The controversy began when a local chapter of the United Coalition of Reason spent $3,875 to erect one billboard in Cincinnati:
Discussion boards on the local TV and newspaper websites were filled with messages from Christians who were outraged that someone who didn't believe in a god had the nerve to spread their beliefs. Many of the messages were openly hostile to non-believers, spouting messages similar to “this country was founded on Christianity,” etc., etc., as though that “fact” entitled them to spout hate speech against those who weren't Christians. Of course, many of these same people weren't rising up against local billboards posted by other local religious organizations, such as the Catholic Church (asking for money to support elderly nuns or promoting parochial schools) or Mormons (promoting their faith). Only the non-believers were worthy of their wrath. One must wonder what they are afraid of.
Yes, many of the earliest settlers on this continent were Christians. They weren't often very tolerant of other Christians, however. John Winthrop's Massachusetts Bay Colony, his “city on a hill,” permitted, by force of law, no worship other than that of his Puritan followers. Those who didn't follow every single detail of the faith as interpreted by the local church were persecuted, punished, or exiled. If you were a “papist,” a Jew, Quaker, Lutheran, or anything else, you were in violation of law.
I don't think that such connection of religion with law is a good “principle” to associate with the US Constitution. You could say that our country was founded by people who did their best to escape religious persecution in their own country and who then came here and established a new religious persecution of their own.
One group of people attempted to break this pattern in 1657, and their efforts led to a nation that permits (or should permit) people to make their own decisions of faith. That nation, if its constitution is to be followed, must keep religion entirely separate from government. Mottoes such as “In God We Trust,” the posting of the Ten Commandments on government property, the use of “under god” as part of the Pledge of Allegiance – these have no place in a secular government. A secular government is necessary in order that we all can practice our beliefs, whether they are Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Humanist, Buddhist, Hindu, or non-beliefs. Once one set of practices becomes endorsed by a government, then the rest are threatened.
Let me tell you the story.
In the 1650's, a group of English settlers were living in Flushing, in Long Island. Although English, these people were subject to the rule of the governor of New Netherland, Pieter Stuyvesant. The local laws decreed that the only permitted public worship was that conducted in the Dutch Reformed Church. The laws also espoused the principle of “freedom of conscience,” but such freedom was to be practiced only privately.
Since the English settlers were primarily puritans who had emigrated from New England, they shared the beliefs of the Dutch Reformed Church and they were happy to accede to the local religious practices.
Stuyvesant was quick to punish anyone who strayed from the straight and narrow path. For example, in 1656, a Baptist minister who had arrived from Rhode Island, William Wickenden, was arrested, jailed, fined and kicked out of New Netherland because he had baptized Christians in Flushing. Others with non-standard thoughts or those who committed non-standard acts were treated similarly.
In 1657, a group of Quakers arrived in the colony. The practice of this new faith, which had been declared illegal in England and its colonies, caused an uproar. A Lutheran minister managed to settle and remained hidden for two years before he was discovered in his attempt to establish a Lutheran congregation. He was thrown out of New Netherland, as had been the Baptist. Jews had arrived in 1654, but constant harassment caused most of them to leave.
The Dutch wouldn't have minded if the Quakers had kept to themselves, but some of the English appear to have been interested in what the Quakers had to say, inviting them into their homes. This was just too much for Stuyvesant, and his persecution spread from the newcomers to their hosts, people who were already citizens of New Netherland.
A group of the English settlers, including several of my ancestors, (I'm proud to say), were incensed by this repression, and they drafted a document that gave the Dutch governor what for.
This document, known as “The Flushing Remonstrance.” was the first document in North America that demanded freedom of religion, and is looked at as the foundation for the United States Constitution's provision of freedom of religion.
In the Remonstrance, the English indicated that civil authorities were not the ultimate judge of right or wrong in matters of faith, and that “love, peace and liberty” should preclude “hatred, war and bondage.” They indicated that this “love, peace and liberty” should extend to non-Christians, as well (“Jews, Turks and Egyptians”). They stated that “Wee [sic]desire therefore in this case not to judge least we be judged, neither to condemn least we be condemned.”
The English very clearly set out the principle of the separation of church and state in their document: “Magistrate hath his sword in his hand and the Minister hath the sword in his hand, as witnesse [sic] those two great examples [Moses and Jesus], which all Magistrates and Ministers are to follow.” They continue on, saying that God will judge who is right and who is wrong:
...our desire is not to offend one of his little ones, in whatsoever form, name or title hee [sic] appears in, whether Presbyterian, Independent, Baptist or Quaker, but shall be glad to see anything of God in any of them, desiring to doe unto all men as we desire all men should doe [sic] unto us, which is the true law both of Church and State; for our Saviour sayeth this is the law and the prophets.
While the document is couched in Christian terms, the document certainly indicates that freedom of conscience is what matters, and that civil authorities cannot be the judge of which beliefs are correct.
I think that, in this document, the English signers acted in way that is dictated by the principle of the Golden Rule – treat others the way you want to be treated. Live and let live. It is not your place to judge others. They are saying that personal views in the matter of faith are yours and yours alone, and that no one should tell you what to believe.
Several of the signers of the Remonstrance were arrested and religious persecution continued. One of my ancestors, John Bowne, allowed Quakers to meet in his house. He was arrested and exiled to Holland. Since was an Englishman who spoke no Dutch, this was real punishment. He pleaded with the Dutch West India Company, who supported him and sent him home to Flushing. Their letter to Stuyvesant, which Bowne brought back with him in 1663, ended religious tolerance in the colony of New Netherland.
Below is the complete text of the Flushing Remonstrance.
Right Honorable
You have been pleased to send unto us a certain prohibition or command that we should not receive or entertain any of those people called Quakers because they are supposed to be, by some, seducers of the people. For our part we cannot condemn them in this case, neither can we stretch out our hands against them, for out of Christ God is a consuming fire, and it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
Wee desire therefore in this case not to judge least we be judged, neither to condemn least we be condemned, but rather let every man stand or fall to his own Master. Wee are bounde by the law to do good unto all men, especially to those of the household of faith. And though for the present we seem to be unsensible for the law and the Law giver, yet when death and the Law assault us, if wee have our advocate to seeke, who shall plead for us in this case of conscience betwixt God and our own souls; the powers of this world can neither attach us, neither excuse us, for if God justifye who can condemn and if God condemn there is none can justifye.
And for those jealousies and suspicions which some have of them, that they are destructive unto Magistracy and Ministerye, that cannot bee, for the Magistrate hath his sword in his hand and the Minister hath the sword in his hand, as witnesse those two great examples, which all Magistrates and Ministers are to follow, Moses and Christ, whom God raised up maintained and defended against all enemies both of flesh and spirit; and therefore that of God will stand, and that which is of man will come to nothing. And as the Lord hath taught Moses or the civil power to give an outward liberty in the state, by the law written in his heart designed for the good of all, and can truly judge who is good, who is evil, who is true and who is false, and can pass definitive sentence of life or death against that man which arises up against the fundamental law of the States General; soe he hath made his ministers a savor of life unto life and a savor of death unto death.
The law of love, peace and liberty in the states extending to Jews, Turks and Egyptians, as they are considered sons of Adam, which is the glory of the outward state of Holland, soe love, peace and liberty, extending to all in Christ Jesus, condemns hatred, war and bondage. And because our Saviour sayeth it is impossible but that offences will come, but woe unto him by whom they cometh, our desire is not to offend one of his little ones, in whatsoever form, name or title hee appears in, whether Presbyterian, Independent, Baptist or Quaker, but shall be glad to see anything of God in any of them, desiring to doe unto all men as we desire all men should doe unto us, which is the true law both of Church and State; for our Saviour sayeth this is the law and the prophets.
Therefore if any of these said persons come in love unto us, we cannot in conscience lay violent hands upon them, but give them free egresse and regresse unto our Town, and houses, as God shall persuade our consciences, for we are bounde by the law of God and man to doe good unto all men and evil to noe man. And this is according to the patent and charter of our Towne, given unto us in the name of the States General, which we are not willing to infringe, and violate, but shall houlde to our patent and shall remaine, your humble subjects, the inhabitants of Vlishing.
Written this 27th of December in the year 1657, by mee.
Edward Hart, Clericus
Additional Signers
Tobias Feake
Nathaniell Tue
The marke of William Noble
Nicholas Blackford
William Thorne, Seignior
The marke of Micah Tue
The marke of William Thorne, Jr.
The marke of Philip Ud
Edward Tarne
Robert Field, senior
John Store
Robert Field, junior
Nathaniel Hefferd
NichColas Parsell
Benjamin Hubbard
Michael Milner
The marke of William Pidgion
Henry Townsend
The marke of George Clere
George Wright
Elias Doughtie
John Foard
Antonie Feild
Henry Semtell
Richard Stocton
Edward Hart
Edward Griffine
John Mastine
John Townesend
Edward Farrington
Posts
3 comments:
most interesting!
Post a Comment