Did the Pilgrims what religious freedom?

[ponderingturtle]

Many people seem to think that the Pilgrims came across the Atlantic ocean for religious freedom. It was my understanding that they had plenty of freedom in Holland, what they lacked was the freedom to impose their beliefs on the community as a whole.

So coming here was as much to escape free religious practices of Holland as to get away from their differences with the church of England.

[Gazpacho]

The Pilgrims wanted to live and practice according to their own particular interpretation of what the Bible said and didn't say. King James I wanted people to practice a different interpretation that was standardized by law. The Pilgrims would not accept his authority over the bible, so they left.

The Pilgrims (in America, at least) were somewhat more tolerant than the Massachusetts Bay Puritans. It doesn't make much sense to fight over theology when you're in danger of starving to death.

As for Holland, it wasn't English.

[Jeff Corey]

Well the Puritans in Salem Village were the most energetic "witch" murders. Eighteen hung, one pressed under stones and an unknown number of imprisoned pregnant women who died with their as yet unborn children.

[UnrepentantSinner]

The Pilgrims (in America, at least) were somewhat more tolerant than the Massachusetts Bay Puritans. It doesn't make much sense to fight over theology when you're in danger of starving to death.

That's how I uderstood the situation to be. The Pilgrims wanted to practice their religion their own way, while the Puritans wanted everyone else to practice their religion their way. Apart from Jeff's exampe of the Witch Trials, one only need look at Roger Williams for how much religious freedom there was in Mass. Bay colony.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

They came for religious freedom... for themselves to control their own theocracy. Maryland was founded with Catholics in mind. Rhode Island was the place for heathens. Eventually that changed to religious freedom for Protestants, but most everyone still hated Catholics.

[Gazpacho]

(Regarding persecution in England)
When as by the travail and diligence of some godly and zealous preachers, and God's blessing on their labors, as in other places of the land, so in the North parts, many became enlightened by the Word of God and had their ignorance and sins discovered unto them, and began by His grace to reform their lives and make conscience of their ways; the work of God was no sooner manifest in them but presently they were both scoffed and scorned by the profane multitude; and the ministers urged with the yoke of subscription, or else must be silenced. And the poor people were so vexed with apparitors and pursuivants and the commissary courts, as truly their affliction was not small. Which, notwithstanding, they bore sundry years with much patience, till they were occasioned by the continuance and increase of these troubles, and other means which the Lord raised up in those days, to see further into things by the light of the Word of God. How not only these base and beggarly ceremonies were unlawful, but also that the lordly and tyrannous power of the prelates ought not to be submitted unto; which thus, contrary to the freedom of the gospel, would load and burden men's consciences and by their compulsive power make a profane mixture of persons and things in the worship of God. And that their offices and callings, courts and canons, etc. were unlawful and antichristian; being such as have no warrent in the Word of God, but the same that were used in popery and still retained.

[skip discussion of some separatist ministers]

But after these things they could not long continue in any peaceable condition, but were hunted and persecuted on every side, so as their former afflictions were but as flea-bitings in comparison of these which now came upon them. For some were taken and clapped up in prison, others had their houses beset and watched night and day, and hardly escaped their hands; and the most were fain to flee and leave their houses and habitations, and the means of their livelihood.

(Regarding the decision to leave Holland)
though the people generally bore all these difficulties very cheerfully, and with a resolute courage, being in the best and strength of their years, yet old age began to steal on many of them, (and their great and continual labors, with other crosses and sorrows, hastened it before the time,) so as it was not only probably thought, but apparently seen, that within a few years more they would be in danger to scatter, by necessity pressing them, or sink under their burdens, or both.
...
For many of their children, that were of best dispositions and gracious inclinations, having learned to bear the yoke in their youth, and willing to bear part of their parents burden, were, oftentimes, so oppressed with their heavy labors, that their minds were free and willing, yet their bodies bowed under the weight of the same, and became decrepit in their early youth in that country, and the manifold temptations of the place, were drawn away by evil examples into extravagant and dangerous courses, getting the reigns off their necks, and departing from their parents. Some became soldiers, others took up them far voyages by sea, and other some worse courses, tending to dissoluteness and the danger of their souls, to the great grief of their parents and dishonor of God. So that they saw their posterity would be in danger to degenerate and be corrupted.

So it wasn't just that Holland wasn't English. They were also seeing their community age away.

[Nogbad]

Religious freedom is an interesting concept. Islamic extremists are not free to be intolerant of other beliefs and practices in the West.

The Puritans wanted to order their society in a particular rather austre way - they were very intolerant of those in their community who dissented. So one might argue that they went to America to impose their vision, free of interference from those who did not care for their brand of Christianity.

In my view, true religious freedom is tolerance to practice any faith (or none) - a point which we have all but reached in the West, notwithstanding the rather anachronistic requirement for US leaders to at least pay lip service to theism (whether they walk the walk or not).