Were Puritan Leaders Religious Bigots?

This article examines the question of whether Puritan leaders were religious bigots or builders, providing evidence and examples to support both sides of the argument.

Running head: SOCIOLOGY
SOCIOLOGY
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1SOCIOLOGY
Explain if you agree or disagree with the statement, "...the Puritan leaders were not a
tolerant people. They might best be described as religious bigots." Make sure you support
your argument with concrete examples.
The Puritans refers to the group of English Protestants of the late 16th as well as 17th centuries.
The mentioned community was not given any kinds of religious freedom under the Anglican
Church, they left for Northern part of America and settled in New England. In order to
understand whether Puritan leaders are religious bigots or builders, it is highly crucial to consider
the impact of their decision on the society.
According to Stabler, 2018, the Puritans were protestant Christians who had split from the
Anglican Church. They opted for change in order to make the church an extensively holly place
as per their perspective (Bowden, 2017). Very soon they become the largest religious group in
the area. Puritan leaders believed that their faith is the only true faith and hence each and every
individual on the earth should believe the same. They also believed that leaders of the church
possess the authority over common people and it is the responsible of the community members
to abide by them. thus , it can clearly be understood that majority of the Puritan leaders were
religious bigots. However, exceptional leaders were also present there (Facal, 2019). Roger
Williams, one of the Purisan minister was a leader who contradicted to the contemporary beliefs
of the leaders. He was highly against forcing common people to agree with the Puritan Ideology.
According to him, it is nothing but a sin to punish an individual in the name of Christianity.
However, he also n order to have a understanding of whether Puritan leaders are religious bigots
or buildersbelieved that the spiritual believes of the native Americans were wrong ad their
religion is the purest religion across the world (Stabler, \ 2018). Due to the fact that he wrote a
book arguing it is wrong to punish people who have different belief, he was forced to leave the

2SOCIOLOGY
colony. He travelled to Rhode island and created a colon which welcomed people from all faiths
not just from Christian Sects.
Another major Puritan leader who was a dissenter included Ann Hutchinson (Facal, 2019). She
criticized Puritan leaders. Not only had that she claimed that the leaders advocated good works
instead faith as a way to obtain salvation. She strongly believed that people are valued by god on
the basis of their good works instead of worshiping the god. She also claimed that she received
direct communications from the God and that she could interpret the Bible on her own (Bowden,
2017). The Puritan court had banished her. As a result of this, she fled to another provice with
her husband.
From the above discussion it can be clearly understood that majority of the leaders of the Puritan
community were not tolerant to other religion an acted like religious bigots. However, exceptions
were certainly there. They believed that their religion is superior than any other religions across
the world. The fact that Puritans were intolerant, strict and had a negative effect on society which
includes discrimination on the basis of religion and torture in the name of Christianity cannot be
ignored.

3SOCIOLOGY
Reference List
Bowden, H., 2017. What is Puritanism. The History, and Differences, of English and American
Puritanism. Retrieved April, 8.
Facal, G., 2019. Islamic Defenders Front Militia (Front Pembela Islam) and its Impact on
Growing Religious Intolerance in Indonesia. TRaNS: Trans-Regional and-National
Studies of Southeast Asia, pp.1-22.
Stabler, S.D., 2018. Church, Space, and Pluralism: Two Puritan Settlements, Territory, and
Religious Tolerance. Sociology of Religion, 80(2), pp.222-246.