History Reminds Us Why We Separated Church and State

[Czolgosz]

As I see the walls between church and state crumble, I need to remind myself how our common history confirms the guarantee that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" promised a real separation of church and state.

From a time prior to the American Revolution, the settlers of New England (outside of Rhode Island) were predominantly Puritans, who were notoriously intolerant of other religious views, and they had expelled Catholics and Quakers. Rhode Island was founded as a refuge for those who could not endure the religious intolerance of Massachusetts.

Virginia (and, to a lesser degree, Maryland and Georgia) had laws establishing the Church of England as the state religion, and it had banned Puritans, Catholics, Quakers, Baptists, and Presbyterians from preaching their faiths. While Georgia had laws establishing the Church of England as the state religion, it was more tolerant and there was even a sizable Jewish community in Savannah, but even Georgia expelled Catholics. Maryland was founded as an early haven for Catholics until the Church of England was established as the state religion.

Pennsylvania and Delaware were founded as sanctuaries for Quakers.

New York and New Jersey were religiously tolerant and diverse, and laws nominally establishing the Anglican Church as the state religion (a vestigial artifact from their colonial origins) were not generally enforced. Among the Anglicans, Protestants, Quakers, and Jews lived in relative harmony.

Carolina was founded on the principles of religious toleration, but even North and South Carolina abandoned these principles and established the Church of England as the state religion.

How, you may ask, could these various states join into a union as one nation? All you have to do is read the very first words of the Bill of Rights: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

1. Let's not forget

that when there is religious intolerance, eventually the intolerant, after expelling all those who disagree with their narrow view of things, start persecuting each other. You saw that in the witch trials of 1692.

[Mirwib]

13. It isn't the religious that we need to worry about as much as extremists

Stalin and Mao lived in countries without state religions; yet both managed to cause more than their fair share of misery. Hitler tried to replace Christianity in Germany with some type of teutonic-norse worship.

If one were to classify the worst mass-murderers of the twentieth century, one would note that it wasn't religion that drove them; it was hatred. Some people use religion to spew their hatred. Some people use nationalistic policies. Some economic policies.

What I am trying to say is that your post is accurate even when you remove the word religious so it reads

"when there is intolerance, eventually the intolerant, after expelling all those with disagree with their narrow view of things, start persecuting each other."

This type of intolerance isn't found just among religious individuals. It is found in most political organizations.

[Malva Zebrina]

2. It is interesting that the Puritans immigrated to form a new zion

and they did contribute a lot to the formation of the colony with their strict work ethic and dedication to commerce. It was a tribute to these settlers that ,realizing the rocky soil of NE was not very conducive to agriculture, set out to survive and thus fortify their economy with trade, instead. They succeeded by oceanic trade, trading lumber and fish with others who in return supplied needed goods--not to mention molasses and rum. The puritans established the first corporation on American soil and made it work.

Sadly, they proceeded to try to establish a theocracy and that did NOT work and that should be a lesson to all who think that the "founders" were Christain and that this therefore should be a Christian nation. They were the early settlers, but not the founders. Puritanism, a derivative of Calvinism, simply died, because the economic conditions changed in the community and it no longer served it's purpose on the quest for a good life.

As the population increased rapidly here, the children of the puritans and their children gradually became acclimated to the increased population and the increased trade and a change occurred in the social venue. They no longer wanted to adhere to the religon of the Puritans when it no longer was feasable to adhere to a theocracy due to the rapid change and the enjoyment of the good life.

With regard to the the Jewish population, I visited a Jewish synagogue in Rhode Island that claims to be the first Jewish synagogue established in America. Newport Rhode Island is a unique and quite interesting place to visit, if anyone is interested in seeing that part of history, from the early seventeenth century into the era of the very rich and famous--the narrow streets are lined with 18th century houses and a walk through them all would take at least two hours. It is really interesting if you like that and very well kept and restored.

http://www.vernonjohns.org/nonracists/necnwprt.html

The huge mansions are a sight to behold, and an astonishing view into the times of the barron nobility. At Christmas time they are decorated in magnificient Victorian fashion--a sight to behold, indeed. Amazing places those mansions of the rich and famous, and kept up meticulously. You would not believe it!

http://www.newportmansions.org/

http://www.tourosynagogue.org/

Indeed, there were a variety of Christian sects that settled America, and they all were in a battle to exclude others from their domain.

[Northern Perspective]

3. And it has cataclysmic consequences

I think one of the great strengths of western democracies is in the separation of Church and State.

Yet the United States now has a president quoting his own brand of Christianity – rather than evidence or fact – in the development and promotion of his administration's domestic and foreign policy.

George W.Bush has created an entirely ‘faith-based’ presidency. And Republicans, hijacked by the Religious Right, have cynically exploited it to lend the appearance of moral authority to their own partisan political agenda.

They’ve made religion the stand-alone test for fitness to lead. I wonder if a good, honest and moral atheist could even run for President in America today. Or a Buddhist for Senate. Or a Muslim for Congress. Or a secular humanist sit on the Supreme Court.

Before the election, I would have believed that was possible – because the Constitution promises both ‘freedom of’ and ‘freedom FROM’ religion. And because I’ve read Thomas Jefferson:“…therefore the proscribing any citizen as unworthy... unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages to which in common with his fellow-citizens he has a natural right…”

But it doesn’t really look like Americans believe that themselves anymore.

[Czolgosz]

5. It's sad that you're probably correct about religious intolerance in

America. The Constitution expressly purports to protect us against this danger:

Article. VI.

Clause 3: . . . no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

[newyawker99]

10. Hi Northern Perspective!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Northern Perspective]

11. Thanks.

Hope I can contribute to a progressive international alliance.

(And tip of a Canadian lager back atcha!)

[seaj11]

4. True.

The Constitution was a powerful tool in uniting the States. I wonder, though, how much of the Anti-Federalism was related to religious intolerance? Hmm. That's something that will never be discussed in grade-school textbooks, which are typically pro-America in a way that never criticizes ANYTHING about our country's history. Sorry, I went off on a tangent. :D

[gcole]

6. Look no further than the Middle East

to see the concoction that you get when you toos religion and government in the blender.

[GOPBasher]

7. State-church integration causes wars.

[LiberalFighter]

8. It went beyond intoleration...

If you didn't attend the church you were fined.
If you weren't a member you could not hold an elected office or vote.

Assessments (taxes) were levied by the state to pay the salaries of ministers and other church related purposes.

[janx]

9. The Pilgrims were Separatists.

It started there.

We hashed through this at Thanksgiving, I think, but it cannot be stressed enough.

[kamqute]

12. Look at England--look how vibrant Anglicanism is among the general pop.

[Porcupine]

14. The Thirty Years War perhaps?

The Founding Fathers were all too aware that religious intolerance backed by governments quickly turned to warfare. Northern Europe had been racked by warfare between various Catholic and Protestan factions.

None of these wars solved anything and the remnants of the Catholic/Protestant conflicts still flare up in Northern Ireland to this day. That's 500 years of Christians killing Christians due at least partly to differences in faith.

While the various "conservative christians" in the U.S. may hate gays and liberals they have other problems. How can Baptists possibly tolerate Mormans, Jehovah's Witnesses and Seventh Day Adventists? Once they establish that it's ok to whack somebody for their lack of religious veiws what's to make them stop?