Freedom of Religion -Episode 4 (full)

Freedom of Religion in the United States – Episode 4 (full)

This is the story of Freedom of Religion in the United States and its subsequent assault and attempt at subjugation by the concept of “Separation of Church and State”

The fundamental right of Religious Freedom is embroiled in a struggle against the imposition of the concept of the Separation of Church and State.  The latter concept as it was and is invoked in the conduct of our lives and in our societal affairs is a falsehood, a misrepresentation, that spread throughout the nation before the truth got its boots on, and is now regarded by most as a factual truth. Paradoxically, neither the term, nor the concept of “Separation of Church and State” appears in the U.S. Constitution.  Yet, the overreaching, misguided and zealous invoking of the concept of Separation of Church and State as if it is the law of the land in our Constitution has effectively served to diminish the actual free exercise of religion specifically provided for in our Constitution’s Bill of Rights.

We left Episode 3 in the process of providing some facts that illustrated that the concept of Separation of Church and State was not incorporated in the U.S. Constitution and that it was antithetical to the philosophy of the founders.  The concept was not even recorded as a consideration in the development of the First Amendment.  To wit, the writings of the founding fathers endorse the linkage, the value and the necessity of religion within our government and our country and the term “separation of church and state”, was not mentioned in the Congressional Record of the discussions and debates held on the first amendment wording.

Now, continuing with bullet points that expose the myth of the requirement that there be separation of church and state, it is noted that:

  • The term is never mentioned or used in the U. S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights or in Jefferson’s Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom.

 

The fact that it is not in the U.S. Constitution and is not in the Bill of Rights is foundational and has already been cited. This fact is included in this inventory of evidence for completeness, but the real point of significance is its’ absence in Jefferson’s Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom.  This absence is noteworthy on two counts, (1) the Virginia Statute is regarded as a likely basis or springboard from which the First Amendment was formulated and (2) Jefferson’s later misconstrued association with invoking the concept.

  • The term “separation of church and state” was ” a made up term”, not a quote, and was likely based on just a casual “literary” reference  Jefferson  used in a letter.

The source of the term “separation of church and state” was “contrived” from a letter written by President Jefferson’s in 1802, in response to the Danbury Baptist Association.  The Baptist’s had written to Jefferson complaining of discrimination stemming from the “official” (or state) religion that existed in the state of Connecticut.   The Association sought support for extension (to the state level) of the First Amendment concept of keeping government from interfering with the religious practices of the people. (Recall our earlier discussion that the First Amendment restrictions only applied to the Federal Government).  Jefferson expressed moral support for the position of the Danbury Baptists.   Giving that support was the reason behind Jefferson’s letter.   His response was in conformance to the undeniable point that the intent of the first two clauses of the First Amendment was to put restrictions on the Federal Government from interference with an individual’s right to religious freedom.  Keeping the government out of an individual’s religion was the “wall” Jefferson referred to that had been constructed by the First Amendment.  That was the real meaning of his subsequently misapplied “wall of separation” statement in his 1802 response to the Danbury Baptist Association in Connecticut.  Jefferson was only reiterating a government “hands off” religion policy – That is all!

The Danbury Baptist Association was a group of 26 Baptist churches in the Connecticut Valley who considered themselves persecuted by the legislature of the state of Connecticut that had established Congregationalism as its official state religion.  Here is the full text of Jefferson’s response:

                                              Letter to the Danbury Baptists

January 1, 1802 To messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen,

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.

Th. Jefferson

There are several important points to take from this letter relative to its future misapplication:

  • As noted in the earlier discussion, the First Amendment (religion clauses) applied only to a restriction on the Federal Government. Individual states were not restricted by the first amendment from having an official state religion (as Connecticut did). This was consistent with the Constitution limiting the power of a central government and not interfering with state governments.
  • The Association knew, and acknowledged in their letter to Jefferson that, “the president of the United States is not the national legislator,…”, but hoped that his views on religious liberty would “shine and prevail through all these states and all the world.” In other words they hoped that support by Jefferson would help the individual states move forward in adopting the principle embodied in the “establishment clause” of: “not establishing a state church”.
  • Jefferson could not and did not provide any direct relief or solution to the Baptist’s concern but he did, as requested, express his support of religious liberty being granted in the individual states through his statement, “Adhering to this expression [establishment clause] of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments ….”.       And this support may have helped, as Connecticut did “disestablish” Congregationalism as the official state church in 1818.
  • Most importantly, with respect to the future misapplication and disingenuous use of Jefferson’s phrase by the Court 145 years later, “building a wall of separation”, in his letter supporting, and describing the First Amendment, is that the statement immediately follows, (in the same sentence), and is clearly made in reference to the restriction on the Federal Government from passing any law establishing a religion or prohibiting free exercise of religion. He is reiterating that the First Amendment is intended as a wall to keep the government out of religion. To illustrate, or describe the meaning and purpose of the First Amendment religious clauses he had just quoted, Jefferson could have said something like that the First Amendment “puts up a no trespassing sign”, in reference to the government, but probably, being well read and knowledgeable, was cleverly, alluding to Roger Williams’ (founder of the Baptist Church) earlier writings which stated: that there is: “[A] hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world”.   Jefferson used the same “wall” metaphor to explain the purpose of the first amendment – simply substituting government or “state” for “wilderness of the world”.
  • Jefferson did not make any specific references to or in any way suggest or imply that religion must be excluded from schools, or government or the “public square” in his letter to the Danbury Baptists. Nor did he do so in his very famous, “Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom”, which preceded and is believed to have been the “model” for the first amendment religious clauses. Neither the concept of or the term “separation of church and state” appear in the Virginia Statute.  That document, like the first two clauses of the First Amendment, disavows the concept of a state church and exalts the protection of free exercise of religion.
  • Finally, Jefferson, as President, uses a brief prayer to conclude his letter. I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.” Thus, in his official government capacity he was incorporating an association with religion in his response, which belies the later interpretations of separation.

The words, chosen by Jefferson in his letter to support the First Amendment concept of restriction on government interference, are just that, his chosen words.  Note that Jefferson’s response to the Danbury Baptists did not engender any change, any debate, or any questioning of his intent or meaning at the time of its writing in 1802.  That illustrates that his statements were viewed to be in conformance with the original intent and existing understanding of the meaning, interpretation and application of the First Amendment.  Jefferson’s comments stood without challenge or question for more than a hundred years.

Finally, even if the “wall of separation” words were to be ascribed the “made-up” connotation of separation of church and state now given to them by the courts, those words and their erroneous interpretation do not represent law.  They do not have the force of authority to override the meaning and intent of an Amendment passed by Congress and ratified by the states and duly followed for over 150 years.  Those words should not have been used to warp, manipulate and expand the objective of the establishment clause so as to play a dominate role in our society, and completely reverse the intent of the freedom of exercise clause.

The great paradox and tragedy that stems from the misuse of Jefferson’s words is that the intended goal in the Bill of Rights of giving the people of the United States freedom to exercise their religion without government interference has now been eradicated and turned 180 degrees from the original intent.  The delegates at the Constitution Convention sought to limit the powers of the Federal Government but now the Federal Government (and the dollars it doles out) permeates and to some extent controls every aspect of our lives.  And now, by judicial fiat, there must be no hint of religion in anything that the Federal Government touches or is involved with – which includes schools, state governments, local governments, health care, etc.).  Further the concept of excluding religion (such as school children singing Christmas Carols and communities putting up a nativity scene) has been invoked by periodic judicial rulings and have been publicized so as to make civic and public bodies run scared.  These rulings typically made on behalf of atheist organizations are then spread further by fear, by threat and by media bias.   Further, as a practical matter the “separation” or religion exclusion doctrine is primarily applied to Christianity – “political correctness” and selective “tolerance” gives a free pass to all other religions. The students in my grandson’s high school social studies class were directed to get down on the floor, face east and pray to Allah to demonstrate tolerance for Islam. And they did, save for my grandson.  When he said that doing so was uncomfortable for him, the teacher called him a bigot and sent him out of the room and to the principal’s office. This state of affairs is 180 degrees from our founding fathers view of the world and makes a mockery of the First Amendment.

This concludes Episode 4 and our observation of the true intent Jefferson’s words.   In a future Episode we will trace the ill-fated events that led to the demise of the religious liberty promised in the First Amendment.  But, before examining these contrived, manipulative and ill intended actions we will, in Episode 5, gain some historical perspectives on the history of religion in the United States in the formative years of our country.  Including the statements and rulings by the judiciary in the 100 plus years subsequent to the adoption of the First Amendment.

We will see that the United States is indeed a Christian nation and will describe the evolution of Christianity and other religions in the United States.  This background will help illustrate and explain how dramatic and how paradoxical is the turn of events that now restricts the “free exercise of religion” and pursuit of happiness for Christians in our country.  This background may also give context to the degree of animosity, vitriol and vengeance being pursued by atheists against Christianity.

Please join me for Episode 5 —  Thanks, Larry Von Thun

 

Freedom of Religion – Episode 3 (concise)

Freedom of Religion in the United States – Episode 3 (concise)

This is the story of Freedom of Religion in the United States and its subsequent assault and attempt at subjugation by the concept of “Separation of Church and State”

The fundamental right of Religious Freedom and the imposition of the concept of the Separation of Church and State are embroiled in a constant struggle.  The latter concept as it was and is invoked in the conduct of our lives and in our societal affairs is a misrepresentation, a lie, that spread throughout the nation before the truth got its boots on, and is now regarded by most as a factual truth. Paradoxically, neither the term, nor the concept of “Separation of Church and State” appears in the U.S. Constitution.  Yet, the overreaching, misguided and zealous invoking of the concept of Separation of Church and State as if it is the law of the land in our Constitution has effectively served to diminish the actual free exercise of religion specifically provided for in our Constitution’s Bill of Rights.

Background – We left off in Episode 2 with the U.S. Constitution being ratified by 9 states in September of 1788.  The business of implementing the newly formed government got underway, and by March 1789 the President had been elected and the First Congress was in session.  There were a great many things to be done by that Congress.  But high on the priority list for one delegate, James Madison, was the passage of amendments to the Constitution that would guarantee the rights of the people. Madison worked tirelessly to get a suite of 12 amendments guaranteeing our personal rights passed through the House of Representatives and the Senate.  Indeed, they were passed on Sept. 25, 1789 just 4 days before the Congress adjourned. The efforts by Madison represented great dedication and commitment to the people of the United States.  James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, did not consider the statement of these rights as a necessity in the Constitution since powers not specifically assigned to the Federal Government were to remain with the people and the States. But during ratification of the Constitution several of the Colonies insisted as a condition of their acceptance that the new Government take steps to ensure these personal rights.  Madison took it upon himself to see that they were added to the Constitution. Ten of the twelve amendments were ratified and are known as The Bill of Rights.  (Interestingly, one of the 12 not ratified at the time, called for salaries of Congress to not be able to be changed till the next session. It was ratified 202 years later, in 1992, and became the Twenty Seventh Amendment to the Constitution.

As an interesting aside, it is noted that the term “religion” as used in the first amendment was almost certainly not referring to the worldwide religions, e.g. Buddhist, Hindu, Islam, as we now commonly use the term, rather it was used in reference to different Christian denominations (Congregationalist, Quaker, Anglican, Methodists, Baptists, Presbyterian, etc.).  These were the “religions” which people were familiar with in their world where approximately 99.5 % of the Colonists were Christian. This understanding by the founding fathers was attested to in 1800 later in a letter from Thomas Jefferson to Benjamin Rush when he affirmed that the first amendment “establishment” clause related to preventing selection of a particular Christian sect”.

The first two clauses of the First Amendment are the ones that guarantee Freedom of Religion.  “Congress shall make no law, respecting an establishment of religion (clause 1), or prohibiting the free exercise thereof (clause 2),

The intent of the First Amendment religious freedom clauses

Review of American history before the Bill of Rights was written clearly shows the intent of Madison in formulating and Congress in adopting these two First Amendment clauses was that:

(1) the newly formed Federal Government would not establish a “state” religion and

(2) that laws could not be made by the Federal Government that restricted people from practicing their chosen religion.

These two clauses were inter-related, as both were intended to remove the “built in religious preferences in the founding of the colonies and resulting religious discrimination which the framers recognized and had witnessed.  These statements assured the populous that the Federal Government would not be involved in promoting religious preference or in restricting an individual’s religious observance.  That is why a Freedom of Religion” right was needed in the first amendment.

The Establishment ClauseCongress shall make no law, respecting an establishment of religion — One could imagine the outrage and total unacceptability of the new Constitution if the Congregationalists in New England were told that the Anglican Church was to be the “state” church of the new nation.  Or if the Anglicans in South Carolina were told that the new nation’s official church was to be Congregationalist.  The simply stated “establishment clause” assured the states and their people that the new Federal Government would not be allowed to establish a particular “Christian denomination” as the church of nation.  This was the intended purpose of the clause and its only purpose.

It is important to recognize that the intent of this clause is simple, clear, and single focused.   In future years the intent of this clause will be grossly exaggerated and expanded to imply that any public display or expression of religion is prohibited.  It is also important to recognize, that some individual states at this time (1789) still had an official “state” church (denomination) and in fact continued with one for many more years.  This was consistent with the Constitution’s limits on the Federal Government and the delegates’ desire to maintain “States Rights”.  This situation further makes the case that in the implementation of the first amendment, advocacy, public display and public expression of religion in these states was not considered to be in violation of the establishment clause and was not suppressed.

“Free Exercise of Religion” Clause – Whereas the first right guaranteed by the first amendment (“establishment” clause) was primarily directed toward states as a whole (honoring the status of religion of the majority of the people therein), the second clause dealt directly with an individual’s rights with respect to the Federal Government. This clause ensured protection of individuals and religious sects against any laws being made by the Federal Government that would prohibit the free exercise of their religion.

However, this clause pertained only to the Federal Government so discrimination could still occur within individual states.  Never the less, declaring and documenting the principle to the right to “free exercise of their religion” was important to the Baptists, the Moravians, the Quakers, the Catholics, the Presbyterians and many other Christian denominations who had immigrated to this country.  These other Christian denominations had been discriminated against by law and by common convention in those colonies where an “official” church was recognized (New England) or where one had been established by a “Crown” Charter.

It is instructive and important to reiterate that the religious freedom clauses of the first amendment pertained only to a restriction on the “Federal Government” established by the Constitution.  Thus, a state (such as Massachusetts, or North Carolina) could and still did have an “official” church denomination representing their state. The Bill of Rights did not directly apply to state and local governance.  But, the spirit and intent of establishing “the free exercise of religion” in the U.S. Constitution Bill of Rights set the example for individual states and local governments as well as for individual Americans to follow.  In general, individual states came to honor the free exercise of religion and did not enact laws that prohibited the free exercise thereof.  Likewise, with the growth and expansion of the United States acceptance and tolerance of other religious denominations and later other religions became the American norm.  However, individual morality and decency cannot be legislated and as will be discussed later (non-governmental) religious discrimination, bias, and intolerance by individuals and groups existed at the time the constitution was written and continues today.

The relatively simple rationale (basis, purpose and intent) for the inclusion of two clauses on religious freedom explained above is quite clear.   What is also very clear is that the First Amendment clauses related to religion did not restrict or put any limitations on religious expression on individuals or organizations (churches, schools, local communities, state and local governments, etc.) the only restrictions invoked were on the Federal Government.   These Federal Government restrictions were the “wall” that Jefferson would refer to and be twisted.

We can clearly see that there was no intent in the freedom of religion clauses in the Bill of Rights for the government to be devoid or separated from religion (Christianity), far from it.  That there was such an intent is the essence of the misunderstanding or “myth” of separation.

The “Free Exercise of Religion” and the “Myth of Separation”

 We are ready to examine the illegitimacy and irrationality of the imposition of the “separation of church and state” concept in applying the “establishment clause”.  This “myth” was planted  in 1947 and has been growing since.  That myth is that: “The founding fathers considered and dictated in the Constitution that there should be “Separation of Church and State”.   This belief, currently accepted, taught and invoked is demonstrably false.  The term was erroneously “made up” and ascribed as the meaning and intent of the First Amendment. The concept has been used to invalidate and undermine the original intent and meaning of the First Amendment.  The words of this phrase, which are ascribed to President Thomas Jefferson, were not Jefferson’s words but were, along with their erroneous interpretation, “made up” based on a100+ year old letter written by Jefferson.

With respect to the term “separation of church and state” it is noted that:

  • The writings of the founding fathers endorse the linkage, the value and the necessity of religion within our government and thus belie the much later “imposed” judgment that the church should be excluded from the State. The first amendment is unidirectional – it was and is only intended to exclude the government from establishing a state church and from interference of the free exercise of religion.
  • The concept of “separation of church and state”, was not brought up during the drafting and debates on the first amendment wording.
  • The concept / phrase “separation of church and state” was not used by Jefferson or by any founding father, rather that term was derived (after 150 years had passed) from a “literary” figure of speech used in a private letter supporting the first amendment’s objective of restricting government from interference with religious practice.       Further such a source (private letter) regardless of the belated interpretation of meaning or intent does not have the force of law or of a judicial finding.
  • The term is never mentioned or used in the Constitution, the Bill of Rights or in Jefferson’s Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom.
  • The term “separation of church and state” was not used in any statements or rulings by the judiciary in the 100 plus years subsequent to the adoption of the first amendment.

Information and discussion on each of these points and on the erroneous introduction, deliberate misuse and overzealous application of this phrase and on its resultant effect of eradicating the intent of the first amendment will be presented in the ensuing episodes.  This Episode 3 will discuss the first two bullet points above.  The latter 3 will be covered in Episode 4.

It will be abundantly clear from this examination that linking the “establishment clause” to “removal” (separation) of religion from all the normal, commonplace activities in our civil society is ludicrous.  Making that connection was an opportunistic and intentional distortion that imposed the will and ideology of a few influential people on the nation’s populous. Once introduced it was exacerbated by an activist judiciary such that the intent of the first amendment free exercise clause has been turned around 180 degrees.  The establishment clause, interpreted to mean, “separation of church and state”, (i.e. removal of any semblance of religion from anything to do with civil society), resulted in seriously tearing down the intent and viability of the free exercise clause, which was clearly the desire of the founders.

  • The linkage of religion and morality to America’s founding and to the sustainability of the government, as expressed in writing and as practiced by the founding fathers.

 

The founding fathers, including, but not limited to, Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Madison and Franklin recognized, and documented their belief that our nation’s founding was ordained by God and that the successful survival of this new “governmental concept of a democratic republic,– of the people, by the people and for the people”,  depended on the people of the nation maintaining faith in God and on sustaining the high moral standards rendered in the Judeo-Christian traditions and imbedded in the laws of our country.  A few of the statements on the linkage of God to our freedom and to the success of our government and country are given below:  There are many more that could be cited:

“It is impossible to govern rightly the World without God and the Bible” George Washington

“Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.”  …  “The worship of God is a duty…Freedom is not a gift bestowed upon us by other men, but a right that belongs to us by the laws of God and nature… I never doubted the existence of the Deity, that he made the world, and governed it by His Providence…The pleasures of this world are rather from God’s goodness than our own merit… Whoever shall introduce into the public affairs the principles of primitive (essential) Christianity will change the face of the world… Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God.”  – Benjamin Franklin

Both George Washington (an Episcopal vestryman) and John Adams offered strong rhetorical support for religion. In his Farewell Address of September 1796, Washington called religion, as the source of morality, “a necessary spring of popular government,” and an indispensable support to political prosperity .   Adams claimed that statesmen “may plan and speculate for Liberty, but it is Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the Principles upon which Freedom can securely stand.”

Jefferson noted…….”A free people claim their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate.” , “[It is] God who gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a Gift of God?”

“We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind of self-government; upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.” James Madison (1751-1836) Father of the Constitution, 4th President of the United States

The founding fathers believed and oft stated that if the people governed did not maintain high morals and strong virtue based on faith in God that the Government they instituted would not succeed.

After 4 or 5 weeks at the Constitutional Convention, Benjamin Franklin appealed to the convention’s President, (George Washington), for prayers to God be offered at the outset of each session.  He noted that daily prayers were offered to God at the outset of the conflict with Great Britain and that if it were not for them {the prayers}we would not have prevailed.  Franklin wondered if they {the convention’s delegates} had forgotten that powerful friend (God).     The last two paragraphs of Franklin’s speech are given below:

I have lived, Sir, a long time and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth — that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings that “except the Lord build, they labor in vain that build it.” {Psalm 127} I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the Builders of Babel: We shall be divided by our little partial local interests; our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall become a reproach and a bye word down to future age. And what is worse, mankind may hereafter this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing Governments by Human Wisdom, and leave it to chance, war, and conquest.

I therefore beg leave to move — that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the Clergy of this City be requested to officiate in that service.”

The Second Continental Congress (1774) started the practice of prayer before each session.  The First Congress under the Constitution (1789) continued the practice of a prayer by a chaplain before each session and that practice carries on to this day.

It is evident from the representative statements of the founders given above, that separation of God (religion) from the government was not even a thought much less an objective in the formation of our governmental system, the Constitution, or the Bill of Rights.  It was not even a consideration in their discussions.   Just the opposite was the case.  The founders credited God not Kings or governments with giving us our natural rights, our freedoms and our chance to form a more perfect union.   What they did not want was the government interfering with an individual’s religious observances.  It is unmistakable that the intent of the first amendment was to ensure that the Federal Government did not interfere with the observance of religion by the governed, not that religion should be removed from anything that the government was involved with or from the lives of the governed.

  • The term “separation of church and state” was not brought up during the drafting and debates on the first amendment wording.

 

The amendments to be made to the Constitution to ensure individual rights and thus fulfill the promises made relative to its successful ratification, were initially drafted by James Madison for consideration by the first Congress.  Madison’s draft was discussed and debated in committee, debated by both houses of congress, written in final form and finally passed and then sent for ratification by the states.   Note below information refuting the idea that “separation” of church from state was the intent of the first amendment “establishment” clause:

The Congressional Record from June 7 to September 25, 1789, documents the months of discussions and debates of the ninety members of congress (Founding Fathers) who deliberated on the proper wording of the First Amendment.  During those debates and discussions there was never a mention by anyone of those ninety “Framers” of the phrase “separation of church and state.” It seems logical that if this concept had been the intent or even a consideration of the intent for the First Amendment religious clauses then someone among the ninety who framed the Amendment would have raised that concept and used that phrase; none did. 

This evidence concurs with and supports the discussion above on the rationale for and the intent of the “establishment clause”.  This statement was very simple, straightforward and clear.  It was based on the understanding of how religion was established in the colonies and the problem being addressed was the experience of and potential for Government control and interference with religion and not the reverse!  The reverse (removing religion from government) would have been antithetical because a religious belief and/or a respect for God was an integral part of the founding fathers lives, and to suggest that those beliefs and understandings should be separated from the formulation of a government of the people, for the people, and by the people would not have been conceivable.  And this evidence from the Congressional record again shows that it was not.

In Episode 4 we will see further evidence of the fallaciousness and falsehood that is inherent in the invoking of the concept of the separation of church and state as the intent of the establishment clause.  Then we will see how such an interpretation was not invoked for the first 150 years after the First Amendment was written.

Please join me for Episode 4.  Thanks, Larry Von Thun

 

Freedom Of Religion – Episode 3 (Full)

Freedom of Religion in the United States – Episode 3

This is the story of Freedom of Religion in the United States and its subsequent assault and attempt at subjugation by the concept of “Separation of Church and State”

The fundamental right of Religious Freedom and the imposition of the concept of the Separation of Church and State are embroiled in a constant struggle.  The latter concept as it was and is invoked in the conduct of our lives and in our society affairs is a misrepresentation, a lie, that spread throughout the nation before the truth got its boots on, and is now regarded by most as a factual truth. Paradoxically, neither the term, nor the concept of “Separation of Church and State” appears in the U.S. Constitution.  Yet, the overreaching, misguided and zealous invoking of the concept of Separation of Church and State as if it is the law of the land in our Constitution has effectively served to diminish the actual free exercise of religion specifically provided for in our Constitution’s Bill of Rights.

Background – We left off in Episode 2 with the U.S. Constitution being ratified by 9 states in September of 1788.  The business of implementing the newly formed government got underway, and by March 1789 the President had been elected and the First Congress was in session.  There was a great amount of work to be done by that Congress.  They had to establish the Department of State, the Department of Treasury and the Department of War.  They had to set up a way to get revenue through tariffs.  But high on the priority list for one delegate, James Madison, was the passage of amendments to the Constitution that would guarantee the rights of the people. Madison worked tirelessly to get a suite of 12 amendments guaranteeing our personal rights passed through the House of Representatives and the Senate.  Indeed, they were passed on Sept. 25, 1789 just 4 days before the Congress adjourned and then they were sent to the states for ratification. The efforts by Madison represented great dedication and commitment to the people of the United States.  As you may recall, James Madison, who is known as the Father of the Constitution, did not consider the statement of these rights as a necessity in the Constitution since powers not specifically assigned to the Federal Government were to remain with the people and the States. But during ratification of the Constitution several of the Colonies insisted as a condition of their acceptance that the new Government take steps to ensure these personal rights.  Madison took on the responsibility to see that they were added to the Constitution. His devotion to this effort was incredible and is a fascinating story in itself.  Ten of the twelve amendments were ratified by the States and became famously known as The Bill of Rights.  (Interestingly, one of the 12 not ratified at the time, called for salaries of Congress to not be able to be changed till the next session. It was ratified 202 years later, in 1992, and became the Twenty Seventh Amendment to the Constitution.)

As an interesting aside, it is noted that the term “religion” as used in the first amendment was almost certainly not referring to the wide variety and nature of the world religions (Buddhist, Hindu, Islam, Christianity, Judaism, etc.) as we now commonly use the term, rather it was likely being used in reference to different Christian denominations (Congregationalist, Quaker, Anglican, Methodists, Baptists, Presbyterian, etc.).  These were the “religions” which people recognized in their “world” (approximately 99% of the Colonists were Christian), and with which the founders were familiar and on which intolerance and discrimination had been practiced. That this was the common understanding of the founding fathers is attested to some years later (1800) in a letter from Thomas Jefferson to Benjamin Rush when he stated –“…the constitution, which, while it secured the freedom of the press, covered also the freedom of religion, had given to the clergy a very favorite hope of obtaining an establishment of a particular form of Christianity thro’ the U. S.; and as every sect believes its own form the true one, every one perhaps hoped for his own, but especially the Episcopalians & Congregationalists.”

The first two clauses of the First Amendment are the ones that guarantee Freedom of Religion.  “Congress shall make no law, respecting an establishment of religion (clause 1), or prohibiting the free exercise thereof (clause 2),

The intent of the First Amendment religious freedom clauses

Review of American history before the Bill of Rights was written clearly shows the intent of Madison in formulating and Congress in adopting these two First Amendment clauses was that:

(1) the newly formed Federal Government would not establish a “state” religion and

(2) that laws could not be made by the Federal Government that restricted people from practicing their chosen religion.

It is instructive to note that in the first amendment there were just these two, short and to the point, statements made relative to religious freedom.  It is essential to understand the background and reasons for these particular statements in order to establish their specific purpose and, importantly, what they did not include.   These two statements were inter-related, as both addressed and fostered removal of the “built in religious preferences in the founding of the colonies and resulting religious discrimination which the framers recognized and had witnessed.  Both statements assured the populous that the Federal Government would not be involved in promoting religious preference or in restricting an individual’s religious observance.  That is why a Freedom of Religion” right was needed in the first amendment.

The Establishment ClauseCongress shall make no law, respecting an establishment of religion — One could imagine the outrage and total unacceptability of the new Constitution if the Congregationalists in New England were told that the Anglican Church was to be the “state” church of the new nation.  Or if the Anglicans in South Carolina were told that the new nation’s official church was to be Congregationalist.  The simply stated “establishment clause” assured the states and their people that the new Federal Government would not be allowed to establish a particular “Christian denomination” as the church of nation. This was the intended purpose of the clause and its only purpose.

That was its’ specific and intended purpose. It is important to note that the purpose of this clause is simple, clear, and single focused.   In future years its’ intent will be grossly exaggerated and expanded to imply that any public display or expression of religion is prohibited by the establishment clause.  Further, it is important to note, that some individual states at this time (1789) still had an official “state” church (denomination) and in fact continued in that status for many more years.  This situation was consistent with the Constitution’s limits on the Federal Government and the delegate’s desire to maintain “States Rights”.  This situation further illustrates that in the implementation of the first amendment, advocacy, public display and public expression of that religion in these states was not considered to be in violation of the establishment clause and was not suppressed.

“Free Exercise of Religion” Clause – Whereas the first right guaranteed by the first amendment (“establishment” clause) was primarily directed toward states as a whole (honoring the status of religion of the majority of the people therein), the second clause dealt directly with an individual’s rights with respect to the Federal Government. Namely guaranteeing that the Federal Government would not make laws inhibiting the free exercise of an individual’s religion.

As previously noted, Madison and the members of Congress formulating the Bill of Rights, at our nation’s first congressional session, would have certainly been aware of the social, political and economic discrimination due to “state” church dominance in many of the colonies. These Congressmen certainly would have also been aware of the religious persecution in the mother country that had been the impetus for some of the initial settlement of the colonies.  America was now, in 1787, free of British rule and it was the English King and the English Parliament who had established the “Church of England”.  It was the English King who had dictated that the Charter Colonies were to have the Church of England as their “state church”.  Breaking from this practice, while not a primary driver of the American Revolution, was an obvious and inevitable outcome of gaining independence.   Thus, in the spirit of declaring, as well as promoting, the principle of freedom of religion and individual liberty garnered through gaining independence from English rule, the “free exercise of religion” clause was included in the first amendment.  This clause ensured protection of individuals and religious sects against any laws being made by the Federal Government that would prohibit the free exercise of their religion.

However, this clause pertained only to the Federal Government so discrimination could still occur within individual states.  Never the less, declaring and documenting the principle to the right to “free exercise of their religion” was important to the Baptists, the Moravians, the Quakers, the Catholics, the Presbyterians and many other Christian denominations who had immigrated to this country.  These other Christian denominations had been discriminated against by law and by common convention in those colonies where an “official” church was recognized (New England) or where one had been established by a “Crown” Charter.

The rationale for, as well as the intent and meaning of, the “Free Exercise” clause is straight-forward and clear.  The framers wanted to assure the people that the new Federal Government, under the Constitution, would not interfere in the free exercise of their chosen religious denomination, at all!!   James Madison and the Congressional Delegations (House and Senate) who formulated and agreed on the specific language of the Bill of Rights recognized that the people needed and wanted this religious freedom assurance in order to accept the Federal Government established by the Constitution and this second clause of the first amendment guaranteed that.

It is instructive and important to reiterate that the religious freedom clauses of the first amendment pertained only to a restriction on the “Federal Government” established by the Constitution.  Thus, a state (such as Massachusetts, or North Carolina) could and still did have an “official” church denomination representing their state. The Bill of Rights did not directly apply to state and local governance.  But the first amendment religious principles did serve as an example to the states (and the people) and put forth a “national” principle that ultimately held sway.  The official state religions remained for a number of years before they were disestablished in state constitutions in conformance to the first clause of the first amendment.

Further, as a practical matter, bias and discrimination could and did still take place against other religious sects within a state. Only where states adopted “free exercise” statements in their constitutions or enact laws involving religious would such discrimination become unacceptable or “illegal”.     But, the spirit and intent of establishing “the free exercise of religion” in the U.S. Constitution Bill of Rights set the example for individual states and local governments as well as for individual Americans to follow.  In general, individual states came to honor the free exercise of religion and did not enact laws that prohibited the free exercise thereof.  Likewise, with the growth and expansion of the United States acceptance and tolerance of other religious denominations and later other religions became the American norm.  However, individual morality and decency cannot be legislated and as will be discussed later (non-governmental) religious discrimination, bias, and intolerance by individuals and groups existed at the time the constitution was written and continues today.

The relatively simple rationale (basis, purpose and intent) for the inclusion of two clauses on religious freedom explained above is quite clear.   What is also very clear is that the First Amendment clauses related to religion did not restrict or put any limitations on religious expression on individuals or organizations (churches, schools, local communities, state and local governments, etc.) the only restrictions invoked were on the Federal Government.

There was no intent for the government to be devoid or separated from religion (Christianity), far from it.  That is the essence of the misunderstanding or “myth” of separation.

The “Free Exercise of Religion” and the “Myth of Separation” 

 With this background on the meaning and intent of the two religious freedom clauses in the first amendment we are ready to examine the illegitimacy and irrationality of the imposition of the “separation of church and state” concept in applying the “establishment clause”.  This “myth” was planted and has grown in the last 50 years or so.  That myth is that: “The founding fathers considered and dictated in the Constitution that there should be “Separation of Church and State”.   This belief, currently accepted, taught and invoked is demonstrably false.  The term was erroneously and maliciously “made up” and ascribed as the meaning and intent of the First Amendment, and has been used to invalidate and undermine the original intent and meaning of the First Amendment.  The words of this phrase, which are ascribed to President Thomas Jefferson, were not Jefferson’s words but were, along with their erroneous interpretation, “made up” based on a100+ year old letter written by Jefferson.

With respect to the term “separation of church and state” it is noted that:

  • The writings of the founding fathers endorse the linkage, the value and the necessity of religion within our government and thus belie the much later “imposed” judgment that the church should be excluded from the State. The first amendment is unidirectional – it was and is only intended to exclude the government from establishing a state church and from interference of the free exercise of religion.
  • The concept of “separation of church and state”, was not brought up during the drafting and debates on the first amendment wording.
  • The concept / phrase “separation of church and state” was not used by Jefferson or by any founding father, rather that term was derived (after 150 years had passed) from a “literary” figure of speech used in a private letter supporting the first amendment’s objective of restricting government from interference with religious practice.       Further such a source (private letter) regardless of the belated interpretation of meaning or intent does not have the force of law or of a judicial finding.
  • The term is never mentioned or used in the Constitution, the Bill of Rights or in Jefferson’s Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom.
  • The term “separation of church and state” was not used in any statements or rulings by the judiciary in the 100 plus years subsequent to the adoption of the first amendment.

Information and discussion on each of these points and on the erroneous introduction, deliberate misuse and overzealous application of this phrase and on its resultant effect of eradicating the intent of the first amendment will be discussed.  This Episode 3 will include discussion of the  first two bullet points.  We will cover the latter 3 in Episode 4.

It will be abundantly clear from this examination that linking the “establishment clause” to “removal” (separation) of religion from all the normal, commonplace activities in our civil society is ludicrous.  Making that connection was an opportunistic and intentional distortion that imposed the will and ideology of a few influential people on the nation’s populous and once introduced it was exacerbated by an activist judiciary such that the intent of the first amendment free exercise clause has been turned around 180 degrees.  The establishment clause, interpreted to mean, “separation of church and state”, (i.e. removal of any semblance of religion from anything to do with civil society), resulted in seriously tearing down the intent and viability of the free exercise clause, which was clearly the desire of the founders.

  • The linkage of religion and morality to America’s founding and to the sustainability of the government, as expressed in writing and as practiced by the founding fathers.

 

The founding fathers, including, but not limited to, Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Madison and Franklin recognized, and documented their belief that our nation’s founding was ordained by God and that the successful survival of this new “governmental concept of a democratic republic,– of the people, by the people and for the people”,  depended on the people of the nation maintaining faith in God and on sustaining the high moral standards rendered in the Judeo-Christian traditions and imbedded in the laws of our country.  A few of the statements on the linkage of God to our freedom and to the success of our government and country are given below:  There are many more that could be cited:

“It is impossible to govern rightly the World without God and the Bible” George Washington

“Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.”  …  “The worship of God is a duty…Freedom is not a gift bestowed upon us by other men, but a right that belongs to us by the laws of God and nature… I never doubted the existence of the Deity, that he made the world, and governed it by His Providence…The pleasures of this world are rather from God’s goodness than our own merit… Whoever shall introduce into the public affairs the principles of primitive (essential) Christianity will change the face of the world… Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God.”  – Benjamin Franklin

Both George Washington (an Episcopal vestryman) and John Adams offered strong rhetorical support for religion. In his Farewell Address of September 1796, Washington called religion, as the source of morality, “a necessary spring of popular government,” and an indispensable support to political prosperity .   Adams claimed that statesmen “may plan and speculate for Liberty, but it is Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the Principles upon which Freedom can securely stand.”

Jefferson noted…….”A free people claim their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate.” , “[It is] God who gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a Gift of God?”

“We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind of self-government; upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.” James Madison (1751-1836) Father of the Constitution, 4th President of the United States

The founding fathers believed and oft stated that if the people governed did not maintain high morals and strong virtue based on faith in God that the Government they instituted would not succeed.

After 4 or 5 weeks at the Constitutional Convention, Benjamin Franklin appealed to the convention’s President, (George Washington), for prayers to God be offered at the outset of each session.  He noted that daily prayers were offered to God at the outset of the conflict with Great Britain and that if it were not for them {the prayers}we would not have prevailed.  Franklin wondered if they {the convention’s delegates} had forgotten that powerful friend (God).     The last two paragraphs of Franklin’s speech are given below:

I have lived, Sir, a long time and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth — that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings that “except the Lord build, they labor in vain that build it.” {Psalm 127} I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the Builders of Babel: We shall be divided by our little partial local interests; our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall become a reproach and a bye word down to future age. And what is worse, mankind may hereafter this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing Governments by Human Wisdom, and leave it to chance, war, and conquest.

I therefore beg leave to move — that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the Clergy of this City be requested to officiate in that service.”

The Second Continental Congress (1774) started the practice of prayer before each session.  The First Congress under the Constitution (1789) continued the practice of a prayer by a chaplain before each session and that practice carries on to this day.

It is evident from the representative statements of the founders given above, that separation of God (religion) from the government was not even a thought much less an objective in the formation of our governmental system, the Constitution, or the Bill of Rights.  It was not even a consideration in their discussions.   Just the opposite was the case.  The founders credited God not Kings or governments with giving us our natural rights, our freedoms and our chance to form a more perfect union.   What they did not want was the government interfering with an individual’s religious observances.  It is unmistakable that the intent of the first amendment was to ensure that the Federal Government did not interfere with the observance of religion by the governed, not that religion should be removed from anything that the government was involved with or from the lives of the governed.

  • The term “separation of church and state” was not brought up during the drafting and debates on the first amendment wording.

 

The amendments to be made to the Constitution to ensure individual rights and thus fulfill the promises made relative to its successful ratification, were initially drafted by James Madison for consideration by the first Congress.  Madison’s draft was discussed and debated in committee, debated by both houses of congress, written in final form and finally passed and then sent for ratification by the states.   Note below information refuting the idea that “separation” of church from state was the intent of the first amendment “establishment” clause:

The Congressional Record from June 7 to September 25, 1789, documents the months of discussions and debates of the ninety members of congress (Founding Fathers) who deliberated on the proper wording of the First Amendment.  During those debates and discussions there was never a mention by anyone of those ninety “Framers” of the phrase “separation of church and state.” It seems logical that if this concept had been the intent or even a consideration of the intent for the First Amendment religious clauses then someone among the ninety who framed the Amendment would have raised that concept and used that phrase; none did. 

This evidence concurs with and supports the discussion above on the rationale for and the intent of the “establishment clause”.  This statement was very simple, straightforward and clear.  It was based on the understanding of how religion was established in the colonies and the problem being addressed was the experience of and potential for Government control and interference with religion and not the reverse!  The reverse (removing religion from government) would have been antithetical because a religious belief and/or a respect for God was an integral part of the founding fathers lives, and to suggest that those beliefs and understandings should be separated from the formulation of a government of the people, for the people, and by the people would not have been conceivable.  And this evidence from the Congressional record again shows that it was not.

In Episode 4 we will see further evidence of the fallaciousness and falsehood that is inherent in the invoking of the concept of the separation of church and state as the intent of the establishment clause.  Then we will see how such an interpretation was not invoked for the first 150 years after the First Amendment was written.

Please join me for Episode 4.  Thanks, Larry Von Thun

Freedom of Religion – Episode 1 (concise)

Freedom of Religion in the United States (concise version)

This is the story of Freedom of Religion in the United States and its subsequent assault and attempt at subjugation by the concept of “Separation of Church and State”

The fundamental right of Religious Freedom and the imposition of the concept of the Separation of Church and State are embroiled in a constant struggle.  The latter concept as it was and is invoked in the conduct of our lives and in our society affairs is a misrepresentation, a lie, that spread throughout the nation before the truth got its boots on, and is now regarded by most as a factual truth. Paradoxically, neither the term, nor the concept of “Separation of Church and State” appears in the U.S. Constitution.  Yet, the overreaching, misguided and zealous invoking of the concept of Separation of Church and State as if it is the law of the land in our Constitution has effectively served to diminish the actual free exercise of religion specifically provided for in our Constitution’s Bill of Rights.

The first tenet in the Bill of Rights as stated in the First Amendment to the Constitution is that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”  (“respecting” may be read as “pertaining to” or “with respect to”) 

Episode 1 Arrival of the Pilgrims and the Establishment of the Colonies

Religious intolerance before the founding of the United States was, with few exceptions, the norm throughout the early history of “civilized” people.  It was part and parcel of the subjugation of one people by another.  Religious observances by the conquered people were typically forbidden by the invading country, not to convert the conquered, but because of the threat it represented to their control.  This was not always the case.  The spread of Islam was religiously motivated.  The Romans on the other hand allowed occupied peoples to maintain their religious observances as long as they also “respected the Roman Gods” – the Jewish people, interestingly, were granted an exemption.

The “right” of freedom of religion in America had its origins in post-Reformation Europe. New Christian denominations such as the Moravians, French Huguenots, and the Puritans were persecuted and struggled against governmental “state” religion demands for universal acceptance.   These early religious freedom conflicts laid the historical groundwork for an individual’s right to freedom of religion ultimately guaranteed in America’s Bill of Rights.

But surprisingly Colonial America was not a land that blessed by religious freedom.   Yes, the Puritans (called Pilgrims) came to these shores so that they could freely practice their religion. But ironically it was woe to anyone who did not practice their faith.

Religious freedom in the original 13 Colonies – did not get off to a good start! For example laws passed by the Puritans in Massachusetts in 1644 required exile of Anabaptists, fined ship’s captains for bringing Quakers to Massachusetts and called for whipping and assigning to prison with hard labor any Quakers who gained entry to the colony.   The Connecticut “Code of 1650” had as its opening statement: “Whosoever shall worship a God other than the Lord shall be put to death”.

Although less extreme, lack of religious freedom was the norm in most other colonies.  The “state church” of England was carried over via the founding charters of the American colonies. Residents of a colony, by decree, were to be Anglican church members just as all English citizens were.  Nine of the thirteen original colonies had charters from England that established the Anglican church as thestate church” of the colony.

The most fertile seeds for the concept and adoption of “Christian” religious freedom in the 13 Colonies were planted in Rhode Island and in Pennsylvania.  Roger Williams who split from the Puritans, founded Rhode Island with some religious freedom protections. Even greater religious toleration was guaranteed in the Pennsylvania charter given to William Pitt, a Quaker. (The King granted that because he owed William Pitt’s uncle big time.)

That is kind of how things started in the colonies. State churches being funded by assessments on the population and fostering discriminatory practices. But with time and the influx of settlers from throughout Europe, with their varied Christian denominational backgrounds, religious diversity became infused into the population.  Further, the spirit of individualism and the rigorous pursuit of individuals and families to carve out a living, trumped the snobbish conventions required for societal acceptance. Thus, families and individuals in America were more likely to be respected and accepted for what they did rather than for where they came from or what they believed.

That brings us to the end of Episode 1 of “Freedom of Religion” in America.  But how did we come from this rocky start to gain our prized Freedom of Religion in the United States?  We will begin to find out in Episode 2 as we join the 13 “independent” Colonies beginning to think about banding together to collectively challenge, King George and Britain – the Mother Country over economic issues and the abuse of other rights of “Englishmen”. Log on to learn what happens in Freedom of Religion -Episode 2.

(note the above is the “concise” version of early colonial events for a more complete version see Episode 1- full version.)

Freedom of Religion Episode 2 (concise)

Freedom of Religion in America – Episode 2 (short version)

This is the story of Freedom of Religion in the United States and its subsequent assault and attempt at subjugation by the concept of “Separation of Church and State”

The fundamental right of Religious Freedom and the imposition of the concept of the Separation of Church and State are embroiled in a constant struggle.  The latter concept as it was and is invoked in the conduct of our lives and in our society affairs is a misrepresentation, a lie, that spread throughout the nation before the truth got its boots on, and is now regarded by most as a factual truth. Paradoxically, neither the term, nor the concept of “Separation of Church and State” appears in the U.S. Constitution.  Yet, the overreaching, misguided and zealous invoking of the concept of Separation of Church and State as if it is the law of the land in our Constitution has effectively served to diminish the actual free exercise of religion specifically provided for in our Constitution’s Bill of Rights.

The first tenet in the Bill of Rights as stated in the First Amendment to the Constitution is that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”  (“respecting” may be read as “pertaining to” or “with respect to”) 

Episode 2 –Colonial Unification and Constitutional History Related to Freedom of Religion

As described in Episode 1 neither “freedom of religion” nor “Separation of Church and State” were in evidence in the early history of the 13 Colonies.  As the revolutionary period approached, “state churches” continued to exist in most of the colonies.  Although religious toleration existed in some regions, there was no organized effort to push this principle.  Commonly there were prejudicial actions against those who did not belong to the “state” sponsored church, e.g. membership in the “state church” was required to hold office. Each colony functioned relatively independently, and when the colonies did work together it  usually related to common defense, or an economic issue.  Because earning a living tended to occupy the people, religious toleration was “unofficially” practiced.

After the French and Indian War (1754-1763), the Colonists, who viewed themselves as British subjects, with the “rights” of British subjects, began complaining about taxation, quartering of British soldiers, etc. They considered England was restricting or retracting their rights.  Freedom of religion, however, was not one of the rights about which most Colonists were concerned.  Many were Anglican in the first place, and further they did not previously have a religious freedom “right” under the crown.  Religious freedom was not one of the root issues leading to the revolutionary war.  But several factors eventually drove religious freedom to the forefront of the Bill of Rights.

These factors included: (1) the necessity of the religiously disparate colonies to unite, (2) the common sense that recognized the diversity in Christian sects present among the states and within the total population had to be accommodated, (3) recognition of the incongruity of individual liberty and freedom for all and the dictating of a denomination by a colony, (4) the absence of any religious fervor or agenda among the founding fathers toward pushing for any particular Christian sect (and the “Anglican” denomination would certainly not be put forward in that role because of its ties to England), and (5) the religious freedom resolution which was put into the Virginia Constitution in which James Madison participated.

The 13 original colonies were not all that interested in uniting and giving up their “states rights”, not at the time before the Revolutionary War nor even afterward when the time came to prepare a Constitution and form a stronger central government.  However, it must have been evident to the Colonial leaders that:

  • there was no need for the central government, to establish a “state church”
  • it was not reasonable or realistic to establish a single Christian church denomination
  • such a requirement would have been against the cause of individual freedom.

Further at that time in history, Deism (believe in a Supreme Being but not the Christian Gospel) was common among many, including some founding fathers. Imposing a Christian Church upon the populous would not have been something that they would have personally supported.

Freedom of religion, while not a right given much attention with respect to the Revolutionary War, was a byproduct of winning it.  Anglicans and New England Congregationalists may not have even considered freedom of religion an issue (as they essentially had it all along). But there were likely a great number of Christians who recognized and rejoiced in the fact that there was no longer a “state church” and that freedom of religion would become a reality and an acknowledged fact.  The many Christian denominations in America who had been the receivers of religious intolerance would have been keenly interested in making religious freedom a documented fact in the new country and its constitution.  This interest was likely a major driving force behind the demand for a Bill of Rights.

One major exception to the ambivalence toward documenting religious liberty was in Virginia, which had an established Anglican “state” Church.  Virginia, was alive with the fervor of individual liberties, and one of those liberties that was being abridged was freedom of religion via the imposition of the Anglican Church.  So the Virginia patriots including James Madison, George Mason and Thomas Jefferson, urged the Virginia constitutional convention to pass “a declaration of the free exercise of religion” in their Constitution.   State aid to the Anglican Church was cut off and in 1786 Jefferson’s famous “Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom” passed. It stated “all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion”, and guaranteed Virginians that they would not be compelled to “support any religious worship place or ministry whatsoever”.  It took other states many years to include like language in their state constitutions.

The answer to the question of how and why “freedom of religion” become the first and one of the key rights, named in the Bill of Rights is now becoming a bit clearer.  But it is still three more years before “Freedom of Religion” becomes an integral part of our founding documents.

Most delegates to the Constitutional Convention in 1787 were “States Rights” delegates who came with the idea that the central government should be limited.  Thus, the focus of those preparing the Constitution was, that only the powers and responsibilities delegated to the central Government would be covered in the Constitution, everything else, anything that was not specifically identified, would remain with the states or with the people.  (This intent was later captured and still exists in the 10th amendment to the U.S. Constitution.)

Thus, it is not surprising, in light of the goal of only stating what the central government would do, that there was no consideration and no discussion of a “state church” or in fact anything to do with religion in the Constitution.   Thus, there was no administrative or legislative provision, nor any preference to be given to one church denomination over another by the Federal Government.  The Constitution assigned no powers and responsibilities to the central Government regarding religion.  There was no discussion of the concept or idea of the separation of church and state.  By silence on the matter it was clear that the past practice of a “state church” would not be the future practice. Churches and the Federal Government were viewed as distinct institutions.  But importantly, not as conflicting institutions.  Many of the founding fathers considered, just as the Pilgrims did, that the making of America was divinely inspired and divinely led.  James Madison, known as the father of the Constitution, when commenting on the Constitution, stated:  “We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind of self-government; upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.”   John Adams recognized the opportunity of the American Colonies to found a great democracy of the people as a gift from God and said we therefore “better get it right”.

So on September 17, 1787 the U.S. Constitution was sent to the states for ratification and it became the law of the land.  The Constitution did not establish a “State Church” and the Federal Government was granted no powers with respect to “governing” religion.  However, ratification came with requests from several states that specific rights of the people be spelled out.

That brings us to the end of Episode 2.  In Episode 3 we will learn how James Madison’s simply stated first sentence in the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”, came to be. That statement, which is the only statement concerning religion or the church within the United States Constitution (as amended), provides the basis of a clear understanding of intent and we will see how that intent was implemented, respected and followed for the next 150 years.

(This version is somewhat abbreviated  – see episode 2 (full) for the complete version)

Freedom of Religion Episode 2 (Full )

Freedom of Religion in America – Episode 2 (full version)

This is the story of Freedom of Religion in the United States and its subsequent assault and attempt at subjugation by the concept of “Separation of Church and State”

The fundamental right of Religious Freedom and the imposition of the concept of the Separation of Church and State are embroiled in a constant struggle.  The latter concept as it was and is invoked in the conduct of our lives and in our society affairs is a misrepresentation, a lie, that spread throughout the nation before the truth got its boots on, and is now regarded by most as a factual truth. Paradoxically, neither the term, nor the concept of “Separation of Church and State” appears in the U.S. Constitution.  Yet, the overreaching, misguided and zealous invoking of the concept of Separation of Church and State as if it is the law of the land in our Constitution has effectively served to diminish the actual free exercise of religion specifically provided for in our Constitution’s Bill of Rights.

The first tenet in the Bill of Rights as stated in the First Amendment to the Constitution is that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”  (“respecting” may be read as “pertaining to” or “with respect to”) 

Colonial Unification and Constitutional History Related to Freedom of Religion

As described in Episode 1 neither “freedom of religion” nor the concept of or inclination toward  the “Separation of Church and State” were principles in the founding and early expansion of the 13 Colonies.  As the colonies grew over the next 100 years or so and the revolutionary period approached, “state churches” continued to exist in most of the colonies.  The concepts of freedom of religion and religious toleration arose or existed in some regions but there was no organized, concerted effort to extend or push this principle.  More commonly there were prejudicial actions and restrictions placed on individuals and groups who did not belong to the “state” sponsored church.  For example, typically membership in the “state church” was a requirement for holding office in the colony’s government. Each colony functioned relatively independently, and when the colonies did work together it was usually related to common defense, foreign policy, trade or some other economic issue.  And internally, within each colony, because there were more important or more pressing issues to occupy the consciousness of the populous, religious toleration was to a certain extent “unofficially” practiced.

However, the status quo of the Colonies, each to some degree under the thumb of the British King and Parliament, began to change after the French and Indian War (1754-1763).  The Colonists, viewing themselves as British subjects, considered they had the “rights” of British subjects.  Complaints concerning England’s governance of the Colonies arose (taxation, quartering of British soldiers, etc.) and the Colonists considered that the Mother Country was restricting or retracting their rights.  Freedom of religion, however, was not one of the rights about which most Colonists were concerned.  Many were Anglican in the first place, and they did not previously have a religious freedom right under the crown.  Further Britain was not actively involved in the religious affairs of their subjects in the American Colonies.   So religious freedom was not one of the root issues leading to the revolutionary war.  But as a practical matter there were several factors that eventually drove religious freedom to the forefront of the Bill of Rights.

These factors included: (1) the necessity of the religiously disparate colonies to unite, (2) the common sense that recognized the diversity in Christian sects present among the states and within the total population had to be accommodated, (3) recognition of the incongruity of individual liberty and freedom for all and the dictating of a religious belief by a state, (4) the absence of any religious fervor or agenda among the founding fathers toward pushing for any particular Christian sect (and the “Anglican” denomination would certainly not be put forward in that role because of its ties to England), and (5) the religious freedom resolution which was put into the Virginia Constitution in which James Madison participated.  Now let’s explore these factors.

The 13 original colonies were not all that interested in uniting and giving up their “states rights”, not at the time before the Revolutionary War nor even afterward when the time came to prepare a Constitution and form a stronger central government.  However, it must have been evident to the Colonial leaders, like Franklin,  Adams, Washington, Jay, Hamilton and Madison who worked to unite the Colonies, first via the Committees of Correspondence, then under the Articles of Confederation, and finally under the U.S.  Constitution for the governing of the United States, that:

  • there was no need for the individual states, much less the central government, to establish a “state church”
  • it was not reasonable or realistic to establish a single Christian church denomination to which each of the States would be required to adopt and all the people would be required to belong
  • such a requirement would have been antithetical to the cause of individual freedom.

Further at that time in history, Deism (believe in a Supreme Being but not the Christian Gospel) had become common among many, including some of the most influential founding fathers (writers of the constitution).  As a rule deists continued to attend church services (Anglican,  Puritan, Universalist, etc. ) throughout their lives, as it was important in maintaining their social standing.  However, imposing a state church upon the populous would not have been something that all of them would have personally supported.

Thus, upon winning independence from Britain and becoming united Colonies, the freedoms that the colonists had specifically fought for and won became reality.  Freedom of religion, while not a right given much attention with respect to the Revolutionary War, was a byproduct of it.  While a large number of Anglicans and New England Congregationalists may not have even considered freedom of religion an issue (as they essentially had it all along), there were likely a great number of people who recognized and rejoiced in the fact that there was no longer a “state church” and that freedom of religion would become a reality and an acknowledged fact.  The numerous Christian people whose denominations in America had been the receivers of religious intolerance would have been keenly interested in making religious freedom a documented fact in the new country and its constitution.   The need to acknowledge this fact may have been one of the major driving forces behind the need for the Bill of Rights.

One major exception to the general state of ambivalence of the liberated Colonists attention toward documenting religious liberty was in the colony of Virginia. Recall Virginia was one of the colonies that had an established Anglican “state” Church.    Virginia, was alive with the fervor of individual liberties, and one of those liberties that was being abridged was freedom of religion via the imposition of the Anglican Church.  So, not withstanding that the Anglican Church was the church home of most of the prominent Virginia revolutionaries and statesmen who had sought liberty, it was even more so the home church of the British loyalists with whom they had contended.  The patriot revolutionaries including James Madison, George Mason and Thomas Jefferson, who were representatives to the Virginia constitutional convention did not like the idea of the imposition of the requirement for a “state” Anglican Church in Virginia and supported and obtained “a declaration of the free exercise of religion” in their Constitution.   Three years later, state aid to the Anglican Church was cut off and in 1786 (just before the United States Constitutional Convention in 1787) Jefferson’s famous “Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom” was passed by both houses of the state legislature.  This bill stated “all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion”, and guaranteed Virginians that they would not be compelled to “support any religious worship place or ministry whatsoever”.  It took other states many years to include like language in their state constitutions.

The answer to the question of how and why “freedom of religion” become the first and one of the key rights, named in the Bill of Rights despite it not being a key issue driving the Revolution War is now becoming a bit clearer.  But it is still three more years before “Freedom of Religion” becomes an integral part of our founding documents.

As indicated above, at the time the Constitution was being written, maintaining States Rights was the prevailing mentality among the delegates.  Most delegates to the Constitutional Convention in 1787 represented their states with the idea that the central government should be limited.  Thus, the intent and focus of those preparing the Constitution was, that only the powers and responsibilities delegated to the central Government would be covered in the Constitution, everything else, anything that was not specifically identified, would remain with the states or with the people.  (This intent was later captured and still exists in the 10th amendment to the U.S. Constitution.)

Because of the limited delegation of powers intent and focus, James Madison, the prime mover of the Constitution, and other delegates did not consider it necessary for the Constitution to spell out those powers / rights that were not given to the Central Government.  Thus, it is not surprising, especially in light of the discussion above, that there was no consideration and no discussion of a “state church” or in fact anything to do with religion in the Constitution.   There was to be no coercive power, no legislative influence, and no preference to be given to one church denomination over another by the Federal Government.  The Constitution assigned no powers and responsibilities to the central Government regarding religion.  There was no discussion of the concept or idea of the separation of church and state.    By silence on the matter it was clear that the past practice of a “state church” would not be the future practice and thus the Federal Government would not be establishing a “preferred” state sponsored denomination.   Churches (and their status in various states) and the Federal Government were recognized and accepted as distinct institutions.  But importantly, not as conflicting institutions.  Many of the founding fathers considered, just as the Pilgrims did, that the making of America was divinely inspired and divinely led.  James Madison, known as the father of the Constitution, when commenting on the Constitution, stated:  “We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind of self-government; upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.”   John Adams recognized the opportunity of the American Colonies to found a great democracy of the people as a gift from God and said we therefore “better get it right”.

So on September 17, 1787 the U.S. Constitution was completed and sent to the states for ratification and on June 21, 1788 it was ratified by the 9th state and became the law of the land.  The key aspect of the Constitution with respect to religion was that there would be no “State Church” and in fact the Federal Government was granted no powers with respect to “governing” religion.  However, ratification came with requests from several states that specific rights of the people be spelled out.

That brings us to the end of Episode 2.  In Episode 3 we will learn how James Madison’s simply stated first sentence in the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”, came to be. That statement, which is the only statement concerning religion or the church within the United States Constitution (as amended), provides the basis of a clear understanding of intent and we will see how that intent was implemented, respected and followed for the next 150 years.

Freedom of Religion -Episode 1 (Full)

Freedom of Religion in the United States

This is the story of Freedom of Religion in the United States and its subsequent assault and attempt at subjugation by the concept of “Separation of Church and State”

The fundamental right of Religious Freedom and the imposition of the concept of the Separation of Church and State are embroiled in a constant struggle.  The latter concept as it was and is invoked in the conduct of our lives and in our society affairs is a misrepresentation, a lie, that spread throughout the nation before the truth got its boots on, and is now regarded by most as a factual truth. Paradoxically, neither the term, nor the concept of “Separation of Church and State” appears in the U.S. Constitution.  Yet, the overreaching, misguided and zealous invoking of the concept of Separation of Church and State as if it is the law of the land in our Constitution has effectively served to diminish the actual free exercise of religion specifically provided for in our Constitution’s Bill of Rights.

The first tenet in the Bill of Rights as stated in the First Amendment to the Constitution is that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”  (“respecting” may be read as “pertaining to” or “with respect to”) 

Episode 1 Arrival of the Pilgrims and the Establishment of the Colonies

Religious intolerance before the founding of the United States was, with few exceptions, the norm throughout the early history of “civilized” people.  It was part and parcel of the subjugation of one people by another.  Religious observances by the conquered people were typically forbidden by the invading country, not to convert the conquered, but because of the threat it represented to their control.  This was not always the case.  The spread of Islam was religiously motivated.  The Romans on the other hand allowed occupied peoples to maintain their religious observances as long as they also “respected the Roman Gods” – the Jewish people, interestingly, were granted an exemption.

The “right” of freedom of religion in America had its origins in post-Reformation Europe. New Christian denominations such as the Moravians, French Huguenots, and the Puritans were persecuted and struggled against governmental “state” religion demands for universal acceptance.   These early religious freedom conflicts laid the historical groundwork for an individual’s right to freedom of religion ultimately guaranteed in America’s Bill of Rights.

But surprisingly Colonial America was not a land that blessed by religious freedom.   Yes, the Puritans (called Pilgrims) came to these shores so that they could freely practice their religion. But ironically it was woe to anyone who did not practice their faith.

Religious freedom in the original 13 Colonies – did not get off to a good start! For example laws passed by the Puritans in Massachusetts in 1644 required exile of Anabaptists, fined ship’s captains for bringing Quakers to Massachusetts and called for whipping and assigning to prison with hard labor any Quakers who gained entry to the colony.   The Connecticut “Code of 1650” had as its opening statement: “Whosoever shall worship a God other than the Lord shall be put to death”.

Although less extreme, lack of religious freedom was the norm in most other colonies.  The “state church” of England was carried over via the founding charters of the American colonies. Residents of a colony, by decree, were to be Anglican church members just as all English citizens were.  Nine of the thirteen original colonies had charters from England that established the Anglican church as thestate church” of the colony.

The most fertile seeds for the concept and adoption of “Christian” religious freedom in the 13 Colonies were planted in Rhode Island and in Pennsylvania.  Roger Williams who spilt from the Puritans, founded Rhode Island with some religious freedom protections. Even greater religious toleration was guaranteed in the Pennsylvania charter given to William Pitt, a Quaker. (The King granted that because he owed William Pitt’s uncle big time.)

That is kind of how things started in the colonies. State churches being funded by assessments on the population and fostering discriminatory practices. But with time and the influx of settlers from throughout Europe, with their varied Christian denominational backgrounds, religious diversity became infused into the population.  Further, the spirit of individualism and the rigorous pursuit of individuals and families to carve out a living, trumped the snobbish conventions required for societal acceptance. Thus, families and individuals in America were more likely to be respected and accepted for what they did rather than for where they came from or what they believed.

That brings us to the end of Episode 1 of “Freedom of Religion” in America.  But how did we come from this rocky start to gain our prized Freedom of Religion in the United States?  We will begin to find out in Episode 2 as we join the 13 “independent” Colonies beginning to think about banding together to collectively challenge, King George and Britain – the Mother Country over economic issues and the abuse of other rights of “Englishmen”. Log on to learn what happens in Freedom of Religion -Episode 2.

(note the above is the “concise” version of early colonial events for a more complete version see Episode 1- full version.)                                                

Episode 1 (full version) Arrival of the Pilgrims and the Establishment of the Colonies

Religious intolerance before the founding of the United States was, with few exceptions, the norm throughout the early history of “civilized” people.  Religious intolerance was typically integrally related to the political and military subjugation of one people by another empire or country.  Religious observances by the conquered people were often forbidden or abolished by the conquering country because of the political threat they could present to the control of the country and not because of a desire to “convert” the conquered.  This was not always the case.  The spread of Islam was religiously motivated as well as politically motivated.  The conquered peoples were generally forced to follow the religion of their conquerors.  The Romans on the other hand allowed concurred peoples to maintain their religious observances as long as they also “respected the Roman Gods” – the Jewish people, however, were granted an exemption. Another unusual exception was Akbar (a Muslim ruler) who allowed the Hindus in India to maintain their religious worship. He found this was advantageous in keeping his empire peaceful.

However, more germane to the consideration of the “right” of freedom of religion in America were the internal events in countries in Europe following the Reformation.   There were struggles against religious persecution and the freedom to practice a religion by many Christian sects.  The Moravians struggled against counter reformation governments in Eastern Europe, the Huguenots were persecuted by the Catholic French Government, the Irish Catholics struggled against England, and of course the Puritans had to escape the dictates of Anglican State Church of England.  All of these struggles helped develop the concept of the individual’s right to freedom of religion and to a degree helped ensure that “freedom of religion” was a right that came to be included in America’s Bill of Rights.  However, a common misconception is that Colonial America was a land that promoted and supported “Freedom of Religion”.  The Puritans (called Pilgrims) came to the unsettled American shores so that they could freely practice their religion but they did not endorse the concept of “freedom of religion”.  The Puritans escaped their religious persecution but they did not allow “freedom of religion” in their new lands.

Founding of the 13 Colonies    –   One of our most prized freedoms in the United States is the Freedom of Religion.  How did we come to have that freedom?   A common misunderstanding, based on the well known flight of the Puritans (Pilgrims) to avoid religious persecution in England, is that religious freedom was present here in America from the outset and that its incorporation in the Bill of Rights was just a formal recognition of its long term existence.   Well, surprise!!  The Pilgrims (who actually were of the Puritan religious sect) did not support religious toleration at all, much less religious freedom.   Laws were passed by the Puritans in Massachusetts in 1644 which required exile of Anabaptists and laws were passed which fined ship’s captains for bringing in Quakers to Massachusetts and for whipping and assigning to prison with hard labor any Quakers who managed to gain entry to the colony.  The New England Puritan settlers had very strict laws in their communities requiring adherence to religious and moral precepts of their sect.  Fines or harsh punishments were invoked for not attending church.  The “Code of 1650” established by the colony of Connecticut had as its opening statement: “Whosoever shall worship a God other than the Lord shall be put to death”

The colonists also certainly did not foster the concept of separation of church and state as evidenced in the “immediate act” they passed to govern themselves, which stated:  “We the undersigned, who for the glory of God, the advancement of the Christian faith and the honor of our native land have undertaken to found the first colony on these remote shores, do agree in this document, by solemn and mutual consent before God, to band together in a body politic in order to govern ourselves ——-.”  Everything the early Puritan settlers did centered on their religious beliefs.

Although the details were different and less extreme, the same lack of religious freedom and religious toleration was the norm in most of the other colonies.  The concept of “state churches” or “established” churches was transplanted to many of the American colonies from Europe, where many countries (France, Russia, Greece, Germany, Spain, etc.) had state churches at one time.  The governments of these countries financially supported, legislated for and protected these “state churches”.  Citizens of these countries were born into church membership just as they were born into citizenship.  Nine of the thirteen original colonies carried over this concept by way of their charters form England and thus had “established state churches” during the colonial period.

Most of the original colonies were “Crown Colonies”, that is colonies authorized under the auspices of the King of England.  England at this period in history was Anglican (Church of England  also now referred to as Episcopalian) and thus the official “state church” of these colonies (including 5 southern colonies) was established by charter as Anglican.  Those people who arrived in the colonies and did not practice the “state religion” suffered prejudice, persecution, and discredit.  Basically they were regarded as second class citizens.

Even the colony of Maryland, often thought of as a haven for Roman Catholics within the Colonies, as it was founded by Roman Catholics (the Calverts), was chartered as an Anglican colony.   Catholics although prevalent were denied the right to vote.  Even an Act that sounded good and for which Maryland has been recognized as a leader in religious toleration, the “Maryland Toleration Act” passed by the protestant majority legislature in 1649 was not very progressive with regard to religious freedom.  That Act allowed other religious groups to exist and worship in the colony but retained the Colonies right to withdraw or limit that permission, which it did.  “From 1654 to 1661 and from 1692 to the end of the Revolutionary period, Maryland, in fact nullified its Toleration Act.”

The most fertile seeds for the concept and adoption of “Christian” religious freedom in America were planted in Rhode Island and in Pennsylvania.  Roger Williams, a puritan minister, upon arrival in Boston in 1631, began zealous pursuit of “purifying” the Puritans from association with the King of England and the charters under which they operated.  Puritans were called and were by definition, “Separatists”, as they had separated themselves in England from the Anglican “state church”.    Williams, however, felt that the charter under which these colonists operated violated the Separatist ideal and he continually ran afoul of the neophyte Puritan religious and Civil establishment, including the Plymouth Colony where he initially was favorably received and assisted in ministry.  In addition to separatism he began to speak out for individual religious freedom.  He believed that civil magistrates should not have the authority to punish citizens for “Sabbath-breaking, false worship, and blasphemy, and that every individual should be free to follow his own convictions in religious matters”.  After 5 years, in 1636, he left Massachusetts and founded the Providence Plantation (Rhode Island) which guaranteed freedom of belief  (in a Christian sect) to all, (except outspoken atheists and Roman Catholics).   Later Roman Catholics were permitted in his Rhode Island Colony.   In 1651 England claimed the right to “govern” Rhode Island and in 1663 granted a charter to the Rhode Island and Providence Plantations which acknowledged Rhode Island’s religious freedom practices.

Unlike Rhode Island’s religious tolerance “experiment” developing out of conflict over a civil principle (granting of charters), the Pennsylvania colony was expressly formed to allow freedom of religion.   Pennsylvania was established as a “land grant” colony to satisfy a debt owed by the King of England to William Pitt’s father, not as a “crown” colony.  Thus, Pitt’s objective to create a colony that allowed for freedom of religion (due to his desire to protect himself and fellow Quakers from persecution) was able to be achieved free of the Anglican “state church” requirement.  As a result Pennsylvania became the seat of religious toleration (of Christian sects) within the colonies, welcoming the entire spectrum of sects and mainline Christian churches, from Moravians to Roman Catholics.

Despite the “official state church” concept carried over from England and pervading most of the American colonies,  the influx of settlers from throughout Europe with their varied religious backgrounds infused religious diversity into the population throughout the colonies.  Further the spirit of individualism and the rigorous pursuit of individuals and families to carve out a living, trumped the snobbish “European conventions” required for societal acceptance. Thus, families and individuals in America were more likely to be respected and accepted for what they did rather than for where they came from or what they believed.

That brings us to the end of Episode 1 of “Freedom of Religion”.  Episode 2 picks up as the 13 “independent” Colonies began to think about joining together to collectively challenge, King George and Britain – the Mother Country over economic issues and the abuse of other rights of  “Englishmen”. Tune in or log on to learn what happens in Episode 2.