Struggle For Religious Liberty Research Articles

John Clarke and the Complications of Liberty

In the historiography of English and American Baptist movements there is no more familiar convention than this: Baptists early and late championed freedom of the religious conscience, rejected the use of force in spiritual affairs, and, either expressly or by implication, accepted the corollary of religious pluralism. With few exceptions, modern scholars have either assumed or implied by the logic of their arguments that the historic Baptist commitment to religious liberty was not only strong but categoric. By implication also, it did not evolve but arose full blown in the initial Anglo-American Baptist insurgency itself in the seventeenth century. To take one example: in a chapter-length treatment of the “struggle for religious liberty,” a currently authoritative history of American Baptists affirms that colonial Baptists “led other dissenters in championing the cause of religious liberty” and the separation of church and state. Then as later, the advocacy of freedom “for persons of all faiths—or no faith” was their “genius.“ Genius—here is the key claim. Liberty of religious choice and practice is joined to conversion or adult baptism as a principle of the faith both original and definitive. Baptist intoleration in any form becomes a virtual oxymoron.

ROMAN CATHOLICISM AND THE FAITH-BASED MOVEMENT FOR GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS

The Dignitatis Humanae is crucial to understanding how America's faith community succeeded in pushing through a new human rights architecture for foreign policy: the International Religious Freedom Act (IRFA). The Roman Catholic Church occupies a strategic space in the U.S. political landscape that made it a vital ally in the struggle for religious liberty. Moreover, the DH was a platform on which Catholic activists were able to transcend inter-denominational squabbling and take a lead role in lobbying for this legislation. Prominent Catholics have also played an important role in the implementation of the IRFA.

Revealing Liberalism in Early America: Rethinking Religious Liberty and Liberal Values

In 1966, Marvin Singleton published an essay in the Journal of Church and State entitled Colonial Virginia as First Amendment Ma trix. Read several decades removed from the essay's historiographical context, Singleton's effort now appears as a standard recounting of Vir ginia's revolutionary debates on tax support for public churches, or what is more commonly categorized as an attempt at estab lishment. Yet Singleton described his own effort as far from standard. In fact, he believed that it filled a void in the history of Virginia's strug gle for religious liberty, as evidenced in Singleton's statement: A bal anced chronicle of the events surrounding Patrick Henry's effort during 1784 and 1785 to achieve tax support for Virginia teachers of the Christian religion is presently needed.1 Such need arose from the fact that shortly before the 1960s, Supreme Court justices had referred more than once to early Virginia history for substantiation of their rela tively new First Amendment religion clause jurisprudence.2 Virginia history thus became central in the development of modern definitions

The Struggle for Religious Liberty

The Struggle for Religious Liberty

The Dartmouth Quakers' Struggle for Religious Liberty, 1692-1734

The Dartmouth Quakers' Struggle for Religious Liberty, 1692-1734 William G. McLoughlin* In 1684 King Charles II revoked the original charter of the Puritan colonists who had come to Boston in 1629 to create a city upon a hill for all the world to admire—a religious commonwealth built according to the most perfect model of God's will, a religious paradise. Some pious folk in Boston thought that the revocation of their charter came about because God was angry with his chosen people for having hanged four Quakers on Boston Common in 1659-1660. Others said God was angry with them for not having hanged all of the Quakers. In 1686 King James II sent a royal governor , Sir Edmund Andros, to rule over the Bay Colony, and for two years he flouted all of the holy principles of the Bible Commonwealth , forcing upon it not only the toleration of Anglican worship but also of Baptist and Quaker worship. Andros even denied that the Congregationalists of New England had any right to lay taxes on its people for the support of their religion; he said that the Church of England was the only established religion in the realm. The Puritans hated Sir Edmund; the non-Puritans loved him. In 1688 Divine Providence again intervened. Just as King James II seemed about to return England to Roman Catholicism the Glorious Revolution took place, and James II was forced to abdicate . Edmund Andros was imprisoned in Boston, and Parliament called William of Orange from Holland to become King of Britain. Increase Mather, the most learned man in Boston, went to London to persuade the new monarch to restore the Bay Colony's charter. At this critical moment, the Devil appeared in the town of Salem, Massachusetts, and before he could be subdued, twenty men and women were executed as witches. Although William of Orange was a devout Calvinist, Increase Mather was unable to obtain the old charter back from him. But he did grant Massachusetts a new charter in 1691 which omitted the requirement that the Anglican Church become the established church in Massachusetts, as it was in New York, Virginia, and most of the southern colonies. William did, *William McLoughlin is professor of history at Brown University. This article was originally presented as a paper to the Old Dartmouth Historical Society in April, 1983, at the Whaling Museum, New Bedford, Massachusetts. 1 Quaker History however, require Massachusetts to accept a royal governor appointed by the king; he also required that all the laws of the province be subject to review and veto by the king. The Massachusetts colonists felt that this new charter deprived them of much of their original freedom. However, when Increase Mather returned to Boston in 1691 he argued that the charter was not so bad as at first glance it would seem. Your religion is secured to you. Now you need not fear being sent to Prison (as some of you were under a late government [of Andros]) because you scrupled Swearing by a Book [the Book of Common Prayer]. You may worship God in the greatest Purity, and no one may disturb you. . . . You may, by laws, not only Protect, but encourage that Religion which is the General Profession of the Country. ' And Cotton Mather added that under this charter "The General Assembly may, by their acts, give a distinguishing encouragement unto that religion which is the general profession of the inhabitants."2 According to Increase and Cotton Mather's interpretation of the new charter, the legislature of Massachusetts was entitled to enact laws which would re-establish Puritan Congregationalism as the official religion of the province; the legislature could require that only ministers educated at Harvard could be installed as the official ministers in every town and parish; and it could also require that these ministers should be supported by taxes levied by each town upon all of the property holders in the town. The colonial legislature of Massachusetts soon proceeded to enact a series of laws according to the Mathers' interpretation. A law passed in 1692 required each town in the province to provide itself with an "able, learned, orthodox minister . . . of good...

New England Dissent, 1630–1833: A Review Article

William G.McLoughlin, professor of history, Brown University, has suceeded in producing a most extensive monograph on the struggle for religious liberty in New England and his most ambititious work to date. The author’s painstaking research has been exemplary. The result is a meticulous narrative of two–hundred years of religious dissent, told in thirteen chapters consuming some thirteen–hundred pages of text in two hefty volumes with copious footnotes. At the outset, McLoughlin asserts that he undertook this study to clarify the confusion in regard to the history of separation of church and state in America.This confusion, he holds, is the result of two basic misunderstandings regarding the formation of the concept of separation during the colonial era: The first misunderstanding is based on the theory that separation as we know it today came primarily, if not entirely, from the rationalistic spirit of the Enlightenment and that it received its essential exposition from Thomas Jefferson and James Madison in Virginia. The second misunderstanding derives from the very different assumption that separation sprang principally, if not wholly from the radical wing of the Protestant Reformation (brought to America by the Baptists and the Quakers) and that it received its essential exposition from Roger Williams in Rhode Island in the 1630's. (p. xv) McLoughlin is quite sure that the vision of full religious liberty and complete separation of church and state only gradually emerged, since “the fight for religious liberty was primarily a neighborhood affair—a series of dialogues and face to face confrontations in church, parish, and town meetings which continued over two hundred years” (p.xvii).

The Constitution, the Supreme Court, and Religion

The Supreme Court of the United States, whose decisions not only define constitutional law but vitally affect national policy, has long held both an honored and a controversial place in American life. In no area do its decisions bring it more honor or more controversy than in the field of religion; for, as a member of the First Congress under the Constitution said, “the rights of conscience are, in their nature, of peculiar delicacy, and will little bear the gentlest touch of governmental hand. … Thus, the same decision of the Court may be hailed by some as a great landmark in the struggle for religious liberty, and denounced by others as a serious invasion of liberty of conscience. For although it may be pleasant to dream of religion insulated from governmental touch, the dual membership of citizens in the state and in religious bodies insures that conscience and government will touch at some points with inevitable friction, and, to the conscience so touched, it makes little difference whether the governmental hand is that of a local school board, the Congress, or the Supreme Court of the United States.The Court has recently been attacked as antireligious, or at least as callous to our religious heritage, because of its decisions invalidating a state-prescribed prayer and state-prescribed Bible reading in public schools. The first of these decisions prompted the more excited outcry, but the two, at first singly and then together, have precipitated a renewed debate about the proper constitutional relationship between the state and religion.

The Constitution, the Supreme Court, and Religion

The Supreme Court of the United States, whose decisions not only define constitutional law but vitally affect national policy, has long held both an honored and a controversial place in American life. In no area do its decisions bring it more honor or more controversy than in the field of religion; for, as a member of the First Congress under the Constitution said, “the rights of conscience are, in their nature, of peculiar delicacy, and will little bear the gentlest touch of governmental hand. … Thus, the same decision of the Court may be hailed by some as a great landmark in the struggle for religious liberty, and denounced by others as a serious invasion of liberty of conscience. For although it may be pleasant to dream of religion insulated from governmental touch, the dual membership of citizens in the state and in religious bodies insures that conscience and government will touch at some points with inevitable friction, and, to the conscience so touched, it makes little difference whether the governmental hand is that of a local school board, the Congress, or the Supreme Court of the United States.The Court has recently been attacked as antireligious, or at least as callous to our religious heritage, because of its decisions invalidating a state-prescribed prayer and state-prescribed Bible reading in public schools. The first of these decisions prompted the more excited outcry, but the two, at first singly and then together, have precipitated a renewed debate about the proper constitutional relationship between the state and religion.

The Diplomatic Relations Between the United States and Mexico, as Affected by the Struggle for Religious Liberty in Mexico, 1923-1929

The Diplomatic Relations Between the United States and Mexico, as Affected by the Struggle for Religious Liberty in Mexico, 1923-1929

The Diplomatic Relations between the United States and Mexico, as Affected by the Struggle for Religious Liberty in Mexico, 1925-1929. By Sister Elizabeth Ann Rice, O.P. Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1959. vi+224 pp. $2.50

The Diplomatic Relations between the United States and Mexico, as Affected by the Struggle for Religious Liberty in Mexico, 1925–1929. By Sister Elizabeth Ann Rice, O.P. Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1959. vi+224 pp. $2.50 Lyle C. Brown Lyle C. Brown Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar Journal of Church and State, Volume 2, Issue 2, November 1960, Pages 188–190, https://doi.org/10.1093/jcs/2.2.188 Published: 01 November 1960

The Diplomatic Relations Between the United States and Mexico, as Affected by the Struggle for Religious Liberty in Mexico, 1925-1929. By Sister Elizabeth Ann Rice, O.P. (Washington. D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1959. Pp. vii, 224. $2.50.)

The Diplomatic Relations Between the United States and Mexico, as Affected by the Struggle for Religious Liberty in Mexico, 1925-1929. By Sister Elizabeth Ann Rice, O.P. (Washington. D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1959. Pp. vii, 224. $2.50.) - Volume 16 Issue 4

The Diplomatic Relations Between the United States and Mexico, as Affected by the Struggle for Religious Liberty in Mexico, 1925-1929. By Sister M. Elizabeth Ann Rice, O.P., M.A. (Washington, D. C: The Catholic University of America Press, 1959. pp. vii, 224. Index. $2.50, paper-bound.)

The Diplomatic Relations Between the United States and Mexico, as Affected by the Struggle for Religious Liberty in Mexico, 1925-1929. By Sister M. Elizabeth Ann Rice, O.P., M.A. (Washington, D. C: The Catholic University of America Press, 1959. pp. vii, 224. Index. $2.50, paper-bound.)

The Diplomatic Relations between the United States and Mexico, as Affected by the Struggle for Religious Liberty in Mexico, 1925-1929

The Diplomatic Relations between the United States and Mexico, as Affected by the Struggle for Religious Liberty in Mexico, 1925-1929

The Development of Democracy in Western Germany Since the Second World War

Nowadays we are often and quite rightly reminded of the price of liberty. But eternal vigilance is the price paid for maintaining liberty, not the cost of production. To build up and establish a tradition of political freedom demands more heroic qualities: inner conviction, selfless devotion, and a willingness to risk everything for the worth and dignity of the individual. The histories of Switzerland, Holland, Britain, and the United States record the cost of our inherited privileges.Germany has no tradition of political freedom. It is not that Germans have lacked heroism. They have played a great part in the struggle for religious liberty. They have been only too willing to die for their country's greatness. But the facts of geography and the course steered by their leading statesmen have diverted their attention from the advantages of political liberty.German liberals missed their last great chance as far back as 1848. The most remarkable and sinister of all Bismarck's feats was the way in which, by sheer force of achievement, he won over many of the leading German intellects to unrestrained nationalism. Readers of Treitschke's Deutsche Geschichte often find it difficult to believe that the historian was ever an ardent liberal. After the foundation of the German Empire of 1871, as Dr. Adenauer put it recently, “a nationalism founded upon might gradually replaced the ethical idea of national freedom.” The Imperial Constitution provided for a bicameral parliament and introduced manhood suffrage. But the Chancellor was nominated by the Emperor and was not responsible to parliament. Furthermore the Constitution was so devised that no laws could in practice be passed without the Chancellor's approval. In the words of Liebknecht, the German Socialist, the Reichstag turned out to be little more than a “fig-leaf’ to cover the nakedness of autocracy.

Jew's Struggle for Religious Liberty in Maryland

Jew's Struggle for Religious Liberty in Maryland

Book Review: II.—Church History: The Story of the Cambridge Baptists and the Struggle for Religious Liberty

Book Review: II.—Church History: The Story of the Cambridge Baptists and the Struggle for Religious Liberty

The Struggle for Religious Liberty

The Struggle for Religious Liberty

Documentary History of the Struggle for Religious Liberty in Virginia. Charles F. JamesThe Struggle for Religious Freedom in Virginia: The Baptists. William Taylor Thom

<i>Documentary History of the Struggle for Religious Liberty in Virginia</i>. Charles F. James<i>The Struggle for Religious Freedom in Virginia: The Baptists</i>. William Taylor Thom