Citizenship Test

[Irish]

This is very interesting and harder than you think, but try it anyway!

Subject: Citizenship Test


Okay you red-blooded Americans ... let's see how you do on this test:
Very interesting questions. How well would you do if you took the citizenship test. Try this out -- educational and fun. 24 out of 30 is considered a passing grade. Supposedly 96% of all High School seniors FAILED this test...AND if that's not bad enough, 50+% of all individuals over 50 did too!!, and we WONDER why America's in the shape she's in?
Go to the link below. Take the test and be surprised at what we don't know.

http://games.toast.net/independence

Irish :help:

[gekkogecko]

Seen this before. It unfortunately propogates the lie that the pilgrims emigrated to this continent to "seek religious freedom".

[IowaMan]

I didn't fare very well. Got 25 right. :(

[Oldfart]

Last time I sat this one, I almost passed.

[jseal]

It is a mistake to claim that “the pilgrims emigrated to this continent to seek religious freedom” is a lie.

In order for it to be a lie, it would have to be false and that those who said it was so would have had to know it was false.

First the claim that the pilgrims emigrated to this continent to seek religious freedom would need to be shown to be false. In order to do so the various histories which advance this idea would need to be refuted. No account of which I am aware challenges the idea that they left England in order to worship as they preferred. They went first to the Netherlands, and when that society also proved unsatisfactory, they left Europe for a New World.

Here is the history of one of these people (http://www.solagroup.org/articles/historyofthebible/hotb_0005.html)

Here is a teaching resource at Scholastic.com (http://teacher.scholastic.com/researchtools/researchstarters/plymouth/)

Here is a general history site (http://history-world.org/mainmenu.htm). Scroll down to [Pilgrims, English Part I and II (http://history-world.org/english_pilgrims.htm)], or to [Puritans, Great Exodus (http://history-world.org/great_puritan_exodus.htm)]

Here is the entry from the Encyclopedia Britannica (http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9060020/Pilgrim-Fathers)

Here is the entry from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilgrim_Fathers)

Note that in each instance the idea that the pilgrims emigrated to seek religious freedom, or the equivalent – to escape religious harassment and persecution, is either explicitly stated or clearly implied.

This is not to say that there are no other opinions (http://www.helium.com/tm/526741/centuries-religion-propaganda-force) on the subject, but to claim it is FALSE? Well, that is another matter altogether, and I would be interested to read the substantiating historical analysis.

Assuming for the sake of discussion that the task of refuting all these and the host of other references had been accomplished, then it would need to be demonstrated that the claim “the pilgrims emigrated to this continent to seek religious freedom” had been made by those who knew it to be false when they made the claim.

Here is one of those claims; made by Daniel Webster 22-DEC-1820 (http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=1&res=9A0CEED9103FE432A2575AC1A9649D946195D6CF&oref=slogin), as reported in the NT Times.

It might be tricky to demonstrate that Mr. Webster knew that his claim “They sought to enjoy a higher degree of religious freedom and what they esteemed a purer form of religious worship than was allowed to their choice or presented to their imitation in the Old World.” (second column, third paragraph) was false and that he knew it was false when he made it.

All in all, I find the claim ‘It unfortunately propogates the lie that the pilgrims emigrated to this continent to "seek religious freedom".’ a bit hard to take – other than perhaps if it is to be taken as an article of faith.

[Jude30]

Escaping persecution is not the same as seeking freedom. Since freedom implies freedom for all no just those leaving their persecuted state. Sure it's semantics and they can under some circumstances be the same thing, it is not the case with the pilgrims.

[citrus]

I slipped in under the wire at the low average. Here's my failings. They're first choices without a moments hesitation to think about a different answer.

Your Score is 24
Congratz, you Pass! You should be proud.

Click here to compare your scores with others in your age and state!
Question

MY Answer / Correct Answer

Click on an answer below for more information
1 -- D -- D -- "The Star Spangled Banner"
2 -- C -- C -- Freedom of Religion
3 -- A -- A -- Mayor
4 -- D -- D -- The Congress
5 -- D -- D -- No term limits for Senators
6 -- B -- B -- 2 Terms for Presidents
7 -- B -- B -- 2 Years for a Rep's full term
8 -- C -- C -- 26th Amendment
9 -- A -- A -- The Speaker of the House
10 -- B -- B -- Great Britain
11 -- C -- C -- 3 Branches of Government
12 -- A -- A -- The Supreme Court
13 -- B -- B -- The Electoral College
14 -- C -- C -- 50 States
15 -- B -- B -- 13 Stripes
16 -- A -- A -- Abraham Lincoln
17 -- B -- B -- George W Bush
18 -- D -- D -- Dick Cheney
19 -- D -- D -- to find religious freedom
20 -- D -- D -- 100 Senators
21 -- B -- B -- 27
22 -- D -- C -- 6
23 -- B -- D -- Prohibiting the importing of liquor into States where it is illegal.
24 -- D -- D -- 1992
25 -- C -- A -- There is no Official Language of the US
26 -- C -- B -- John Adams
27 -- D -- B -- Patrick Henry
28 -- C -- C -- 4
29 -- D -- A -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
30 -- C -- C -- 2

[dicksbro]

Your Score is 28
Near Perfect! This was a difficult test, you should be proud!

Click here to compare your scores with others in your age and state!

Question Your Answer Correct

1 D D "The Star Spangled Banner"
2 C C Freedom of Religion
3 A A Mayor
4 D D The Congress
5 D D No term limits for Senators
6 B B 2 Terms for Presidents
7 B B 2 Years for a Rep's full term
8 C C 26th Amendment
9 A A The Speaker of the House
10 B B Great Britain
11 C C 3 Branches of Government
12 A A The Supreme Court
13 B B The Electoral College
14 C C 50 States
15 B B 13 Stripes
16 A A Abraham Lincoln
17 B B George W Bush
18 D D Dick Cheney
19 D D to find religious freedom
20 D D 100 Senators
21 B B 27
22 C C 6
23 B D Prohibiting the importing of liquor into States where it is illegal.
24 C D 1992
25 A A There is no Official Language of the US
26 B B John Adams
27 B B Patrick Henry
28 C C 4
29 A A Dwight D. Eisenhower
30 C C 2

In fairness, a couple of the answers were guesses. :shrug:

[Oldfart]

Escaping persecution is not the same as seeking freedom. Since freedom implies freedom for all no just those leaving their persecuted state. Sure it's semantics and they can under some circumstances be the same thing, it is not the case with the pilgrims.

Jude30,

This in a part of your history, not the line for my country, Australia,

Seeking freedom for your own sect, even if this is not translated to the general population, seems to fit the terms of the answer.

Unfair, but fits the terms.

[gekkogecko]

Jseal: you're flat out wrong here.

The Puritans were in no way seeking religious freedom.

What they were seeking is the ability to impose on the Church of England, their own fairly strict view of Protestantism.

When that didn't work, yes, they emmigrated to Holland, claiming "persecution" by the very Church of England they were trying to impose upon.

When that didn't work, yes, they emmigrated to North America, seeking the right to worship as *they* chose.

This is NOT a matter of mere semantics, it is a very different statement. To present it as the same thing is a flat-out lie.

The Puritans explicitly claimed the right to set up a theoracy in the "New World", and further claimed the right to impose their religious view on anyone living within their colony, regaqrdless of whether or not a given individual was originally an emmigrant from England, a Native American caught within their area, or a slave imported by force from elsewhere in the world. Oh, they also claimed the right to expand their colony at the expense of the Natives living in what later became Massachusetts.

The fact numerous societally-accepted histories have repeated the lie about "religious freedom" impresses me not at all. To accept these various accounts as the "truth" is merely to participate in the concept advanced by Goebbels of the "big lie".

(Side note: this is not me indirectly accusing you of being a Nazi. There's no guilt by association I'm trying to push here).

Question: have you read, for example Zinn's "A People's History of the United States"?

[Scarecrow]

I missed #21, 24 and 27, not to bad for an old man.

[jseal]

gekkogecko,

I remain unpersuaded. Consider:

... What they were seeking is the ability to impose on the Church of England, their own fairly strict view of Protestantism ...
Actually, if you take the time to read the 1559 Act of Uniformity (http://history.hanover.edu/texts/engref/er80.html), you will discover that you have your history exactly backwards. This act, passed by Parliament in 1559, functions to reestablish “... one uniform order of common service and prayer, and of the administration of sacraments, rites, and ceremonies in the Church of England, which was set forth in one book, intituled: The Book of Common Prayer, and Administration of Sacraments, and other rites and ceremonies in the Church of England ...”. (first paragraph)

In a free society, we each worship what we choose to worship, in the manner we chose. You agree that this group left England ‘claiming “persecution”’.

“Claiming persecution?” Let us consider some facts before deciding if the claim was, in fact, warranted.

Under the Act of Uniformity, it was illegal to not attend Church of England services, with a fine of 12d (about $7) for each missed Sunday and other holy day. The penalties for conducting unofficial services included larger fines, exclusion from promotion, loss of position, imprisonment for a year (second conviction), and life imprisonment (third conviction). It was under this policy that Henry Barrowe and John Greenwood, two of the Puritan Separatist leaders, were executed for sedition in 1593.

Now, perhaps you feel that treatments by the State such as these do not constitute persecution or harassment, but I do, and I suspect that most people do.

Having provided a fact based explanation for the motivation these Puritan Separatists had for leaving England, we come to two other points of agreement. Yes, they traveled first to the Netherlands, and yes, they then settled in “the New World”. Good.

... The Puritans explicitly claimed the right to set up a theoracy in the "New World", and further claimed the right to impose their religious view on anyone living within their colony, regaqrdless of whether or not a given individual was originally an emmigrant from England, a Native American caught within their area, or a slave imported by force from elsewhere in the world. Oh, they also claimed the right to expand their colony at the expense of the Natives living in what later became Massachusetts ...
While interesting, and doubtless accurate, the above has no relevance to your assertion that the claim ‘the pilgrims emigrated to this continent to "seek religious freedom"’ is a lie. That is, after all, the issue at hand, not whether we approve of the behaviors of this group, or not.

... The fact numerous societally-accepted histories have repeated the lie about "religious freedom" impresses me not at all. To accept these various accounts as the "truth" is merely to participate in the concept advanced by Goebbels of the "big lie" ...
A couple of points may be made here. First, the historians who wrote the histories which fail to impress you customarily do so after examining the primary sources. An example of such a primary source would be the 1559 Act of Uniformity, referred to above. Once they know what they are talking about, historians are well placed to provide useful insights into past events. This may be why these explanations are preferred to other, unsubstantiated ones. Second, I note that you have reverted to referring to the religious freedom notion as “a lie”. Do you have any plans to substantiate your claim, or should it be accepted as true because you said so?

Thank you for not calling me a Nazi. It is best to keep disagreements civil.

[dicksbro]

http://bestsmileys.com/playing/23.gif

[wyndhy]

28 right. fucking garfield. :p

learned something about impeachment, though - always thought it meant oust, but in a legal sense it only means accuse. hmm. that was a trick question! :p

[Irish]

This is the MAIN reason that I don't post much anymore!It seems as if anything posted,ends up in a version of an indivuals opinion of what is
correct in their OPINION!The test was a simple test to get awnsers(sp?),NOT
to start a disagreement.I have noticed that one person (name withheld)
seems to want everyone to have their personal opinion & not a simple
diagreement.Most people have more important things to do than to try to change the world,so that everyone has the same views!(My opinion) Irish :curse:

[gekkogecko]

Now, perhaps you feel that treatments by the State such as these do not constitute persecution or harassment, but I do, and I suspect that most people do.

But you fail to recognize (in this qote: I have no idea if you are familiar with the background history here) that the Act of Uniformity was passed largely in reaction to the threat that the Chruch of England felt it was under from mainly the Catholics in England (this was just after the the reign of Mary Tudor, aka, "Bloody Mary" and her Cathloic reaction), but also the threat it felt itself under from the Radical Protestantism (yes, the movement was important enough in 16th Century English history to warrant its own proper noun) of Edward VI. It was in fact, the Radical Protestant movement of Edward's time (1547-1553) that later became the Puritan movement the eventually produced the Pilgrims. Or so says the English history course that I took way back in college. The textbook for that course, BTW, that I still have and refer to occasionally is "A History of England", David Harris Wilson, Dryden Press, 1967/1972.

IOW, this persecution was a reaction to the acts of the Puritans themselves, when they sought to impose their own ideas of 'proper' worship upon the CofE.

Do you have any plans to substantiate your claim, or should it be accepted as true because you said so?

Despite your rather condescending assertion that my illustration of thier (the Pilgrims') actions are irrelevant, said actions are in fact, the direct illustration of why the statement is a lie.

Examine these three possible statements of the Pilgrims' emmigration:

1. The Pilgrims emmigrated to North America to seek religious freedom.
2. The Pilgrims emmigrated to North America to seek religious freedom for themselves. (alternatively: The Pilgrims emmigrated to North America to seek the freedom to worship as they chose.)
3. The Pilgrims emmigrated to North America to seek religious freedom exclusively for themselves.

The first is a lie. Period. The Pilgrims demonstrated by their own actions why this is so. One example: one of the first people to be executed by the Massachusetts Bay Colony was a woman (unfortuantely, her name escapes me: I have a horrible memory for names), whose only crime was that she was a "witch": that is, she may or may not have actually practised a differing religion from the Puritans. Executing people for refusing to practice the state religion is not religious freedom, it is an act of establishing a theocracy.

The second is a half-truth. While it is accurate in so far as it goes, the statement ignores the many ways in which the Pilgrims refused to allow this freedom to others.

The third is full of implications, both positive and negative about the what actions the Pilgrims took, possible alternative courses of actions, and the stated motivations of the founders of the MBC.

It is not a matter of mere semantics: it is a matter of the manipulation of facts and language to fit a particular political point of view.

[Scarecrow]

This is the MAIN reason that I don't post much anymore!It seems as if anything posted,ends up in a version of an indivuals opinion of what is
correct in their OPINION!The test was a simple test to get awnsers(sp?),NOT
to start a disagreement.I have noticed that one person (name withheld)
seems to want everyone to have their personal opinion & not a simple
diagreement.Most people have more important things to do than to try to change the world,so that everyone has the same views!(My opinion) Irish :curse:



Amen

[jseal]

… this persecution was a reaction to the acts of the Puritans …
I am pleased to see that you now accept that the Puritans were persecuted.

Now that we agree that they were persecuted, I am confident that, following a careful reading of the various available history texts, you will find very few which advance the proposition that the Pilgrims emigrated to the New World to seek religious freedom for everyone. Actually, I would be interesting in reading any reputable history which suggests that the Pilgrims emigrated to seek religious freedom for anyone other than themselves.

As a matter of fact, if you follow the link for question 19 (http://games.toast.net/independence/question19.htm) on the score page of the quiz, you will read “…The solution was to create their own colony where they were free to practice their own beliefs and free from the tainting of other belief systems.”.

So, no. It is a mistake to claim that “It is a lie to say that the Pilgrims emigrated to North America to seek religious freedom.”

The story of the Latin West’s involvement with witches, on the other hand, is intriguing.

[Belial]

18 - failed. Still, I'm not American :p