THE VIRGINIA CHARTER OF 1610
Thursday, April 20, 2017
THE COLONIAL RELIGIOUS ORDER
Let's start near the beginning of the colonial period in North America. In May of 1610, the leaders of the Virginia Company, a commercial enterprise chartered under the London Company, assembled and drafted the Virginia Charter. In medieval times, prevailing religion had an alliance not only with government but also with corporations, trades, universities and anything else it could influence. The Preamble of this document began by saying "a most zealous Prince hath in his own Realms a principal care of true Religion, and reverence to God, and hath always strictly commanded his Generals and Governors, with all his forces wheresoever, to let their ways be like his ends for the glory of God."
Fair enough; corporate Virginia has a Christian government in 1610; a 'Godly government' similar to the kind embraced by Islamists and fundamentalist Christians, the Virginia charter declared allegiance to God, saying, "we owe our highest and supreme duty, our greatest, and all our allegiance to him, from whom all power and authority is derived, and flows as from the first, and only fountain, and being especial soldiers impressed in this sacred cause, we must alone expect our success from him, who is only the blesser of all good attempts, the King of kings, the commander of commanders, and Lord of Hosts."
The United States Constitution is nonreligious and secular in comparison. The signers of the Constitution boldly left mentions of God and Christianity out of the founding law after a millennium and a half of plastering state documents with religiosity. The Constitution lacks all previous defenses of faith and exaltations of God. There is not one fundamental Christian principle to be found in it. The Constitution is Enlightenment era based right from the beginning with its separation of powers as put forth by Charles de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu in his pinnacle work, the Spirit of the Laws. This masterful work was banned by the Catholic Church and became the most quoted work on government in America. During the Constitutional Convention and in the Federalist Papers it was Montesquieu, Greece, and Rome that were called upon for models of government. Nothing approaching a Biblical model was considered. Before the Philadelphia convention Madison wrote to Jefferson asking how he should go about framing a new Constitution. Jefferson sent him a trunk of books on the history of the world's governments and Madison read them all.
The Virginia Charter imposed this same religiosity on its military and its citizens. The military commanders were also told that "Almighty God be duly and daily served, and that they call upon their people to hear Sermons, as that also they diligently frequent Morning and Evening prayer themselves by their own exemplary and daily life, and duties herein, encouraging others thereunto, and that such, who shall often and willfully absent themselves, be duly punished according to the martial law in that case provided."
Martial law! As a soldier, church attendance was mandatory plus you had to attend the prayer meetings. There was no choice in the matter. It was a military statute. The Federal Constitution banned religious tests in oaths required to serve the public trust. Nothing in the Constitution supports a state religion for its soldiers; nothing supports using the military to evangelize Christianity or any although right wing organizations complain endlessly about secularism in the military. It is one thing to provide chaplains for the diverse religious needs of the armed forces but quite another to promote religion itself. While the colony could punish people for not attending sermons and daily prayers, Jefferson's Virginia Religious Liberty Statute of 1786 and the US Constitution ended that. It called for the disestablishment of the state-supported church, ended religious tests, and people no longer had to go to church anymore if they didn't want to. More on the 1786 Virginia statute after the colonial survey.
The Virginia laws included a law supporting a strict trinitarian version of Christianity and as done in Massachusetts, New Hampshire made speaking against God a capital crime. This made criticism of Christianity a dangerous endeavor. Freedom of religion and speech did not exist in colonial America. Political correctness in these times was religious correctness; as in Islam, blasphemy was punishable by death in the colonies. Deriding the Bible was a capital offense. Demeaning a preacher was also a crime. This society isolated and protected it's clergy and it's religion with harsh penalties for those who would dare to challenge customs. It is a Christian government keeping outsiders out. Here are some of the Virginia laws in the 1610 charter:
"2 That no man speak impiously or maliciously, against the holy and blessed Trinity or any of the three persons, that is to say, against God the Father, God the Son, and God the holy Ghost, or against the known Articles of the Christian faith, upon pain of death."
"3 That no man blaspheme Gods holy name upon pain of death,......"
"5 No man shall speak any word, or do any act, which may tend to the derision, or despite Gods holy word upon pain of death:...Nor shall any man unworthily demean himself unto any Preacher, or Minister of the same,..."
"Likewise no man or woman shall dare to violate or break the Sabbath by any gaming, public or private abroad, or at home, but duly sanctify and observe the same, both himself and his family, by preparing themselves at home with private prayer, that they may be the better fitted for the public, according to the commandments of God, and the orders of our Church, as also every man and woman shall repair in the morning to the divine service, and Sermons preached upon the Sabbath day, and in the afternoon to divine service, and Catechizing, upon pain for the first fault to lose their provision, and allowance for the whole week following, for the second to lose the said allowance, and also to be whipped, and for the third to suffer death."
Starve them, whip them or maybe even kill them for missing church! The document continues with more protections for the religion of the state. The policies arising from Virginia's alliance of church and state decided your religious belief, your speech in matters of religion, and your church attendance in manner and frequency.
In a book written at the close of the founder's era titled The History and Topography of the United States, we find on page thirty-six an example of this militant religiosity:
"On the death of Lord Delaware, the administration of Argal, deputy governor of Virginia, became increasingly severe. Martial law, which had been proclaimed and executed during the former turbulent times, was now made the common law of the land. He published several edicts of most absurd severity: as a specimen of his tyranny, we quote his decree, That every person should go to church on Sundays and holidays, or be kept confined the night succeeding the offense, and be a slave to the colony the following week,; for the second offense, a slave for a month, and for the third, a year and a day".
Jail and slavery for not going to church? Death for bad talking God? Looking to the colonies is hardly the place to go to make a case for supporting any alliance of religion and government but the voices of the radical right do just that. While the right wing rails against Shariah Law, they fail to admit there is not much difference between the laws of the Pentateuch and Sharia. In fact, Sharia is based on the Pentateuch and the 'God of Abraham'. This is Right Wing World, not the Constitution. It would be unfair to blame Argal alone for such a militant society. The trend actually began with Sir Thomas Dale, a naval commander who brought Dale's Code to Virginia from England. In this code, every person including women and children was given a military rank and a set of well-defined duties. Virginia was then a communal commercial enterprise in which the investors thought the colonists a bit too lazy for their own good. It was the opinion of the commercial interests that the colonists were not doing the work necessary for profit and even relied upon the Indians to take care of some of their needs. In fact, 440 of 500 of the Virginia colony died because they felt they didn't have to do the farming work to feed themselves. They would rely on Indian trade but the Indians had a different plan. See The Starving TimeThe code was eventually replaced by the First General Assembly of Virginia in 1619.
Thomas Jefferson noted of these colonial times in his Notes on the State of Virginia,
"The first settlers in this country were emigrants from England, of the English church, just at a point of time when it was flushed with complete victory over the religious of all other persuasions. Possessed, as they became, of the powers of making, administering, and executing the laws, they showed equal intolerance in this country with their Presbyterian brethren, who had emigrated to the northern government. The poor Quakers were flying from persecution in England. They cast their eyes on these new countries as asylums of civil and religious freedom, but they found them free only for the reigning sect. Several acts of the Virginia assembly of 1659, 1662, and 1693, had made it penal in parents to refuse to have their children baptized; had prohibited the unlawful assembling of Quakers; had made it penal for any master of a vessel to bring a Quaker into the state; had ordered those already here, and such as should come thereafter, to be imprisoned till they should abjure the country; provided a milder punishment for their first and second return, but death for their third; had inhibited all persons from suffering their meetings in or near their houses, entertaining them individually, or disposing of books which supported their tenets. If no capital execution took place here, as did in New-England, it was not owing to the moderation of the church, or spirit of the legislature, as may be inferred from the law itself; but to historical circumstances which have not been handed down to us. The Anglicans retained full possession of the country about a century. Other opinions began then to creep in, and the great care of the government to support their own church, having begotten an equal degree of indolence in its clergy, two-thirds of the people had become dissenters at the commencement of the present revolution. The laws indeed were still oppressive on them, but the spirit of the one party had subsided into moderation, and of the other had risen to a degree of determination which commanded respect."
While colonial law tickles the nostalgic fancies of the religious right they were abominations to men of the American enlightenment
The The Laws Enacted by the First General Assembly of 1619 Virginia put the state in charge of converting the Indians. Mind you, these are the same Indians that attempted to remove the English by starving them to death.
"Be it enacted by this present assembly that for laying a surer foundation of the conversion of the Indians to Christian religion, each town, city, borough, and particular plantation do obtain unto themselves by just means a certain number of the native children to be educated by them in true religion and civil course of life. Of which children the most towardly boys in wit and graces of nature to be brought up by them in the first elements of literature, so as to be fitted for the college intended for them, that from thence they may be sent to that work of conversion."
Continuing the Anglican Alliance of Church and State, the laws stated:
"All ministers shall duly read divine service and exercise their ministerial function according to the ecclesiastical laws and orders of the Church of England and every Sunday in the afternoon shall catechize such as are not yet ripe to come to the communion. And whosoever of them be found negligent or faulty in this kind shall be subject to the censure of the Governor and Council of Estate."
"The ministers and church wardens shall seek to prevent all ungodly disorders; the committers whereof if, upon good admonitions and mild reproof, they will not forbear the said scandalous offences, as suspicions of whoredoms, dishonest company keeping with women, and such like, they are to be presented and punished accordingly."
"If any person, after two warnings, does not amend his or her life in point of evident suspicion of incontinency or of the commission of any other enormous sins, that then he or she be presented by the church wardens and suspended for a time from the church by the minister. In which interim, if the same person does not amend and humbly submit him or herself to the church, he is then fully to be excommunicated and soon after a writ or warrant to be sent from the Governor for the apprehending of his person and seizing all his goods. Provided always, that all the ministers do meet once a quarter, namely at the feast of St. Michael the Archangel, of the Nativity of our Saviour, of the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin, and about mid-summer, at James City or any other place where the Governor shall reside, to determine whom it is fit to excommunicate, and that they first present their opinion to the Governor ere they proceed to the act of excommunication."
"For reformation of swearing, every freeman and master of a family after thrice admonition shall give 5 shillings of the value upon present demand to the use of the church where he dwells, and every servant after the like admonition, except his master discharge the fine, shall be subject to whipping; provided, that the payment of the fine notwithstanding, the said servant shall acknowledge his fault publicly in the church."
The clergy had the responsibility of policing the people. If the Church didn't like you they called on the state for added retribution just as they did in Europe .
1620: THE PLYMOUTH COMBINATION
One of the most misunderstood historical documents is The Plymouth Combination which was called the Mayflower Compact after 1793. Many religious conservatives point to the compact as a founding document. The problem with that is that the compact was conceived in England and is thoroughly English. The citizens of Plymouth were loyal subjects of King James, who. Like England, France, Spain, and Germany, the state of Massachusetts persecuted all who didn't sign on to the official religion of the realm. If you didn't declare for proper religion, you could be banished from the colony, too. Religious liberty and equality was out of the question and considered heresy or even blasphemy to some. Religious liberty was an idea from perdition in the mindset of colonial Plymouth. The Plymouth government was a typical church-state alliance of medieval Europe. Let's take a look at some of the compact.
"In the Name of God, Amen. We whose Names are under-written, the Loyal Subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord King James, by the grace of God of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, King, Defender of the Faith &c. Having undertaken for the glory of God, and advancement of the Christian Faith, and the Honor of our King and Country, a Voyage to plant the first Colony in the Northern parts of Virginia; Do by these Presents, solemnly and mutually, in the presence of God and one another, Covenant and Combine our selves together into a Civil Body Politick, for our better ordering and preservation, and furtherance of the ends aforesaid:..."
In one of British North America's first religious test-oaths, the Plymouth Oath of Allegiance and Fidelity ends with "And this you promise and swear, simply and truly, and faithfully to perform as a true Christian".
In the United States under the Constitution, there is no promulgation or decree ascribing the 'Civil Body Politick' to being an evangelical instrument to advance Christianity. We are not the loyal subjects of the King of Great Britain. The Puritans of Massachusetts took their voyage and created their Body Politick, or government, in the name of God. The government was for the glory of God, for the advancement of their Calvinist version of Christianity. In the constitution, there is no hint of advancing the Christian religion or any other spiritual matter. The use of colonial religiosity by the religious right to fight the separation of church and state is an illogical and illegitimate argument because we are under "this new Constitution" as Alexander Hamilton and James Madison put it in the Federalist Papers.
1621: THE VIRGINIA CONSTITUTION FOR THE COUNCIL AND ASSEMBLY
In the Constitution for the Council and Assembly in Virginia of July 24, 1621, the leaders were to put aside any differences they have and "bend their care and endeavors to assist the said Governor first and principally in advancement and of the honor and service of Almighty God and the enlargement of His kingdom amongst those heathen people, and in erecting of the said colony in one obedience to his Majesty and all lawful authority from his Majesty's derived, and lastly in maintaining the said people in justice and Christian conversation among themselves and in strength and ability to withstand their enemies." Nothing in the US Constitution orders public servants to first and principally work for the advancement, honor, and service of God and to maintain the Christian conversion of the people.
1624: THE LAWS AND ORDERS CONCLUDED BY THE VIRGINIA ASSEMBLY
March 5, 1624 Laws and Orders Concluded by the Virginia General Assembly
"1. that there shall be in every plantation, where the people use to meet for the worship of God, a house or room sequestered for that purpose, and not to be for any temporal use whatsoever,..."
Antithetical to our Constitution, the Virginia of 1624 mandated that there be a church in every community.
1632: THE MARYLAND COLONIAL CHARTER
The Maryland Charter of 1632 starts off with an evangelical bang. After a short preamble, Article II declares: "Whereas our well beloved and right trusty Subject Cecilius Calvert, Baron of Baltimore, in our Kingdom of Ireland, Son and Heir of George Calvert, Knight, late Baron of Baltimore, in our said Kingdom of Ireland, treading in the steps of his Father, being animated with a laudable, and pious Zeal for extending the Christian Religion, and also the Territories of our Empire,...." .
"..the Patronages, and Advowsons of all Churches which (with the increasing Worship and Religion of Christ) within the said Region, Islands, Islets, and Limits aforesaid, hereafter shall happen to be built, together with License and Faculty of erecting and founding Churches, Chapels, and Places of Worship, in convenient and suitable places, within the Premises, and of causing the same to be dedicated and consecrated according to the Ecclesiastical Laws of our Kingdom of England,.."
Maryland was a Catholic colony but the same model of religious government was evident. Advowsons regarded Church benefices which were the laws and privileges regarding church offices and the officials who were supported by the government's land grants and monies. This tradition dates back to the year 313 when Emperor Constantine notified the leader of the North African churches, "Constantine Augustus to Anulinus, bishop of Carthage. Since it is our pleasure that something should be granted in all the provinces of Africa and Numidia and Mauritania to certain ministers of the legitimate and most holy catholic religion, to defray their expenses, I have written to Ursus, the illustrious finance minister of Africa, and have directed him to make provision to pay to thy firmness three thousand folles. Do thou therefore, when thou hast received the above sum of money, command that it be distributed among all those mentioned above, according to the brief sent to thee by Hosius."
This tradition of state subsidies continued unabated and in full force for fifteen centuries regardless of sect or realm. When Glen Beck and David Barton point to the colonial religious traditions in defense of their 'Christian nation' claim, they are digging up the bones of a failed model of church and state the rose in late antiquity. These models are not American nor are they exceptional. They are ancient and medieval in origin and have deeply troublesome and bloody histories.
1636: THE ENLARGED COVENANT OF SALEM
The Enlarged Salem Covenant of 1636 was the covenant of a Congregationalist theocracy. This covenant was a religious test-oath; the vows of a religious order.
"1. First, we avow the Lord to be our God, and ourselves his people in the truth and simplicity of our spirits."
"2. We give our selves to the Lord Jesus Christ, and the word of his grace fore the teaching ruling and sanctifying of us in matters of worship, and Conversation, resolving to cleave to him alone for life and glory; and oppose all contrary ways, cannons, and constitutions of men in his worship."
"9. Also promising to our best ability to teach our children and servants, the knowledge of God and his will, that they may serve him also; and all this, not by any strength of our own, but by the Lord Christ, whose blood we desire may sprinkle this our Covenant made in his name."
The US Constitution does not avow any knowledge of any deity's existence or will. It does not submit itself to any religious figure and declares ITSELF to be the Supreme Law of the Land in Article VI. It does not mention God or any religion in particular but leaves all these things between man and his maker.
1636: THE PLYMOUTH AGREEMENT
"We, the associates of New-Plymouth Coming hither as freeborn subjects of the State of England endowed with all and singular the privileges belonging to such being assembled; do ordain Constitute and enact that no act imposition law or ordinance be made or imposed upon us at present, or to come but such as shall be imposed by Consent of the body of associates or their representatives legally assembled; which is according to the free liberties of England."
Look hither, the laws were crafted for 'freeborn subjects of the State of England' according to the 'free liberties' of England. English law for English subjects.
1638: THE
MARYLAND ACT FOR SWEARING ALLEGIANCE
In 1638, Maryland devised An Act for Swearing Allegiance for its citizenry. Every person, when reaching the age of majority at 18 was required within a month to take the Maryland oath of allegience before God to Lord King Charles of England.
"I, ____, do truly acknowledge profess testify and declare in my conscience before God and the World that our Sovereign Lord King Charles is lawful and rightful King of England and of all other his Majesties Dominions and Countries and I will bear true faith and allegiance to his Majesty his heirs and lawful Successors and him and them will defend to the uttermost of my power against all conspiracies and such attempts whatsoever which shall be made against his or their Crown or dignity and shall and will doe my best endeavor to disclose and make known to his Majesty his heirs and lawful Successors all Treasons and traitorous conspiracies which I shall know or hear to be intended against his Majesty his heirs and lawful Successors And I do make this recognition and acknowledgment heartily willingly and truly upon the faith of a Christian So help me God."
One might say its just an oath to a monarch but its not that simple. Maryland settlers were Catholics and the oath was designed to protect against Catholic allegiance to the Papal Supremacy. If one refused to take the oath, they faced loss of property and banishment. Papal authority was a serious matter.
"And Be it further Enacted By the authority aforesaid that if any person or persons to whom the Said oaths Shall be tendered by Virtue of this present act Shall willfully refuse to take the same that then Upon such tender and refusal the said person or persons so refusing to take the said Oath shall be imprisoned till the next County Court or hundred Court of Kent and if at such Court such party shall upon the Second tender refuse again to take the said oath the party or parties so refusing shall forfeit and lose all his Lands goods and Chattels within this Province to the Lord Proprietary and his heirs and Shall be banished the said Province for ever."
Banished forever. In the earliest times of the Christianized Roman Empire, beginning in the fourth century, one could be exiled and/or lose their testamentary rights if one was not of the state approved version of Christianity. It wasn't long before pagans and Jews could not be lawyers or run for office. This alliance with the state and the authorized religion of the people was one of the ways the church came into so many converts and so much property. It was a win-win situation for the state approved church. Under these imperial decrees, Pagans and heretics 'contributed' great wealth to the church and the empire. (See The Rise of Church-State Alliances: Emperors Constantine to Justinian: 306-565)
1638: THE
MARYLAND ACT FOR THE LIBERTIES OF THE PEOPLE
In 1638 the representatives of Maryland enacted An Act for the Liberties of the People. It hardly represents liberty as we know it but in the medieval times of colonial America, people would take anything they could get.
"Be it Enacted By the Lord Proprietor of this Province of and with the advice and approbation of the freemen of the same that all the Inhabitants of this Province being Christians (Slaves excepted) Shall have and enjoy all such rights liberties immunities privileges and free customs within this Province as any natural born subject of England hath or ought to have or enjoy in the Realm of England by force or virtue of the common law or Statute Law of England (saving in such Cases as the same are or may be altered or changed by the Laws and ordinances of this Province)"
This is an act in pursuance to common law and Statute Law of England decreeing all who are white Christians shall be have the protections and privileges promised by the law as if they were natural born Englishmen. Non-Christians and slaves did not "enjoy all such rights liberties immunities privileges and free customs within this Province". It is important to know that in the Europe of 1638, there was the ongoing Thirty years War (1618-1648) that wiped out eight million lives by the time the Peace of Westphalia was signed. This war started as a religious war between Catholics and Protestants in Germany but effected all of Europe.
1639: THE
FUNDAMENTALS OF CONNECTICUT
In 1638, the representatives of the Connecticut communities of Windsor, Hartford, and Wethersfield met to create the laws in their realm. They were adopted by the freemen of the region in January of 1639. The Fundamentals of Connecticut spoke on forming a government "well knowing where a people are gathered together the word of God requires that to maintain the peace and union of such a people there should be an orderly and decent Government established according to God".
Their government is "to maintain and preserve the liberty and purity of the Gospel of our Lord Jesus which we now profess, as also, the discipline of the Churches, which according to the truth of the said Gospel is now practiced amongst us; as also in our civil affairs to be guided and governed according to such Laws, Rules, Orders and Decrees as shall be made, ordered, and decreed…" The religious test imposed is to be "sworn according to an Oath recorded for that purpose, shall have the power to administer justice according to the Laws here established, and for want thereof, according to the Rule of the Word of God." The Orders declared that the government formed should be established according to God. .Below that, in Section I, we notice that the Governor and officials, "which being chosen and sworn according to an Oath recorded for that purpose, shall have the power to administer justice according to the Laws here established, and for want thereof, according to the Rule of the Word of God; which choice shall be made by all that are admitted freemen and have taken the Oath of Fidelity."
The Four Orders here go directly against the philosophy of the National Constitution where the Word of God is noticeably absent. In the light of the strong language of theocratic religiosity of Colonial charters the omission of religion is a radical departure from English religious traditions. The first is the order for the government to maintain Christianity. The second order is to maintain the Churches. The third is to establish Laws according to the Rule of the Word of God. The fourth is the taking of an Oath of Fidelity which usually means a religious test and declaration to preserve the Gospel of the Lord Jesus. This mix of religion and the government is so muddy that it is hard to tell which was which. The Constitution, not the Bible, laid the foundations for the rule of law; it banned religious tests in oaths of office and it banned the government establishment of any religion. It only is the Supreme Law of The Land. Chief Justice Joseph Story, in his 1833 Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States stated the clause "had a higher object; to cut off forever every pretence of any alliance between church and state in the national government" about the purpose of the religious test ban clause contained in Article VI, Section 2; the "".
1639: THE
FUNDAMENTAL ARTICLES OF NEW HAVEN
Five months later the New Haven colony met to create a new government under what would be titled The Fundamental Articles of New Haven. At the time they had been under the Plantation Covenant at Quinnipiac for about a year. The Covenant was a very basic and short document that needed further amending accordinmg to the leaders. Among the issues the New Haven colony would address would be whether church members were the only people to be afforded full citizenship. Afterall, this is the way it had been done for centuries. Let's take a look at the first section of the proceedings recorded:.
"THE 4th day of the 4th month, called June, 1639, all the free planters assembled together in a general meeting, to consult about settling civil government, according to GOD, and the nomination of persons that might be found, by consent of all, fittest in all respects for the foundation work of a church, which was intended to be gathered in Quinipiack. After solemn invocation of the name of GOD, in prayer for the presence and help of his spirit and grace, in those weighty businesses, they were reminded of the business whereabout they met, (viz.) for the establishment of such civil order as might be most pleasing unto GOD, and for the choosing the fittest men for the foundation work of a church to be gathered. For the better enabling them to discern the mind of GOD, and to agree accordingly concerning the establishment of civil order,..."
This discerning of the mind of God in order to establish a civil order is diametrically opposed of how the Constitution was crafted.
Right away we see the New Haven alliance of church and state would be considered unlawful by today's constitutional standards. Firstly, "settling civil government, according to GOD" is a form of medieval government that was abolished by the Constitution and still thrives in parts of the Muslim world. You and I can establish our private lives according to God but not our government. 'God' doesn't even appear in the United States Constitution. Furthermore, this civil order determined "the nomination of persons that might be found, by consent of all, fittest in all respects for the foundation work of a church." Can you imagine a modern American government deciding who does the foundational work of the church? Church members would scream bloody murder if today's government interfered with the work of their church yet can not see the same poisoning of the waters if religion iintyerferes with the natural world workings of government. The colonial documents that religious fundamentalists like Glen Beck, Tony Perkins, and David Barton use to make their arguments with actually make a much better case for the opposite conclusions; conclusions based on the Constitution being a radical break from the religious governments of the past.
The New Haven document continues to tell us that they are assembled "For the better enabling them to discern the mind of GOD, and to agree accordingly concerning the establishment of civil order". So there they were, as John Adams wrote in his A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America of 1788;; "unenlightened, motivated by artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition; under the influence of heaven and having conversations with the gods." One of the biggest problems we have ever had in tyrannical government is people claiming to discern the mind of God for us. That is priest-craft, not civil governance. From King Hammurabi Codes onward, history's lawgivers claimed they received laws from God because it artificially imbues them with more authority. The Constitution left all of that hypocrisy and superstition behind. While most people who hear voices seek help, Republicans who hear voices consider running for the Presidency.
Let's take a look at Query #1 of the New Haven assembly which asked, "Whether the scriptures do hold forth a perfect rule for the direction and government of all men in all duties which they are to perform to GOD and men, as well in families and commonwealth, as in matters of the church?" The First Amendment's prohibition of government establishment of religion and the general banning of religious tests in Article Six make this query, if made in the present, legally impossible..
In Query #4, "Mr. Davenport declared unto them, by the scripture, what kind of persons might best be trusted with matters of government; and by sundry arguments from scripture proved that such men as were described in Exod. xviii. 2, Dent. 1. 13, with Dent. xvii. A, and 1 Cor. vi. 1, 6, 7, ought to be intrusted by them, seeing they were free to cast themselves into that mould and form of commonwealth which appeared best for them in reference to the securing. the peace and peaceable improvement of all CHRIST his ordinances in the church according to GOD, whereunto they have bound themselves, as hath been acknowledged."
Query #5 asked, "WHETHER free burgesses shall be chosen out of the church members, they that are in the foundation work of the church being actually free burgesses, and to choose to themselves out of the like estate of church fellowship, and the power of choosing magistrates and officers from among themselves, and the power of making and repealing laws, according to the word, and the dividing of inheritances, and deciding of differences that may arise, and all the businesses of like nature are to be transacted by those free burgesses."
The assembly voted in the affirmative, "1. That magistrates should be men fearing
GOD. 2. That the church is the company where, ordinarily, such men may be
expected. 3. That they that choose them ought to be men fearing GOD;...
"They were now fully convinced, that it is the mind of
GOD. One of them said that in the morning before he came reading Deut. xvii. 15,
he was convinced at home. Another said, that he came doubting to the assembly,
but he blessed GOD, by what had been said, he was now fully satisfied, that the
choice of burgesses out of church members and to intrust those with the power
before spoken of is according to the mind of GOD revealed in the
scriptures."
At this point the freemen signed the document that agreed, "Namely, that church members only shall be free burgesses, and that they only shall choose magistrates and officers among themselves, to have power of transacting all the public civil affairs of this plantation; of making and repealing laws, dividing of inheritances, deciding of differences that may arise, and doing all things and businesses of like nature."
Burgesses were the representatives in houses of legislature in England and in the colonies. In northern parts of Europe they were called Burgomasters or Burgomeisters. Sheriffs, magistrates, etc. The Burgesses of the government in New Haven had to be God-fearing and they had to be members of a church. Only church members can choose magistrates and make laws. This kind of thinking is to be expected in medieval colonial times but to make this colonial religious test requirement a law in the present is unthinkable outside of right wing circles If a person was a skeptic yet wanted influence in the body politic, they joined a church because they had to. Joining a church did not mean you were religious in those days. This was the norm in the colonies until the ratification of the Constitution which outlawed such religious requirements in the Federal Government and led to the same in the State governments over time. But until then, One had to join a church in order to participate in the civil affairs of the community. Skeptics simply kept quiet and went through the motions.
In Query #6, the colonists began the nomination process of the people of the government that should establish the church, which would be the only place where lawmakers and officials could come from. This requirement is why every American founder was a member of some church. With the Constitution's religious test ban and establishment clause, and the subsequent extending of them to the states, legislative bodies were not permitted to establish any religious doctrine or church. With the religious test ban, one did not need any religious belief in order to serve the public trust. Times have changed and the right wing media refuses to face the facts because they have a pugnacious evangelical obsession that clouds their vision. Every time there is an election, the GOP conducts an offensive and obsessive religious test on its candidates. After their nomination process is over, they switch gears and attack the opponent's religion as not Christian enough or not Christian at all. The Federalists, their newspaper allies and the conservative element of the clergy did the same to Thomas Jefferson in the 1800 Campaign. About that campaign, The Gilder-Lerhman Institute of American History states, ."The presidential election of 1800 was an angry, dirty, crisis-ridden contest that seemed to threaten the nation's very survival".
Somehow, by some gigantic stretch of the imagination, Glen Beck, David Barton, and other home-grown pseudo-historians in the right wing media use the colonial charters to 'prove' today's America, in a legal sense, was founded as a Christian nation. The problem with that assertion is that the colonies were not the United States under the Constitution. These were English colonies with English notions of religion, liberty, and government. Americans were Englishmen first and above all else until they could hold on no more.
1641: GOVERNMENT
OF RHODE ISLAND
Another dead relic of the old order can be found in the fraing of the The Organization of the Government of Rhode Island held March 16-19, 1641, in which Paragraph 1 states,
"It was ordered and agreed, before the Election, that an Engagement by oath should be taken of all the officers of this Body now to be elected, as likewise for the time to come; the engagement which the several officers of the State shall give is this: To the Execution of this office, I Judge myself bound before God to walk faithfully and this I profess in ye presence of God."
The key statement here is the oath of office required by the elected officials of Rhode Island which is, "To the Execution of this office, I Judge myself bound before God to walk faithfully and this I profess in ye presence of God". Note that the oath of the Presidency as found in the Constitution's Article II, Section I is without any religious context. Any notion of God has been added by others. Let me restate this another way: the crafters of the Constitution chose not to include any reference to God in the Constitution. The Presidential Oath must have been surprising to some because of what was blatantly missing. In fact, when the Congress met afterward to create an oath for office, there were those who tried to put some religiosity in it. They lost to the majority who felt it should be religion-neutral like the Presidential oath:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
That's it. That is what the Constitution prescribes. Unlike the charters, no Bible, no God, no religious oath, no evangelism and and no Christian nation. So the next time you hear the tea-partiers and the religious right raise their voices about unconstitutionality, remind them they are not consistent in the slightest in their demands for constitutionality. They Cherry-pick and hope people don't see their glaring hypocrisy.
1641: THE
GOVERNMENT OF POCASSET, RI
The organization of the Government of Pocasset, Rhode Island came as a revision of their 1638 agreement. It, too, had the same species of religion and government alliances.In this case, the nineteen individuals of the 'Bodie Politick' stood in the 'presence of Jehovah' to incorporate themselves as the town of Portsmouth and declared, we will "submit our persons, lives and estates unto our Lord Jesus Christ, the King of Kings and Lord of Lords and to all those perfect and most absolute laws of his given us in his holy word of truth, to be guided and judged thereby."
The US Constitution calls prohibits an official religious test-oath in the "presence of Jehovah" to submit everything "to the Lord Jesus Christ, King of Kings, Lord of Lords". Any official oath to submit everything to Christ has been banned in Article VI. God is a personal matter, not a matter the government intrudes into. This is why the 'under God' phrase in the Pledge of Allegiance is actually a religious test-oath out of step with Constitutional principles. This pledge divides us with a religious test-oath when a pledge such as this should unite us. If it was a pledge for holding office, it would be properly struck down by the courts. What's good for the representatives should be good for the citizenry in the matter of patriotism and defending the constitution.
1641:
MASSACHUSETTS BODY OF LIBERTIES
The Massachusetts Body of Liberties of 1641 opens with "The free fruition of such liberties Immunities and privileges as humanity, Civility, and Christianity call for as due to every man in his place and proportion without impeachment and Infringement has ever been and ever will be the tranquillity and Stability of Churches and Commonwealths."
Such liberties? In section 94 we can see what the so-called liberties that Christianity calls for in early colonial Massachusetts.
Paragraph 1 says, "If any man after legal conviction shall have or worship any other god, but the Lord God, he shall be put to DEATH."
Paragraph II tells us "If any man or woman be a witch, (that has or consults with a familiar spirit,) They shall be put to DEATH."
Paragraph III continues, "If any man shall Blaspheme the name of god, the father, Son or Holy ghost, with direct, express, presumptuous or high handed blasphemy, or shall curse god in the like manner, he shall be put to DEATH. (Capitals are in original document)
The scriptures cited for the reasons they are capital offenses are Leviticus 20:27 and 24:15,16, Exodus 22:18,20, Deuteronomy 13:6,10, 17:2,6 and 18:10. This may strike you as bizzarre but I can't overemphasize the constitutional ignorance of the right wing. I have actually read posts that claimed scriptures were used to craft the Constitution and that the Constitution contains Christian principles. This is not true but when the pundits of the religious right repeat something over and over ad nauseaum, it becomes an infectious virus which infects the uneducated. The propaganda machine of right wing extremists is very successful at spreading misinformation.
What the court of Massachusetts in 1641 considers to be religious blasphemy might have gotten you executed. If you were convicted of having a 'familiar spirit' (being a medium or having supernatural powers) you could find yourself burning at the stake. The horrors of the Salem witch episode were the end result of Massachusetts' religious dictatorship. This is a violent religious tyranny compared to the United States Constitution. It is more akin to the radical Islam than the United States Constitution. Both 1641 Massachusetts and Muslim extremists prohibit any religion but an approved religion of the state and the society. Note that Sharia Courts prescribe the same DEATH for the same transgressions. This is understandable because even Sharia Law is derived from the "Abrahamic Bible" with its Laws of Moses. While these laws represent an age of ignorance, injustice, intolerance, and mandatory conformity, Christian fundamentalists get all warm and fuzzy about 'Our Godly Heritage' and seek a return to that emphasis on God in government. The Constitutional Convention and the Federalist Papers did not see it that way. One of the reasons why the Tea Party is now so unpopular is that religious conservatives run on economic conservatism yet attack gay rights, reproductive freedom, women's health clinics and contraception as soon as they get political power.
1642: CAPITAL
LAWS OF CONNECTICUT
The Capital Laws of Connecticut Established by the General Court in December of 1642 established the same kind of totalitarian medieval religious regime found in New Hampshire and Massachusetts. Rooted in the Old Testament and supported by fiery damnation in the New Testament, these laws are all cruel and unusual punishments which are identical to the laws of the Muslim Hadiths (See side by side chart of Bible, Quran and Muslim Hadiths according to specific themes.) In the Islamic world, these laws enforcing one religion are still common. They derive initially from the Commandments just as the colonial religious mandates did. As yourself this; why do Muslims thinkl Pork is unclean? In some Muslim nations, its illegal to convert from Islam to Christianity. In colonial America it would have been dangerous to convert from Christianity to another religion. One could even get into trouble being a Unitarian because it is not 'Trinitarian'. Here are some of Connecticut's Capital Laws and they differ little from the Islamic Sharia.
"1. If any
man after legal conviction, shall have or worship any other God but the Lord
God, he shall BE PUT TO DEATH. Deu. 13; 6, and 17. 2 Ex. 22; 20. "
"2. If any man or woman be a Witch, (that is) has or
consults with a familliar spirit, they shall BE PUT TO DEATH. Ex. 22; 18. Lev.
20; 27. Deu. 18; 10, 11."
"3. If any person shall blaspheme the name of God the
Father, Son or Holy Ghost w'th direct, express presumptuous or high handed
blasphemy, or shall curse God in the like manner, he shall BE PUT TO DEATH. Lev.
24; 15, 16."
1643: THE NEW
HAVEN FUNDAMENTALS
The document New Haven Fundamentals, agreed upon October 27, 1643 seems to be a reaffirmation of the 1639 articles of New Haven in regards to requiring that every representative of their government be church members. This prerequisite was a very old tradition and it was not about to change in the New Havwen of 1643. It was mandatory if one wanted a career in public service. In the first section of the New Haven Fundamentals it makes clear that only members of approved churches could become representatives in the government. No authority in civil affairs could ever be in the hands of anyone but a church member of an approved church so when David Barton, Glen Beck and Tea-Party groups claim the founders were Christians, they aren't telling the whole story.. On top of the religious right and the tea party's profound lack of historical foundations in a wide variety of subjects- evangelistic , distortion, omission and obfuscation are the main tools in the tool box of the religious right. Here is the church membership mandate in the New Haven of 1643:
"that none shall be admitted to be free burgesses in any of the plantations within this jurisdiction for the future but such planters as are members of some or other of the approved churches of New England; nor shall any but such free burgesses have any vote in any election, the six present freemen at Milford enjoying the liberty with the cautions agreed; nor shall any power or trust in the ordering of any civil affairs be at any time put into the hands of any other than such church members,.."
In the second section, it states these church members are the only people with power to choose magistrates and judges in minor civil and criminal cases and they, too, have to be members of approved churches. Later on, we find out that only the Free Burgesses will handle serious cases. Clearly, this is country club religious politics in action.
"All such free burgesses shall have power in each town or plantation within this jurisdiction to choose fit and able men among themselves, being church members as before, to be the ordinary judges to hear and determine all inferior cases, whether civil or criminal provided that no civil cause to be tried in any of these plantation courts in value exceed £20; and that the punishment in such criminals, according to the mind of God revealed in his word touching such offenses,..."
According to the mind of God? That is scary stuff that resembles Sharia law which also rwenders judgement according to the mind of God as revealed in the Quran and the Muslim Hadiths.
1647: THE LAWS AND LIBERTIES OF
MASSACHUSETTS
In 1647, Massachusetts better organized its existing theocracy' with The Laws and Liberties of Massachusetts.
"So soon as God had set up Political Government among his people Israel he gave them a body of laws of judgment both in civil and criminal causes. These were brief and fundamental principles, yet with all so full and comprehensive as out of them clear deductions were to be drawn to all particular cases in future times."
"This hath been no small privilege, and advantage to us in New-England that our Churches, and civil State have been planted, and grown up (like two twins) together like that of Israel in the wilderness by which wee were put in mind (and had opportunity put into our hands) not only to gather our Churches, and set up the Ordinances of Christ Jesus in them according to the Apostolic pattern by such light as the Lord graciously afforded us: but also with all to frame our civil Polity, and laws according to the rules of his most holy word whereby each do help and strengthen each other (the Churches the civil Authority, and the civil Authority the Churches) and so both prosper the better without such emulation, and contention for privileges or priority as have proved the misery (if not ruin) of both in some other places."
It would appear that they really believed God really set up a Political Government by the rules of his most holy word so church and state would be allied; where each 'do help and strengthen each other.' This was the root cause of religious persecution in Europe for almost 1500 years. Here were Caesar and God married. Here were two twigs wrapped around each other like vines making each nearly indistinquishable. All conformed, or else.
Thomas Jefferson wrote this about religious uniformity and conformity in his Notes on the State of Virginia, 1781-82:
"Difference of opinion is advantageous in religion. The several sects perform the office of a common censor over each other. Is uniformity attainable? Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth."
The United States Constitution is completely devoid of any such claims regarding government and state helping and strengthening each other. There is no government set up by God nor is there the slightest hint of such a union. The men of the founding era were schooled enlightenment men who knew the death and destruction the alliances of church and state left in their wake. While religious leaders may or may have not meant well as they claimed to interpret the mind of God), the union of church and state always failed and produced misery and injustice. Massachusetts continues its laws:
"If any of
you meet with some law that seems not to tend to your particular benefit, you
must consider that laws are made with respect to the whole people, and not to
each particular person: and obedience to them must be yielded with respect to
the common welfare, not to thy private advantage, and as thou yield obedience to
the law for common good, but to thy disadvantage: so another must observe some
other law for them good, though to his own damage; thus must we be content to
bear one another's burden and so fulfill the Law of Christ.
"That distinction which is put between the Laws of God
and the laws of men, becomes a snare to many as it is mis-applied in the
ordering of their obedience to civil Authority; for when the Authority is of God
and that in way of an Ordinance Romans 13. 1. and when the administration of it
is according to deductions, and rules gathered from the word of God, and the
clear light of nature in civil nations, surely there is no humane law that
tendeth to common good (according to those principles) but the same is mediately
a law of God, and that in way of an Ordinance which all are to submit unto and
that for conscience sake. Romans. 13. 5."
In the original alliances of church and state in the fourth thru sixth centuries, the state had the upper hand in the alliance. This disappeared after the age of Emperor Justinian when the Roman Church took up many of the state's responsibilities when Rome began to crumble and became the dominant partner. The state supremacy concept returned with the Protestant Reformation, which was the foundation of the church-state alliances of the colonies. The 'Papists' they hated so much had had the upper hand in the alliances of church and state until the Protestant revolution of the sixteenth century. Anti-papist sentiment went beyond religion because the papacy was responsible for countless intrusions into the sovereign affairs of many nations. Jan Hus' Bohemia, Luther's Germany, Zwingli's Switzerland, and King Henry VIII's England were all nations where the reformation marched zealously with the flag of nationalism.
The Capital offenses shown below reflect the more wrathful laws found in the Old Testament. This is a lengthy bit of Old testament thinking but it serves to make a point well. Each colonial law has Old Testament foundations just as Sharia Law does. These scriptures actually were part of the law itself.
If any man
after legal conviction shall have or worship any other God, but the lord god: he
shall be put to death. Exod. 22. 20. Deut. 13.6. & 10. Deut. 17. 2. 6."
"2. If any man or woman be a witch, that is, has or
consults with a familiar spirit, they shall be redput to death. Exod. 22. 18.
Levit. 20. 27. Deut. 18. 10. 11."
"3. If any person within this Jurisdiction whether
Christian or Pagan shall wittingly and willingly presume to blaspheme the holy
Name of God, Father, Son or Holy-Ghost, with direct, express, presumptuous, or
highhanded blasphemy, either by willfull or obstinate denying the true God, or
his Creation, or Government of the world: or shall curse God in like manner, or
reproach the holy religion of God as if it were but a politick device to keep
ignorant men in awe; or shall utter any other kind of Blasphemy of the like
nature & degree they shall be put to death. Levit. 24. 15. 16."
"8. If any man lies with man-kind as he lies with a
woman, both of them have committed abomination, they both shall surely be put to
death: unless the one party were forced (or be under fourteen years of age in
which case he shall be severely punished) Levit. 20. 13."
"9. If any person commit adultery with a married or
espoused wife; the Adulterer & Adulteress shall surely be put to death. Lev.
20. 19. & 18. 20 Deu. 22. 23. 27."
13. If any child, or children, above sixteen years old,
and of sufficient understanding, shall curse, or smite their natural father, or
mother; he or they shall be put to death: unless it can be sufficiently
testified that the Parents have been very unChristianly negligent in the
education of such children; or so provoked them by extreme, and cruel
correction: that they have been forced thereunto to preserve themselves from
death or maiming. Exod. 21. 17. Lev. 20. 9. Exod 21. 15."
"14. If a man have a stubborn or rebellious son, of
sufficient years & understanding (viz) sixteen years of age, which will not
obey the voice of his Father, or the voice of his Mother, and that when they
have chastened him will not hearken unto them: then shall his Father &
Mother being his natural parents, lay hold on him, & bring him to the
Magistrates assembled in Court & testify unto them, that their Son is
stubborn & rebellious & will not obey their voice and chastisement, but
lives in sundry notorious crimes, such a son shall be put to death. Deut. 21.
20. 21."
"1. All the people of God within this Jurisdiction who
are not in a Church way and be orthodox in judgment and not scandalous in life
shall have full liberty to gather themselves into a Church estate, provided they
doe it in a Christian way with due observation of the rules of Christ revealed
in his word. Provided also that the General Court doth not, nor will hereafter
approve of any such companies of men as shall join in any pretended way of
Church fellowship unless they shall acquaint the Magistrates and the Elders of
the neighbor Churches where they intend to join, & have their approbation
therein."
"2. And it is farther ordered, that no person being a
member of any Church which shall be gathered without the approbation of the
Magistrates and the said Churches shall be admitted to the Freedom of this
Common-wealth."
The truth about the colony? No freedom of the Commonwealth for the religiously incorrect? Below we find out that any open contempt for God or his preachers is a "desolating sin of civil states". No free speech, no freedom or religion and if one held a negative view of religion, one was a danger to the public order. This kind of thinking goes all the way back to the fourth, fifth and sixth centuries when emperors and churchmen alike considered even discussing doctrines out of bounds because they had been decided by councils. Laws were made declaring as much. When church and state join forces, freedom perishes.
"13. For as
much as the open contempt of Gods word and Messengers thereof is the desolating
sin of civil States and Churches and that the preaching of the word by those
whom God doth send, is the chief ordinary means ordained of God for the
converting, edifying and saving the souls of the Elect through the presence and
power of the Holy-Ghost, thereunto promised: and that the ministry of the word,
is set up by God in his Churches, for those holy ends: and according to the
respect or contempt of the same and of those whom God hath set apart for his own
work & employment, the weal or woe of all Christian States is much furthered
and promoted; it is therefore ordered and decreed,"
"15. For as much as the peace and prosperity of Churches
and members thereof as well as civil Rights & Liberties are carefully to be
maintained, it is ordered by this Court & decreed, That the civil Authority
here established hath power and liberty to see the peace, ordinances and rules
of Christ be observed in every Church according to his word. As also to deal
with any church-member in a way of civil justice notwithstanding any church
relation, office, or interest; so it be done in a civil and not in an
ecclesiastical way. Nor shall any church censure degrade or depose any man from
any civil dignity, office or authority he shall have in the
Commonwealth."
In the section below on heresy we can see its better to stay a submissive herd animal then to rock the boat with any new ideas. Colonial Charters showed true contempt for freedoms of speech and religion.
"Although no
human power be Lord over the Faith & Consciences of men, and therefore may
not constrain them to believe or profess against their Consciences: yet because
such as bring in damnable heresies, tending to the subversion of the Christian
Faith, and destruction of the souls of men, ought duly to be restrained from
such notorious impiety, it is therefore ordered and decreed by this Court;"
"That if any Christian within this Jurisdiction shall go
about to subvert and destroy the Christian Faith and Religion, by broaching or
maintaining any damnable heresy; as denying the immortality of the Soul, or the
resurrection of the body, or any sin to be repented of in the Regenerate, or any
evil done by the outward man to be accounted sin: or denying that Christ gave
himself a Ransom for our sins, or shall affirm that we are not justified by his
Death and Righteousness, but by the perfection of our own works; or shall deny
the morality of the fourth commandment, or shall endeavor to seduce others to
any the heresies aforementioned, every such person continuing obstinate therein
after due means of conviction shall be sentenced to Banishment."
And banish people they did. When Roger Williams was banished, he settled in Rhode island where they had a little more tolerance for religious differences.
Here is where the Protestant's religious intolerance and hatred against Catholicism appears in the charter. This is another reaction to the religious war going on in Europe at the time. It may be understandable during a time of war but until 1877 a state (NH) still banned all but Protestants from running for public office. This was ingrained for a long time and posed problems for the election of President Kennedy who was actually a staunch supporter of the separation of church and state. It would appear traditions and prejudices long outlive their use before the people awaken.
"..this court
taking into consideration the great wars, combustions and divisions which are
this day in Europe: and that the same are observed to be raised and fomented
chiefly by the secret underminings, and solicitations of those of the Jesuit
Order, men brought up and devoted to the religion and court of Rome; which hath
occasioned divers States to expel them their territories; for prevention whereof
among our selves, It is ordered and enacted by Authority of this Court,"
"That no Jesuit, or spiritual or ecclesiastical person
ordained by the authority of the Pope, or See of Rome shall henceforth at any
time repair to, or come within this Jurisdiction: And if any person shall give
just cause of suspicion that he is one of such Society or Order he shall be
brought before some of the Magistrates, and if he cannot free himself of such
suspicion he shall be committed to prison, or bound over to the next Court of
Assistants, to be tried and proceeded with by Banishment or otherwise as the
Court shall see cause: and if any person so banished shall be taken the second
time within this Jurisdiction upon lawful trial and conviction he shall be put
to death. Provided this Law shall not extend to any such Jesuit, spiritual or
ecclesiastical person as shall be cast upon our shores, by ship-wreck or other
accident,...."
"And it is farther ordered and decreed by this Court;
that no Indian shall at any time powaw, or perform outward worship to their
false gods: or to the devil in any part of our Jurisdiction; whether they be
such as shall dwell here, or shall come hither: and if any shall transgress this
Law, the Powawer shall pay five pounds; the Procurer five pounds; and every
other countenancing by his presence or otherwise being of age of discretion
twenty shillings.
1661: AN ACT OF THE GENERAL COURT OF
MASSACHUSETTS
On June 10, 1661, the Massachusetts leaders passed An Act of the General Court.
"1. We
conceive the patent (under God) to be the first and main foundation of our civil
polity here, by a Governor and Company, according as is therein expressed."
"3. We ought to seek the peace and prosperity of Our
King and nation by a faithful discharge in the governing of his people committed
to our care."
"First, by punishing all such crimes (being breaches of
the First or Second Table) as are committed against the peace of Our Sovereign
Lord, The King, his Royal Crown, and dignity."
"Second, in propagating the Gospel, defending and
upholding the true Christian or Protestant religion according to the faith given
by our Lord Christ in His word; our dread sovereign being styled “defender of
the faith."
God and Country by coercive laws.A right wing dream! Massachusetts had principles regarding religious conscience and government interference that were congruent with Sharia Law and the its foundation, the barbarism of the Old Testament legal system. In the United States, being under God or forming churches are choice, not mandates. The King of England is gone and so are the religious oaths demanded of citizens..As the USSC decision of Melvin V. Easley in 1860 stated,
"Christianity is not established by law, and the genius of our institutions requires that the Church and the State should be kept separate....The state confesses its incompetency to judge spiritual matters between men or between man and his maker ... spiritual matters are exclusively in the hands of teachers of religion".
1662: THE
CONNECTICUT COLONIAL CHARTER
Things weren't any different with the Connecticut Colonial Charter of 1662 which declares spreading the Christian faith was the only and principle end of the colony.
"Our said people, Inhabitants there, may be so religiously, peaceably and civilly Governed as their good life and orderly Conversation may win and invite the Natives of the Country to the knowledge and obedience of the only true God and Saviour of mankind, and the Christian faith, which in our Royal intentions and the Adventurers free profession is the only and principal end of this Plantation.".
1649: THE
MARYLAND TOLERANCE ACT
The Maryland Tolerance act of 1649 was a slight step towards more religious freedom. But it does start out with the usual threats of death for blasphemy!
"That whatsoever person or persons within this Province and the Islands thereunto belonging shall from henceforth blaspheme God, that is Curse him, or deny our Saviour Jesus Christ to bee the son of God, or shall deny the holy Trinity the Father Son and Holy Ghost, or the Godhead of any of the said Three persons of the Trinity or the Unity of this Godhead, or shall use or utter any reproachful Speeches, words or language concerning the said Holy Trinity, or any of the said three persons thereof, shall be punished with death and confiscation or forfeiture of all his or her lands and goods to the Lord Proprietary and his heirs",
With Maryland being settled as a Catholic colony, the act also punished those "person or persons shall from henceforth use or utter any reproachful words or Speeches concerning the blessed Virgin Mary the Mother of our Saviour or the holy Apostles or Evangelists".
The first offenses brought fines and confiscations but the third offense brought banishment upon the accused. I suppose the Protestants of Maryland could have gone to New Hampshire where their religious test-oath openly attacked and discriminated against Catholics. There was no getting away from the Christian forms of Sharia law in colonial America. Religious correctness or else.
Because of its Catholicism, Maryland had been accused of being intolerant towards Protestants. The solution was an act of tolerance, crafted in order to quiet the accusations. Of course, when Protestants came into power after 1654, they scuttled the Tolerance Act and were intolerant towards Catholics. Lord Baltimore, upon coming back to power reinstated the act. Crazy like Europe. The actual act of tolerance does not appear in the beginning. The threats appear first just to make sure nobody got the silly notion true liberty was coming to Maryland.
Punishments are guaranteed for those who in a "reproachful manner or Way declare call or denominate any person or persons whatsoever inhabiting residing trafficking trading or commercing within this Province or within any the Ports, Harbors, Creeks or Havens to the same belonging to an heretic, Schismatic, Idolater, Puritan, Independent, Presbyterian popish priest, Jesuit, Jesuited Papist, Lutheran, Calvinist, Anabaptist, Brownist, Antinomian, Barrowist, Roundhead, Separatist, or any other name or term in a reproachful manner relating to matter of Religion..."
Although the act suppresses non-Christian free speech and ideas, it does set new precedent that seeks a goal where all of the members of the various Christian sects are afforded equality, liberty, and respect. This act of tolerance was clearly superior to the laws of the other colonies where one had to publicly reject the authority and authenticity of the Catholic Church if one wished to seek any political office.
1663: THE RHODE
ISLAND CHARTER
While Rhode Island was considered a pioneer in religious tolerance, the Rhode Island Charter of July 1663 only permits differences within Christianity to coexist and that is all. Rhode Island remained a colony ".pursuing, with peaceable and loyal minces, their sober, serious and religious intentions, of goalie edifying themselves, and one another, in the holy Christian faith and worship as they were persuaded; together with the gaining over and conversion of the poor ignorant Indian natives.."
Rhode Island's multi-denominational tolerance was fresh and new in a world where you usually had to belong to an government approved church. Rhode island, founded by people persecuted and exiled by the rigid Calvinists of Massachusetts, was among the first to grant religious some liberty for people other than the members of the official church of the colony. But similar to Connecticut, Rhode Island seems to exist for Christian edification, faith, worship, and converting the natives. The purpose of more religious tolerance in Rhode Island leans to converting more people into Christians, not accepting the legitimacy of other religious viewpoints.
Although Rhode Island established a more tolerant colony "to secure them in the free exercise and enjoyment of all their civil and religious rights", these rights do not go beyond Christian individuals. Rhode Island wished "to preserve unto them that liberty, in the true Christian faith and worship of God, which they have sought with so much travail, and with peaceable minds, and loyal subjection to our royal progenitors and ourselves, to enjoy;..." This speaks of the dissidents of the Church of England that were persecuted for their beliefs and way of worship. Rhode Island, like Roger Williams, was kind of saying, "Hey! we are all Christians, let's not fight any more! We all serve the same Jesus!."
The Rhode Island Charter is clear on this issue: "because some of the people and inhabitants of the same colony cannot, in their private opinions, conform to the public exercise of religion, according to the liturgy, forms and ceremonies of the Church of England, or take or subscribe the oaths and articles made and established in that behalf; and for that the same, by reason of the remote distances of those places, will (as wee hope) be no breach of the unity and uniformity established in this nation: Have therefore thought fit, and do hereby publish, grant, ordain and declare, That our royal will and pleasure is, that no person within the said colony, at any time hereafter, shall be any wise molested, punished, disquieted, or called in question, for any differences in opinion in matters of religion, . . . And that they may be in the better capacity to defend themselves, in their just rights and liberties against all the enemies of the Christian faith, . . " .
1663: THE
CAROLINA CHARTER
In the March 24, 1663 Charter of Carolina we see more government subsidization of Christianity which is completely absent in our Constitution.
"3d. And
furthermore, the patronage and advowsons of all the churches and chapels, which
as Christian religion shall increase within the country, isles, islets and
limits aforesaid, shall happen hereafter to be erected, together with license
and power to build and found churches, chappels and oratories, in convenient and
fit places, within the said bounds and limits, and to cause them to be dedicated
and consecrated according to the ecclesiastical laws of our kingdom of England,
together with all and singular the like, and as ample rights, jurisdictions,
privileges, prerogatives, royalties, liberties, immunities and franchises of
what kind soever, within the countries, isles, islets and limits aforesaid."
"18th. And because it may happen that some of the people
and inhabitants of the said province, cannot in their private opinions, conform
to the public exercise of religion, according to the liturgy, form and
ceremonies of the church of England, or take and subscribe the oaths and
articles, made and established in that behalf, and for that the same, by reason
of the remote distances of these places, will, we hope be no breach of the unity
and uniformity established in this nation;..."
This is a tradition I mentioned earlier that began in
the year 313 under the Roman Emperor Constantine. It is not an American idea, it
is an ancient Roman imperial and Medieval European idea. Special treatment and
special rights for Christian churches, doctrines and clergymen ended in America
with the ratification of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
Beginning in paragraph 95 The Fundamental Constitutions of Carolina, ratified March 1, 1669
violates today's principles of individual liberties of conscience. Imagine a
place where you could not have freedom or own property unless you publicly
acknowledged a God and it's worship. (See also Carolina Charter of 1665) The statute reads:
"No man shall
be permitted to be a freeman of Carolina, or to have any estate or habitation
within it, that doth not acknowledge a God, and that God is publicly and
solemnly to be worshipped."
If this law is not repugnant enough for you, Paragraph
96 establishes parliamentary support of the Church of England, saying,
"As the
country comes to be sufficiently planted and distributed into fit divisions, it
shall belong to the parliament to take care for the building of churches, and
the public maintenance of divines, to be employed in the exercise of religion,
according to the Church of England; which being the only true and orthodox and
the national religion of all the King's dominions, is so also of Carolina; and,
therefore, it alone shall be allowed to receive public maintenance, by grant of
parliament."
This Constitution was drawn up in Westminster, England,
not America. Much of it was crafted by John Locke but the above clause was
inserted by some chief of proprietors. One of the first men of the English
Enlightenment, Locke opposed this law. Locke supported oppression against
Catholics and atheists but he did not like this article.
Here is the religious test-oath required in Paragraph
100:
"1st. "That
there is a God."
"2nd "That God is publicly to be worshipped."
"3rd "That it is lawful and the duty of every man, being
thereunto called by those that govern, to bear witness to truth; and that every
church or profession shall, in their terms of communion, set down the external
way whereby they witness a truth as in the presence of God, whether it be by
laying hands on or kissing the bible, as in the Church of England, or by holding
up the hand, or any other sensible way." This next part of the Carolina Constitution, Paragraph
101, is as discriminating as it gets for freedom in the New World:
"No person
above seventeen years of age shall have any benefit or protection of the law, or
be capable of any place of profit or honor, who is not a member of some church
or profession, having his name recorded in some one, and but one religious
record at once".
The Carolina Constitution presents religious coercion at
every turn. No protection, no profit and no honor unless you were correctly
Christian and joined an approved church. Again I want to remind you that this is
one of the reasons why all of the founding fathers were members of churches.
They had to be. And what was the punishment for places of worship in Carolina
not complying with the ecclesiastical rules in this alliance of church and
state?
"Assemblies,
upon what presence soever of religion, not observing and performing the above
said rules, shall not be esteemed as churches, but unlawful meetings, and be
punished as other riots."
Unlawful riots to be punished! If you worshipped
differently it was an unlawful riot. In this Carolina, one could not be a
freeman, own property, enter into a profession, or become a public servant
without passing strict religious requirements.. This tradition, too, goes all
the way back to the Christianization of the Roman Empire. In decree after
decree, emperor after emperor, pagan temples, heretic churches and even
synagogues were confiscated and turned in approved Christian churches (See The Rise of Church-State Alliances:
306-565: Emperors Constantine through Justinian). Religious
authoritarianism ruled Carolina in a manner similar to that of Islamists in
Muslim nations and tribes.
In the Preface to the General Laws and
Liberties of Connecticut Colony Revised and Published by Order of the
General Court Held at Hartford in October, 1672, we see more intimidating ideas
regarding the Bible and capital crimes.
"From hence
and such like Considerations urging, This Court have seen cause to put these our
Laws in Print, so far as they are at present prepared; Being willing that all
concerned by this Impression may know what they may expect at our hands as
Justice, in the Administration of our Government here. We have endeavored not
only to Ground our Capital Laws upon the Word of God, but also all our other
Laws upon the Justice and Equity held forth in that word, which is a most
perfect Rule."
The Bible is full of punishments that do not fit the
crime. If Sharia Law horrifies you, know that the Abrahamic religion of Islam
bases its Sharia laws on the Laws of the Old Testament mostly found in Exodus
and Leviticus. Reading the Bible clearly shows that each book is a product of
its time, its history, and its culture. In the Old testament, wrong religion
could get you killed whether you were a pagan in another tribe or just
expressing religious disagreement at home. Killing based on religion was not
common until the Abrahamic religions found their way into the halls of
governments.
"Now in these
our laws, although we may seem to vary or differ, yet it is not our purpose to
Repugn the Statute Laws of England, so far as we understand them; professing
ourselves always ready and willing to receive Light for Emendation or Alteration
as we may have opportunity: Our whole aim in all being to Please and Glorify
God, to approve ourselves Loyal Subjects to our Sovereign, and to promote the
Welfare of this People in all Godliness and Honesty, in Peace, which will be the
more establishing to his Majesties Crown and Dignity, and best Answer his
Religious Directions to us in our Charter: And that pure Religion and undefiled
before God, according to the Gospel of our Lord Jesus, may be maintained amongst
us, which was the end of the first Planters, who settled these Foundations; and
ought to be the endeavors of those that shall succeed to Uphold and Encourage
unto all Generations."
This charter above all is reflective of the laws of
England; honoring the King, being loyal subjects of his majesty's crown, his
majesty's religious directives, the Gospel, and a government that glorifies God.
None of these appear in the Constitution. Rather suddenly, both monarchism and
Christianity disappeared from the high places. Overnight, here was a sudden
change in the way government approached religious matters and it is evidenced by
what is completely absent in the Constitution. With our nation's new
Constitution, faith became a personal matter between you and your maker instead
of between you and your government..
The Charter of Fundamental Laws of West New Jersey Agreed
Upon presents to us some glimmers of modernity in the matter of
religious freedom. In this Charter there is no mention of Christianity and God
is mentioned but once in addressing the people's freedom of conscience. Not
believing in God was unfathomable in 1676 New Jersey but there is no doubt that
believers had a new freedom to diverge some from the more popular and approved
beliefs.
CHAPTER XVI:
That no men, nor number of men upon earth, hath power or authority to rule over
men's consciences in religious matters, therefore it is consented, agreed and
ordained, that no person or persons whatsoever within the said Province, at any
time or times hereafter, shall be any ways upon any presence whatsoever, called
in question, or in the least punished or hurt, either in person, estate, or
privilege, for the sake of his opinion, judgment, faith or worship towards God
in matters of religion. But that all and every such person, and persons may from
time to time, and at all times, freely and fully have, and enjoy his and their
judgments, and the exercises of their consciences in matters of religious
worship throughout all the said Province."
In another matter: This West New Jersey Constitution
also makes clear that the legislature can "make no laws that in the least contradict, differ or vary
from the said fundamentals".. One of the jobs of the judiciary under the
United States Constitution is to address claims and suits regarding laws made
that contradict, differ or vary from the US Constitution. Who else can provide
remedies for an encroaching legislature or executive? This judicial authority
does not vary according to any majority's wishes. Article VI, Section 2 of the
United States Constitution clearly states,
"This
Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance
thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of
the United States, shall be the Supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every
state shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State
to the Contrary notwithstanding."
The only avenues of redress we have when lawmakers
disregard the protections of the Constitution are the judiciary and/or amending
the Constitution. If the judiciary gets out of control as it did witrh the
Citizens United case, then amending the Constitution is the only just solution.
The Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments came to pass after the
Civil War because state legislatures in the south began enacting oppressive laws
denying blacks the promises of the Bill of Rights. States could no longer decide
who had liberties and who did not. The West New Jersey Constitution was a first
because it set limits on future lawmakers.
They call this liberty in the American Sharia of 1680
New Hampshire. These are deathly threats, not liberties. The Capital Laws of 1680 New
Hampshire's were barbaric and under our current system, 'unconstitutional' like
those of colonial Virginia, Massachusetts, and Connecticut. Colonial New
Hampshire is guilty of cruel and unusual punishments, invasion of privacy, and
religious intolerance. Two of these religious laws stated,
"It is
enacted by ye Assembly and ye authority thereof, ye if any person having had the
knowledge of the true God, openly and manifestly have or worship any other God
but the Lord God, he shall be put to death. Ex. 22:20; Deu. 13; 6 and 10."
"If any person within ye Province professing ye true God
shall wittingly and willingly presume to blaspheme the wholly name of God,
Father, Son or Holy Ghost, with direct, express, presumptions or high-handed
blasphemy, either by willful or obstinate denying ye true God or his creation or
Government of ye world, or shall curse God, Father, Son, or Holy Ghost, such
person shall be put to death. Levit. 24: 15 and 16." Like Massachusetts and Connecticut, scriptures cited
right in the civil laws laws themselves in order to legitimize barbarism
Furthermore, one couldn't be any kind of Christian in New Hampshire; one had to
be a trinitarian Christian. If one was a non-trinitarian Unitarian or a
Catholic, one was a heretic with fewer civil rights than those members of
approved churches. In a state whose motto is Live Free or Die it seems
inconsistent that New Hampshire only allowed Protestants to serve in their
government until its constitution was amended in 1877. Until then, New Hampshire
was not a state that adhered to the principles of religious liberty and equal
protection under the law.
Meanwhile, while New Hampshire threatens death, the
brightening of religious liberty continued in West New Jersey. TheFundamentals of West New
Jersey in 1681 not only allowed for some religious diversity, it
presented a religious test ban similar to those of Jefferson's Religious Liberty
statute and Article VI in the US Constitution. New Jersey was taking steps
towards the religion-neutral spirit of the American Constitution . This appears
to be a first in America:
"That liberty
of conscience in matters of faith and worship towards God, shall be granted to
all people within the Province aforesaid; who shall live peaceably and quietly
therein; and that none of the free people of the said
Province shall be rendered incapable of office in respect of their faith and
worship."
The law most likely addresses the differences within
Christianity, not without. For 160 years, Europe had been in the grip of
religious violence. Whether you were Catholic, Anglican, Lutheran, Calvinist,
Zwinglian, Methodist, or Anabaptist (Mennonite), someone, somewhere, wanted your
head. Many in the new world did not want to repeat the same mistakes in Europe
so they progressed little by little towards religion-neutral governments that
guaranteed full religious liberty and equality under the law. Bravo for New
Jersey's pioneering spirit in a world dominated by medieval religious
discrimination..
Contrary to the New Jersey spirit, the 1682 Government of
Pennsylvania discriminated based on religion and required a declaration
of faith in Christ in order to serve the public trust. One could not live
unmolested and peacefully unless one confessed belief in one almighty and
eternal God. This kind of treatment by the government is now illegal but
Christian radicals remain in love with this anachronistic and unjust world where
none could serve without being an approved Christian.
"That all
Treasurers, Judges, Masters of the Rolls, Sheriffs, Justices of the Peace, and
other officers and persons whatsoever, relating to courts, or trials of causes
or any other service in the government; and all Members elected to serve in
provincial Council and General Assembly, and all that have right to elect such
Members, shall be such as possess faith in Jesus Christ,.."
"That all persons living in this province, who confess
and acknowledge the one Almighty and eternal God, to be the Creator, Upholder
and Ruler of the world; and that hold themselves obliged in conscience to live
peaceably and justly in civil society, shall, in no ways, be molested or
prejudiced for their religious persuasion, or practice, in matters of faith and
worship, nor shall they be compelled, at any time, to frequent or maintain any
religious worship, place or ministry whatever." Religious freedom was reserved only for right believing
Christians.
Seven months later the authorities of Pennsylvania
penned An Act for Freedom of
Conscience. In today's way of thinking it was anything but that. As in
other colonies, differences within the Christian faith are being addressed. The
charter begins with something that to this day, the faith and values crowd still
believes the Constitution says between the lines. Now that is faith!
"Wheras the
glory of almighty God and the good of mankind is the reason and end of
government and, therefore, government in itself is a venerable ordinance of God.
And forasmuch as it is principally desired and intended by the Proprietary and
Governor and the freemen of the province of Pennsylvania and territories
thereunto belonging to make and establish such laws as shall best preserve true
Christian and civil liberty in opposition to all unChristian, licentious, and
unjust practices, whereby God may have his due, Caesar his due, and the people
their due, from tyranny and oppression "
"Be it
enacted, by the authority aforesaid, that no person now or at any time hereafter
living in this province, who shall confess and acknowledge one almighty God to
be the creator, upholder, and ruler of the world, and who professes him or
herself obliged in conscience to live peaceably and quietly under the civil
government, shall in any case be molested or prejudiced for his or her
conscientious persuasion or practice. Nor shall he or she at any time be
compelled to frequent or maintain any religious worship, place, or ministry
whatever contrary to his or her mind, but shall freely and fully enjoy his, or
her, Christian liberty in that respect, without any interruption or reflection.
And if any person shall abuse or deride any other for his or her different
persuasion and practice in matters of religion, such person shall be looked upon
as a disturber of the peace and be punished accordingly."
"But to the end that looseness, irreligion, and atheism
may not creep in under pretence of conscience in this province, be it further
enacted, by the authority aforesaid, that, according to the example of the
primitive Christians and for the ease of the creation, every first day of the
week, called the Lord's day, people shall abstain from their usual....." Atheism! Looseness! Irreligion! Under the pretence of
free conscience! May lightning strike your house! Possessing Christian Liberty
simply meant you had liberty because you were a Christian; Non-Christians
couldn't be free and did not qualify for this liberty. It was a special right
reserved for those adhering to an approved faith.
"Chapter II.
And be it further enacted by, etc., that all officers and persons commissioned
and employed in the service of the government in this province and all members
and deputies elected to serve in the Assembly thereof and all that have a right
to elect such deputies shall be such as profess and declare they believe in
Jesus Christ to be the son of God, the savior of the world,...."
Oh, Here we go again. Against all that we hold dear to
us in regards to full religious liberty, one could not be a part of the
governing body without believing Jesus Christ to be the Son of God. That would
mean that several of the founding generation would have been ineligible because
they were really deists and 'rational Chritians' who denied the deity of Jesus
and the concept of the Trinity. The act continues by decreeing fines and jail
time for either using the Lord's name in vain in general conversation or
speaking disrespectfully of God, the scriptures, etc. They "shall pay, for every such offense, five shillings or
suffer five days imprisonment in the house of correction at hard labor to the
behoof of the public and be fed with bread and water only during that
time.".
This is the Christian Nation that the religious right
loves. Like Islamists, they will settle for nothing short of a marriage of the
government with their version of Christianity. These are the same people that
bellow against government intrusion all the day long.
In Paragraph 16 of the 1683 Fundamental Constitutions for the Province of East New
Jersey we see something new again. Similar to Rhode Islanders, as long
as you're a Christian, you have some religious liberty and you won't be
'molested' by the authorities or other Christians. This broke away from the
English legal tradition since King Henry VIII that gave only Protestants special
rights. But the law was still a discriminating law because people with
non-Christian beliefs were treated as second class citizens with fewer rights.
They could be persecuted and they could not serve in the government. While
inching towards disestablishment, the law nevertheless states in no uncertain
terms that to remain unmolested, one had to acknowledge the one God. All traces
of God and this kind of religious testing below disappeared with the US
Constitution but the religious right acts otherwise. A great paradigm shift
occurrede and they have missed it altogether.
"All persons
living in the Province who confess and acknowledge the one Almighty and Eternal
God, and holds themselves obliged in conscience to live peaceably and quietly in
a civil society, shall in no way be molested or prejudged for their religious
persuasions and exercise in matters of faith and worship; ..nor shall they be
compelled to frequent and maintain any religious worship, place or ministry
whatsoever" So - if you profess correctly, the state won't hassle you or
make you gol to church. What happened to those who did not profess the one God?
Were they compelled to attend church until they professed the one God. This is
all very strange indeed.
Mandatory church-going goes all the way back to the
canon laws of the Council of Elvira around 306CE. Canon twenty-one
of the Elvira accord specified, "If
anyone who lives in the city does not attend church services for three Sundays,
let that person be expelled for a brief time in order to make the reproach
public." In East New Jersey, liberty was expanded slightly but remained
narrow and limited because as you'll see below, if you didn't profess faith in
Christ Jesus, you could not serve in government.
"Yet it is
also hereby provided, that no man shall be admitted a member of the great or
common Council, or any other place of public trust, who shall not proclaim faith
in Christ Jesus, and solemnly declare that he doth no ways hold himself obliged
in conscience to endeavor alteration in the government, or seeks the turning out
of any in it or their ruin or prejudice, either in person or estate, because
they are in his opinion heretics, or differ in their judgment from
him:.."
This clause below makes it clear that it has a long way
to go to reach the principles of the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of
conscience.
"Nor by this
article is it intended, that any under the notion of this liberty shall allow
themselves to avow atheism, irreligiousness,"
Irreligion and atheism again! Civilization will crumble!
Clear as a bell! No liberty for you! The article continued the discrimination
against unbelief and other religions that was pervasive in the Church allied
governments of Britain and Europe. Atheists did not let anyone know where they
stood because it was against the law to be an atheist in much of Europe and
there was no way they could wield any civil power ior influence f they were
honest. That is why everyone identified as a Christian even if they had other
beliefs. Declaring belief in 'Nature's God' was a popular avenue of avoiding the
atheist label but that still limited one's ability to serve in public office.
Continuing the disdain conservatives have had for the theater and similar
entertainments since late antiquity, the people are then told in this
Constitution not to be "...indulging
themselves in stage plays, masks, revels or such like abuses;.."
Shuffleboard on Sundays was even illegal in some places. Shuffleboard is the
road to perdition!
Article 27 of the New YorkCharter of Liberties and Privileges
of 1683 stated "THAT No
person or persons which profess faith in God by Jesus Christ Shall at any time
be any ways molested punished disquieted or called in Question for any
Difference in opinion or Matter of Religious Concernment, who do not actually
disturb the Civil peace of the province,.."
Well, we've heard that one before!
Discriminating against those who did not profess faith
in Jesus Christ is now unconstitutional in the United States. Yet, religious
conservatives these days use their religion as if there is a religious test-oath
for those who serve the public trust. Christian extremists impose tough
religious tests on candidates. Over 200 years after ratification of the
Constitution and these Americans have yet to outgrow the Medieval paradigm.
The
The 1691 Charter of Massachusetts
Bay deliberately discriminates against Catholics and is a reflection of
English Protestant culture. The "liberty of Conscience" law below is
antithetical to the letter and spirit of the religious test ban and free
exercise clauses of the US Constitution. Catholics in Massachusetts were second
class citizens. This is two years after the new English Coronation Oath and the
new English Constitution of 1689 included attacks on Catholicism. One had to
repudiate Catholicism if one wished to serve in public office.
"...there
shall be a liberty of Conscience allowed in the Worship of God to all Christians
(Except Papists) Inhabiting or which shall Inhabit or be Resident within our
said Province or Territory...".
The 1696 Pennsylvania Frame of Government made no ground
towards full liberties of conscience. Its religious test also required Christian
belief. Those Protestants that dissented from the Church of England were
afforded some rights - but like New Hampshire and Massachusetts, no Catholics
were allowed to serve in civil government.
"...all
persons who shall be hereafter either elected to serve in Council and Assembly,
or commissioned or appointed to be Judges, Justices, Masters of the Rolls,
Sheriffs, Coroners, and all other offices of State and trust, within this
government, who shall conscientiously scruple to take an oath, but when lawfully
required, will make and subscribe the declaration and profession of their
Christian belief, according to the late act of parliament, made in the first
year of king William, and the late queen Mary, entitled, An act for exempting
their majesties' Protestant subjects, dissenting from the Church of England,
from the penalty of certain laws,..."
Seven years earlier, England instituted laws which
harshly discriminated against Catholics. The first was part of the new English
Constitution which proclaimed,
"And whereas
it hath been found by experience that it is inconsistent with the safety and
welfare of this Protestant kingdom to be governed by a popish prince, . . . that
all and every person and persons that is, are or shall be reconciled to or shall
hold communion with the see or Church of Rome, or shall profess the popish
religion, or shall marry a papist, shall be excluded and be for ever incapable
to inherit, possess or enjoy the crown and government of this realm and Ireland
and the dominions thereunto belonging or any part of the same, or to have, use
or exercise any regal power, authority or jurisdiction within the same;..
and the said crown and government... be enjoyed by such person or persons being
Protestants, ... make, subscribe and audibly repeat the declaration mentioned in
the statute,.. An Act for the more effectual preserving the king's person and
government by disabling papists from sitting in either House of
Parliament."
The second one was the Coronation Act of 1689. Its
religious test demanded of the ascending monarch, King or Queen,
"Will you to
the utmost of your power maintain the laws of God, the true profession of the
gospel and the Protestant reformed religion established by law, and will you
preserve unto the bishops and clergy of this Realm, and to the Churches
committed to their charge, all such rights and privileges as by law do or shall
appertain unto them, or any of them?". New Hampshire got away with this
English religious bigotry until 1877 when they finally changed the law to let
others beside Protestants serve in the government.
"Because no
people can be truly happy, though under the greatest enjoyment of civil
liberties, if abridged of the freedom of their consciences as to their religious
profession and worship. And Almighty God being the only lord of conscience,
father of light and spirits, and the author as well as object of all divine
knowledge, faith, and worship, who only does enlighten the minds and persuade
and convince the understandings of people, I do hereby grant and declare that no
person or persons inhabiting in this province or territories, who shall confess
and acknowledge one almighty God, the creator, upholder and ruler of the world;
and profess him or themselves obliged to live quietly under the civil
government, shall be in any case molested or prejudiced in his or their person
or estate because of his or their conscientious persuasion or practice, nor be
compelled to frequent or maintain any religious worship, place, or ministry
contrary to his or their mind, or to do or suffer any other act or thing
contrary to their religious persuasion."
"And that all persons who also profess to believe in
Jesus Christ, the savior of the world, shall be capable, notwithstanding their
other persuasions and practices in point of conscience and religion, to serve
this government in any capacity, both legislatively and executively, he or they
solemnly promising, when lawfully required, allegiance to the King as sovereign
and fidelity to the proprietary and Governor, and taking the attests as now
established by the laws made at Newcastle, in the year one thousand and seven
hundred, entitled An Act Directing the Attests of Several Officers and
Ministers, as now amended and confirmed this present Assembly." For full liberties of conscience and a peaceful
existence in Pennsylvania and Delaware, believing in and publicly worshipping
Jesus Christ as Saviour of the World was the only road to take. On one hand the
people of Pennsylvania and Delaware are told they can never be truly happy
without unabridged freedoms of conscience and then on the other they are told
that in order to live unmolested or serve in government that they have to
confess and acknowledge the Christian God and his son Jesus Christ, the Saviour
of the World. Like the Carolina Constitution of 1669, and in the New York, New
Jersey, and Delaware laws of this time, one didn't have the protections of the
law or serve in the government unless you confessed Christ.
The South Carolina Act to Ascertain the
Manner and Form of Electing Members to Represent the Province, of 1721
is clear on who can become a representative in government. Written in England
like so many of the colonial charters and laws, the Act stated in no uncertain
terms,
"And be it
further enacted, by the authority aforesaid, that every free white man, and no
other person, professing the Christian religion, who has attained to the age of
one and twenty years and has been a resident and an inhabitant in this province
for the space of one whole year before the date of the writs for the election he
offers to give his vote at, and has a freehold of at least 50 acres of land, or
has been taxed in the precedent year twenty shillings, or is taxed twenty
shillings the year present to the support of this government, shall be deemed a
person qualified to vote for and may be capable of electing a representative or
representatives to serve as a member or members of the Commons House of Assembly
"
Only a white Christian landowner can vote or run for
office. This is not the America we know and love. This is Medieval English
tradition.
Georgia was part of the KIngdom of Great Britain and
what do the English think regarding religious liberty? What were liberties and
immunities in England? Like England, Georgia makes it clear that it is
exclusively Protestant and Catholics are not welcome, stating,
"that forever
hereafter, there shall be a liberty of conscience allowed in the worship of God,
to all persons inhabiting, or which shall inhabit or be resident within our said
provinces and that all such persons, except papists, shall have a free exercise
of their religion".
No papists, please.
In 1761, the governing finally shifted from England to
the people of Georgia. On June 9, 1761, Georgia enacted it's Act to Ascertain the Manner and
Form of Electing Members to Represent the Inhabitants of This Province in the
Commons House of Assembly. Section V plainly stated that those belonging
to the dominions of Great Britain, who are twenty-one years of age, own at least
500 acres, and profess the Christian religion and no other, can be elected.
"And be it
enacted, by the authority aforesaid, that every person who shall be elected and
returned, as is before directed by this act, to serve as a member in the Commons
House of Assembly of this province shall be qualified in the following manner,
viz., that he shall be a free-born subject of Great Britain or of the dominions
thereunto belonging, or a foreign person naturalized, professing the Christian
religion and no other, and that has arrived at the age of twenty-one years, and
has been a resident in this province for twelve months before the date of the
said writ, and being legally possessed in his own right in this province of a
tract of land containing at least five hundred acres."
In the next section, we will take a look at the State
Constitutions that emerged at the time of the revolution. In 1776 was religious
America the Land of the Free? 1669: THE
CONSTITUTION OF CAROLINA
1672: THE GENERAL LAWS AND LIBERTIES OF
CONNECTICUT REVISED AND PUBLISHED
1676: THE CHARTER OF FUNDAMENTAL LAWS OF
WEST NEW JERSEY
1680: THE GENERAL LAWS AND LIBERTIES OF
NEW HAMPSHIRE
1681: THE FUNDAMENTALS OF WEST NEW
JERSEY
1682: THE PENNSYLVANIA FRAME OF
GOVERNMENT
1682: A
PENNSYLVANIA ACT FOR FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE
1683: THE FUNDAMENTAL CONSTITUTIONS FOR
THE PROVINCE OF EAST NEW JERSEY
1683: THE NEW YORK CHARTER OF LIBERTIES
AND PRIVILEGES
1691: THE MASSACHUSETTS BAY
CHARTER
1696: THE PENNSYLVANIA FRAME OF
GOVERNMENT
1701: THE CHARTERS OF PENNSYLVANIA AND
DELAWARE
1721: THE SOUTH
CAROLINA ELECTION LAW
1732 GEORGIA CORPORATE
CHARTERGeorgia's Charter of 1732
stated that the people "shall have
and enjoy all liberties, franchises and immunities of free denizens and natural
born subjects, within any of our dominions, to all intents and purposes, as if
abiding and born within this our kingdom of Great-Britain."
1761 GEORGIA ELECTION ACT