The video below highlights a period of the development of London that coincided with Henry VIII's destruction of Catholic monasteries following his decision to kick the church out and create the Church of England with himself as the head. It marked a period when the powers of the king expanded considerably since he was not only in charge of government and the church, he was suddenly considerably wealthy - which inevitably increases one's power.
I though it might also serve as a reminder that as we witness the destruction of religious sites in the Middle East, the west is not above doing similar things.
For more on these events:
- Tudor Place: The Suppression of the English monasteries.
- Wikipedia: Dissolution of the Monasteries.
- Wikipedia: List of monasteries dissolved by Henry VIII of England.
- Catholic Herald: A sad reminder of the art lost in the years after the Reformation.
Showing posts with label separation of church and state. Show all posts
Showing posts with label separation of church and state. Show all posts
Friday, February 5, 2016
Thursday, July 12, 2012
Thirteen Religious Societies
Here's a reminder that the American colonies - and the early states - were each oriented around their own unique religious identity. One that did not necessarily fit the identities of other states. The federal government prohibited religious tests, established churches and limits on free exercise - as well as not requireing religious oaths to hold office - as a way to be neutral towards religion. To not pick sides between the different denominations in the states.
The author brings this up to draw parallels between the religious parties in the Middle East, and what the US went through two centuries ago:
We should remember that the Thirteen Colonies that made the revolution starting in 1776 were religious societies. They had undergone the Evangelical Great Awakening, and millenarian and anti-papal movements were rife. Religious Americans fought the British for religious as well as material reasons. While the framers of much Federal law and of the Constitution were most often Enlightenment Deists and relatively secular in outlook, the mass of Americans were otherwise. Even the First Amendment to the Constitution, which forbade Congress to designate an official American religion, was considered solely a Federal initiative, and states often had Established religions. Massachusetts had an established church until 1833, and its constitution still mentions requiring state and local institutions to raise money for and support the Protestant church.
The Founding Fathers mostly wanted a separation of religion and state (Thomas Jefferson certainly did), and this aspiration won out in American law and practice over time. The people who deny this separation are being silly. I’m making a different point, that Federal constitutional law covered a relatively small part of society.
So, religious Americans fought for the Revolution, and the post-revolutionary states often used state resources to support Protestantism. Anti-Catholicism was an unfortunate enthusiasm of many of the revolutionaries, and King George III was often seen as having Catholic tendencies, because of the offer of religious freedom to Catholics in Quebec once it was added to Canada, and because high church Anglicanism was hated by American dissidents.
Here are other resources regarding religion in colonial America:
- LOC: Religion and the Founding of the American Republic.
- Religion in Colonial America.
- Religion in Colonial America: Trends, Regulations and Beliefs.
- Religion in the Original 13 Colonies.
The author brings this up to draw parallels between the religious parties in the Middle East, and what the US went through two centuries ago:
We should remember that the Thirteen Colonies that made the revolution starting in 1776 were religious societies. They had undergone the Evangelical Great Awakening, and millenarian and anti-papal movements were rife. Religious Americans fought the British for religious as well as material reasons. While the framers of much Federal law and of the Constitution were most often Enlightenment Deists and relatively secular in outlook, the mass of Americans were otherwise. Even the First Amendment to the Constitution, which forbade Congress to designate an official American religion, was considered solely a Federal initiative, and states often had Established religions. Massachusetts had an established church until 1833, and its constitution still mentions requiring state and local institutions to raise money for and support the Protestant church.
The Founding Fathers mostly wanted a separation of religion and state (Thomas Jefferson certainly did), and this aspiration won out in American law and practice over time. The people who deny this separation are being silly. I’m making a different point, that Federal constitutional law covered a relatively small part of society.
So, religious Americans fought for the Revolution, and the post-revolutionary states often used state resources to support Protestantism. Anti-Catholicism was an unfortunate enthusiasm of many of the revolutionaries, and King George III was often seen as having Catholic tendencies, because of the offer of religious freedom to Catholics in Quebec once it was added to Canada, and because high church Anglicanism was hated by American dissidents.
Here are other resources regarding religion in colonial America:
- LOC: Religion and the Founding of the American Republic.
- Religion in Colonial America.
- Religion in Colonial America: Trends, Regulations and Beliefs.
- Religion in the Original 13 Colonies.
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
Torcaso v. Watkins
Some 2301 students have noted in last week's written assignment that the Texas Bill of Rights contains a clause that says: No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being.
This makes it clear that atheists cannot hold public office in the state, and is very different than language in the US Constitution that preculdes such limitations.
This clause was negated however in the 1961 court case Torcaso v. Watkins, which argued that it violated the establishment clause which, they argued, protects people from being compeled to profess a belief in a church or religion. It was also held that the requirement violated the Constitution's mandate that religious tests not be used as a qualification to hold office.
This applied not only to Texas, but to other state constitutions that had similar clauses that allowed for discrimination against atheists.
This makes it clear that atheists cannot hold public office in the state, and is very different than language in the US Constitution that preculdes such limitations.
This clause was negated however in the 1961 court case Torcaso v. Watkins, which argued that it violated the establishment clause which, they argued, protects people from being compeled to profess a belief in a church or religion. It was also held that the requirement violated the Constitution's mandate that religious tests not be used as a qualification to hold office.
This applied not only to Texas, but to other state constitutions that had similar clauses that allowed for discrimination against atheists.
Friday, July 29, 2011
Judge tosses atheists' lawsuit over Perry rally
If you read this Chron story, you'll notice that the judge did not rule on the merit of the argument - is it in fact a violation of church and state for the governor to be involved and promoting this event - but the fact that the people who brought the suit lacked standing to do so in the state of Texas. The actual argument regarding whether this is or isn't problematic may not be resolved, but here's a link to the group's complaint.
Saturday, October 23, 2010
Jefferson and the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut
Thanks to the Delaware Senate debate we've had another in our periodic dust ups about the meaning of the phrase "separation of church and state." I though it appropriate to bring it up, since religion is the first subject of the First Amendment, which we've just covered in 2301 and the interpretation of "establishment" and "free exercise" is up to the Supreme Court, which we will soon enough cover in 2302.
Rather than speak about the issue, it might be better to let the participants in the original discussion speak for themselves. Here is the text of the letter sent by the Danbury Baptist Association in Connecticut to the newly elected Thomas Jefferson, expressing their concern that they, as a religious minority, might suffer at the hands of a religious majority capable of controlling government (that concern should sounds familiar):
Sir, Among the many million in America and Europe who rejoice in your election to office; we embrace the first opportunity which we have enjoyed in our collective capacity, since your inauguration, to express our great satisfaction, in your appointment to the chief magistracy in the United States: And though our mode of expression may be less courtly and pompous than what many others clothe their addresses with, we beg you, sir, to believe that none are more sincere.
Our sentiments are uniformly on the side of religious liberty--that religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals--that no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious opinions--that the legitimate power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbors; But, sir, our Constitution of government is not specific. Our ancient charter together with the law made coincident therewith, were adopted as the basis of our government, at the time of our revolution; and such had been our laws and usages, and such still are; that religion is considered as the first object of legislation; and therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the state) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights; and these favors we receive at the expense of such degrading acknowledgements as are inconsistent with the rights of freemen. It is not to be wondered at therefore; if those who seek after power and gain under the pretense of government and religion should reproach their fellow men--should reproach their order magistrate, as a enemy of religion, law, and good order, because he will not, dare not, assume the prerogatives of Jehovah and make laws to govern the kingdom of Christ.
Sir, we are sensible that the president of the United States is not the national legislator, and also sensible that the national government cannot destroy the laws of each state; but our hopes are strong that the sentiments of our beloved president, which have had such genial effect already, like the radiant beams of the sun, will shine and prevail through all these states and all the world, till hierarchy and tyranny be destroyed from the earth. Sir, when we reflect on your past services, and see a glow of philanthropy and good will shining forth in a course of more than thirty years we have reason to believe that America's God as raised you up to fill the chair of state out of that goodwill which he bears to the millions which you preside over. May God strengthen you for your arduous task which providence and the voice of the people have called you to sustain and support you enjoy administration against all the predetermined opposition of those who wish to raise to wealth and importance on the poverty and subjection of the people.
And may the Lord preserve you safe from every evil and bring you at last to his heavenly kingdom through Jesus Christ our Glorious Mediator.
Signed in behalf of the association, Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, Stephen S. Nelson
And here is Jefferson's reply:
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. [Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from prescribing even those occasional performances of devotion, practiced indeed by the Executive of another nation as the legal head of its church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.] 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.
(signed) Thomas Jefferson
Jan.1.1802.
Let's discuss.
Rather than speak about the issue, it might be better to let the participants in the original discussion speak for themselves. Here is the text of the letter sent by the Danbury Baptist Association in Connecticut to the newly elected Thomas Jefferson, expressing their concern that they, as a religious minority, might suffer at the hands of a religious majority capable of controlling government (that concern should sounds familiar):
Sir, Among the many million in America and Europe who rejoice in your election to office; we embrace the first opportunity which we have enjoyed in our collective capacity, since your inauguration, to express our great satisfaction, in your appointment to the chief magistracy in the United States: And though our mode of expression may be less courtly and pompous than what many others clothe their addresses with, we beg you, sir, to believe that none are more sincere.
Our sentiments are uniformly on the side of religious liberty--that religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals--that no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious opinions--that the legitimate power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbors; But, sir, our Constitution of government is not specific. Our ancient charter together with the law made coincident therewith, were adopted as the basis of our government, at the time of our revolution; and such had been our laws and usages, and such still are; that religion is considered as the first object of legislation; and therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the state) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights; and these favors we receive at the expense of such degrading acknowledgements as are inconsistent with the rights of freemen. It is not to be wondered at therefore; if those who seek after power and gain under the pretense of government and religion should reproach their fellow men--should reproach their order magistrate, as a enemy of religion, law, and good order, because he will not, dare not, assume the prerogatives of Jehovah and make laws to govern the kingdom of Christ.
Sir, we are sensible that the president of the United States is not the national legislator, and also sensible that the national government cannot destroy the laws of each state; but our hopes are strong that the sentiments of our beloved president, which have had such genial effect already, like the radiant beams of the sun, will shine and prevail through all these states and all the world, till hierarchy and tyranny be destroyed from the earth. Sir, when we reflect on your past services, and see a glow of philanthropy and good will shining forth in a course of more than thirty years we have reason to believe that America's God as raised you up to fill the chair of state out of that goodwill which he bears to the millions which you preside over. May God strengthen you for your arduous task which providence and the voice of the people have called you to sustain and support you enjoy administration against all the predetermined opposition of those who wish to raise to wealth and importance on the poverty and subjection of the people.
And may the Lord preserve you safe from every evil and bring you at last to his heavenly kingdom through Jesus Christ our Glorious Mediator.
Signed in behalf of the association, Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, Stephen S. Nelson
And here is Jefferson's reply:
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. [Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from prescribing even those occasional performances of devotion, practiced indeed by the Executive of another nation as the legal head of its church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.] 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.
(signed) Thomas Jefferson
Jan.1.1802.
Let's discuss.
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
A Christian Nation?
An ex-student sent me the following YouTube of Obama's recent speech in Cairo where he states (roughly) that we are no longer "just" a Christian nation, but are also a Jewish nation and a Muslim nation and a Buddhist nation and a nation of non-believers.
He wondered if this was blasphemous and whether it might weaken the country.
What would you tell him?
And what about this segment from the Treaty of Tripoli (1796):
Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
I'm confused.
He wondered if this was blasphemous and whether it might weaken the country.
What would you tell him?
And what about this segment from the Treaty of Tripoli (1796):
Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
I'm confused.
Monday, October 6, 2008
The Pulpit Initiative and the Separation of Church and State
Over the weekend a good handful of clergymen endorsed John McCain, despite IRS rules that put them at risk of their churches losing tax exempt status. This was done to deliberately challenge the constitutionality of the law, so if the IRS goes forward and attempts to impose taxes on them, then a challenge could end up in the Supreme Court. The purpose of the initiative was to ensure that pastors could speak freely without fearing reprisal (which assumes that paying tazes is punishment).
The rule, as Stanley Fisk explains, has a peculiarly secular--Texan in fact--history. It was driven by Lyndon Johnson who wanted to punish his opponents:
The story goes that when he was running for re-election to the Senate in 1954, Lyndon Johnson was opposed by a couple of non-profits that urged voters to reject him and his radical communist ideas. (And you thought things were crazy today.) In response, Johnson had new language inserted into the section of the IRS code, which defines a tax exempt entity. His addendum declared that an exempt organization “does not participate in or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.”
He tells us that in order to push the issue, the pastors sent copies of their sermons to the IRS, and a bill has been introduced into Congress to repeal Johnson's amendment.
Fish's argument is worth discussing because he reminds us that at the center of this issue is a dispute about what "religious exercise" means. Is it a purely private affair, or does it require involvement in human affairs?
We'll go over this in class.
The rule, as Stanley Fisk explains, has a peculiarly secular--Texan in fact--history. It was driven by Lyndon Johnson who wanted to punish his opponents:
The story goes that when he was running for re-election to the Senate in 1954, Lyndon Johnson was opposed by a couple of non-profits that urged voters to reject him and his radical communist ideas. (And you thought things were crazy today.) In response, Johnson had new language inserted into the section of the IRS code, which defines a tax exempt entity. His addendum declared that an exempt organization “does not participate in or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.”
He tells us that in order to push the issue, the pastors sent copies of their sermons to the IRS, and a bill has been introduced into Congress to repeal Johnson's amendment.
Fish's argument is worth discussing because he reminds us that at the center of this issue is a dispute about what "religious exercise" means. Is it a purely private affair, or does it require involvement in human affairs?
We'll go over this in class.
Poll Question: Sarah Palin and the Separation of Church and State
44 of you voted on the followign question:
Sarah Palin's belief that the Bible is literally true threatens the separation of church and state, if she is elected.
10 agree
34 disagree
Sarah Palin's belief that the Bible is literally true threatens the separation of church and state, if she is elected.
10 agree
34 disagree
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)