From Mark David Hall,
writing at the Law and Liberty site. Dr. Hall reviews Steven Waldman's new book on religious liberty, which I hope to say more about later. But in the meantime, from Hall:
Steven Waldman has produced an excellent overview of the development of religious liberty in the United States. It is well-written, as one would expect of a journalist (the Beliefnet.com founder is a veteran of Newsweek, among other publications), but also well-researched and reasonably nuanced. Experts on particular eras or subjects will find details about which they can justly complain, but on the whole, Sacred Liberty: America’s Long, Bloody, and Ongoing Struggle for Religious Freedom deserves high marks.
Just one of the book’s 18 chapters is devoted to the early colonies. Waldman overstates the extent to which Puritans enforced repressive laws with “sadistic enthusiasm.” Yet he is certainly correct that no colony—not even Rhode Island or Pennsylvania—embraced a modern, liberal conception of religious freedom.
America’s Founders rejected Old World approaches to church-state relations. They shared a commitment to protecting religious liberty, and many Founders were coming to question the efficacy of religious establishments. These views contributed to the adoption of a constitution that banned religious tests for federal offices, and to the crafting of a First Amendment that says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
10 comments:
I read the article and I believe it's a poor review. Hall condones all the craziness en vogue today that slithered its ugly head out of the pit of enlightenment rationalism, and setup by the ff's. Their religious liberty is the opposite of liberty; it's lawlessness. For example, animal worship (Hinduism) and Buddhism (atheism) is just a symptom of what the ff's established.
You do not want the government determining what beliefs are true and which are not. In a Catholic country, you could be hanged and in Protestant countries they hanged Catholics.
In fact Protestants killed other Protestants. An unacceptable way to live, they all agreed.
https://catholicherald.co.uk/issues/october-27th-2017/never-forget-the-bloody-horrors-of-the-english-reformation/
Heresy trials continued to be useful against Catholics and the wrong sort of Protestants. On May 2, 1550, Cranmer was involved in the burning at Smithfield of Joan Bocher, an Anabaptist from Kent. The following year, Cranmer, Ridley, and Coverdale all tried George van Parris, a member of the Strangers’ Church, resulting in him being burned at Smithfield on April 25.
The government didn't determine to establish what they knew was true. At the founding, the people should have established what they knew was true as the foundation for the nation (recall the ff's and start over). Instead, they failed miserably and formed no authority as the foundation of the nation except wicked sinners (the people).
At the same time, they were praying to Christ for His help.
Blogger Our Founding Truth said...
The government didn't determine to establish what they knew was true. At the founding, the people should have established what they knew was true as the foundation for the nation (recall the ff's and start over). Instead, they failed miserably and formed no authority as the foundation of the nation except wicked sinners (the people).
At the same time, they were praying to Christ for His help.
Just as in Europe, Protestantism made agreement on anything but the vague particulars impossible. Even a state church such as in England could not exercise the necessary amount of theological control. First you had Henry's "Catholic" Protestantism, then the Calvinist takeover at first influencing the C of E then the government itself with Oliver Cromwell; Charles II's flirtation with restoring Catholicism; then finally a pluralism under the C of E. As Voltarire wrote c. 1720--
Although the Episcopalian and the Presbyterian are the two main sects in Great Britain, all others are welcome there and live pretty comfortably together, though most of their preachers detest one another almost as cordially as a Jansenist damns a Jesuit.
Go into the Exchange in London, that place more venerable than many a court, and you will see representatives of all the nations assembled there for the profit of mankind. There the Jew, the Mahometan, and the Christian deal with one another as if they were of the same religion and reserve the name of infidel for those who go bankrupt. There the Presbyterian trusts the Anabaptist, and the Church of England man accepts the promise of the Quaker. On leaving these peaceable and free assemblies, some go to the synagogue, others in search of a drink; this man is on the way to be baptized in a great tub in the name of the Father, by the Son, to the Holy Ghost; that man is having the foreskin of his son cut off, and a Hebraic formula mumbled over the child that he himself can make nothing of; these others are going to their church to await the inspiration of God with their hats on; and all are satisfied.
If there were only one religion in England, there would be danger of tyranny; if there were two, they would cut each other's throats; but there are thirty, and they live happily together in peace.
"Just as in Europe, Protestantism made agreement on anything but the vague particulars impossible."
The particulars aren't vague; agreement on the others wasn't impossible and they didn't persecute people. The ff's disagreed with you by praying together according to SA.
"Even a state church such as in England could not exercise the necessary amount of theological control"
Because they didn't abide by the plain teaching of the bible. Just ask the ff's and they'll give you plenty of reasons.
Blogger Our Founding Truth said...
"Just as in Europe, Protestantism made agreement on anything but the vague particulars impossible."
The particulars aren't vague; agreement on the others wasn't impossible and they didn't persecute people.
Protestants didn't persecute each other??? Didn't use the power of the state to execute each other???
I already presented evidence they did. Which you are ignoring.
C'mon, Jim. Let's just settle this point before you attempt any others. It is the foundational point of why the Founding Fathers chose as they did.
No discussion of the Founding is possible without addressing the life-or-death question of religious tolerance.
Not in this country.
unresponsive
America's religious arrangements are a direct result of this
https://catholicherald.co.uk/issues/october-27th-2017/never-forget-the-bloody-horrors-of-the-english-reformation/
Where did protestants persecute people here?
Protestants didn't persecute each other??? Didn't use the power of the state to execute each other???""
What part of the country did that happen?
Post a Comment