Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.
Given the fact that the political concept of feminism has now been fully legitimized by hysterical proponents of “equality,” it comes as no surprise that the figure of Anne Hutchinson is now being put on a pedestal, as someone who represents the very essence of so-called “women’s liberation movement.” As a result, we are encouraged to think of Anne Hutchinson as being wrongly accused by the Court of Massachusetts Colony. However, if we take a closer look at the transcript of Hutchinson’s hearing, it will appear that Court had a good reason to decide in favor of banning her from the colony, as Hutchinson’s religious activity was undermining the colony’s inner integrity.
It is important to understand that Puritans’ religious jealousness was largely a myth since Puritanism actually embodies the essence of Protestantism, as religion is closely related to the rise of Capitalism. The emergence of Protestantism in Europe corresponded to the fact that, from the 16th century onwards, more and more people in Europe realized themselves as being fully capable of utilizing their rationale as the tool of gaining social prominence, rather than relying on “God’s graces,” as Catholics do. Protestants do not need God as their ultimate benefactor, but rather as some distant authority that does not intervene in their lives actively, as Protestants have grown to realize a very simple fact that material riches do not fall out of the sky and that one needs to work hard, in order to achieve financial prosperity. In fact, Protestants, and especially Puritans, believe that it is when they are fully self-reliant that makes God loves them. This is the reason why early American Puritans, while appearing as being extra pious, were, in fact, even less pious than Catholics. This statement provides us with insight into why Anne Hutchinson’s activities were being considered as counter-productive to the well-being of the Massachusetts Bay Colony as a whole – she was encouraging people to adopt a suicidal mode of existence by taking Jesus’ commandments literally. In other words, it is not Anne’s stance of “women’s liberation,” which brought her into the conflict with Colony’s clergy, but the fact that her preaching was anarchist in its very essence, just as it was the case with the original preaching of “Son of God”: “Governor: It will not well stand with the commonwealth that families should be neglected for so many neighbors and dames and so much time spent. We see no rule of God for this. We see not that any should have authority to set up any other exercises besides what authority hath already set up and so what hurt comes of this you will be guilty of and we for suffering you”. The Colony’s “founding fathers” were no fools and they knew perfectly well, what happens when people are being allowed to indulge in theological arguments, in regards to “holy book’s” actual message – the reduction of Europe’s population by half, during the course of Thirty Years War, came as a direct result of such theological argument. This is the reason they thought of Anne Hutchinson as a person aimed at the destruction of social order within the Massachusetts Bay Colony.
Hutchinson strived to prove the illegitimacy of very the fact that she was brought before the Court by pointing out at judges’ inability to charge her with committing a particular crime: “Mrs. Hutchinson: I am here to answer before you, but I hear no things laid to my charge. Governor: I have told you some already and more I can tell you. Mrs. Hutchinson: Name one, Sir. Governor: Have I not named some already? Mrs. Hutchinson: What have I said or done?”. In other words – by exploiting the inconsistency of legal technicalities associated with the charge, Hutchinson wanted to expose the very fact of her trial taking place as utterly unlawful. Had Hutchinson’s hearing taken place in our times, her case would have been dismissed, just as it was the case with O.J. Simpson, who was being found non-guilty, despite the existence of overwhelming evidence as to the fact that he did kill his wife. However, Hutchinson lived in times when such a concept as “communal solidarity” was not simply an empty sound, as is the case nowadays, thanks to pushers of the Liberal agenda. Thus, the reason why Hutchinson was being found guilty is that judges were able to prove themselves capable of utilizing their sense of logic during the course of legal deliberations. Even though Court’s members were unable to present Hutchinson with the proof from Bible, as to the fact that she did not have a right to act as a Christian minister, they nevertheless sensed that the defendant was a psychologically inadequate individual, which is why they had rightly concluded that Hutchinson had to be expelled from society, because of her inability to act as its integral element: “Governor: Mrs. Hutchinson, the sentence of the court you hear is that you are banished from out of our jurisdiction as being a woman not fit for our society, and are to be imprisoned till the court shall send you away. Mrs. Hutchinson: I desire to know wherefore I am banished? Governor: Say no more. The court knows wherefore and is satisfied”. While being obsessed with reading Bible, Hutchinson had wrongly concluded that her accusers were deprived of their common sense, in the way she was, which made her think that they would be seriously considering her argument as to what represents a difference between “covenant of works” and “covenant of grace.” Yet, Court members did not allow the hearing to degrade to the level of discussing the actual meaning behind the Bible’s contradictory notions. They simply saw Hutchinson as what she really was – a mentally deviated and highly judgemental woman (a spiritual ancestor of modern feminists) with a messianic complex who truly believed that God had favored her above others to interpret the “good news.” If Hutchinson stayed home while believing in her “religious exclusivity,” she would represent no harm. However, given her active stance on the matters of socio-political importance, of which she could have no understanding whatsoever, Court members had decided that the proper way to deal with Hutchinson’s existential inadequateness was to isolate her from the rest of society. It is important to understand that the very concept of law derives out White people’s common sense – when there is no law to address a particular legal case, judges are at liberty to base their decision on their innate understanding of what is wrong and what is right. This was exactly what happened during the course of Hutchinson’s hearing.
There can be no doubt as to the fact that Hutchinson’s case does relate to the dynamics of current elections, as it illustrates what the concept of legal justice must stand for, as opposed to the Liberal concept of justice represented by Obama. The hawks of political correctness strive to encourage people to think of the legal process as being overly complicated, which is supposed to justify in citizens’ eyes the existence of countless legal “experts.” In its turn, this relates to the fact that “lefties” think of every individual as such whose behavior has value in itself, regardless of whether it is anti-social or beneficial to society. The fact that the principle of “communal solidarity” is now often being referred to as “euro-centric” and “retrograde” has resulted in creating a situation when parents in America are afraid of leaving their children unattended in public places for even as little as few seconds because otherwise, these children might be sexually abused by individuals preoccupied with “celebration of diversity.” On the other hand, in racially homogeneous countries, such as Iceland, Ukraine, and Poland, toddlers can be left playing in public parks for hours, without the thought that someone might be willing to cause harm to them, ever occurring to their parents. The reason is simple – these countries’ jurisprudence has the notion of communal solidarity incorporated in its very core. Those who are incapable of acting in a socially acceptable manner must be removed from society, as Hutchinson’s trial shows. It is very unfortunate that many Americans are incapable of grasping this simple notion.
Bibliography
Transcript of Anne Hutchinson Trial. 1637. Scribd. 2008. Web.
Weber, Max. “The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism”. 2001. University of Virginia. American Studies. Web.
Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.