very same. Evangelicals today who have partial puritan backgrounds are not puritans for the very reason that they split from old guard puritanism. What was left behind and what evolved as the direct lineal heir to puritanism is known today as unitarianism.
But regardless, you denied that modern evangelicals are the successors of the Puritans because of theological deviation from classic Puritanism.
They are historical events, AJ. When puritan factions became too evangelical and too populist and too revivalist for puritanism proper they left it and went their own ways in new denominations. When one leaves a church and joins a new one he ceases to be a member of the first. True, he still has roots and a history of involvement in the first and that can never cease to exist but the fact is he's left. Modern fundamentalists went their own separate ways from old guard puritanism. Unitarianism, by contrast, evolved directly out of it.
And because of geography, which is too idiotic to be worth addressing.
Geography had a huge part to do with it, especially in colonial days. Large sections of the mid-atlantic colonies were settled by former Puritans who split away from Puritanism proper in Massachusetts and left over theological differences. Some left freely, others were persecuted into leaving. But the one thing that is certain is that they left and when they left they settled further south and further west.
Unitarians deviate right out of Christianity.
They did not deviate in the sense of taking a divergent path. Unitarians simply took an idea of corrupt origins and let it evolve to its logical conclusions as its heirs. Ideas have consequences and unitarianism is the consequence, however undesirable it may be, of old guard puritan theology in its pure form.
*you get a pass on the zionist thingie, we culture warriors like that part.
Cheers
It will be more comparable to a free for all melee, with elements of the 1930s Spanish Civil War, the 1970s Argentine "Dirty War," with elements of Bosnia and Kosovo thrown in.
Exactly. It will be interesting to see, in a CW2 scenario, how they will get along without water, electricity, etc.
Good question.
Personally, I have woods with deer and wild turkey all over the place; a spring-fed creek; a big old cast-iron wood stove for heat and cooking; and plenty of fertile ground for a garden.
Also, plenty of guns and ammo to keep the desperate, panicking parasites at bay.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.