a.k.a. “cyberspace”–and don’t think I wouldn’t be in the mountains right now if I had the choice.
I’m not going to go for much coherence tonight. Instead, I just want to let you know that after a shaky start, things have been picking up at the Rockridge Institute conference on Spiritual Progressives. Yesterday, the first day of the conference, was taken up with talking about spiritual journeys, framing, all sorts of abstract stuff. Today was a bit more focused and concrete.
I’ll call your attention to some of the better posts below the fold.
First off, I’ve seen a few Kossacks popping up here and there:
- Fredrick Clarkson had an excellent piece on Religious Equality in America which I’m linking to on his crosspost to our new place, Talk To Action:
For 150 years, the colonies had, for the most part, been little theocracies, run by different established churches. The framers knew well the problems posed by religious supremacism, although they certainly did not call it that in those days. They understood what can happen when religions wield state power. And they knew that in order to bind together the potentially fractious new nation they needed to inoculate it against the ravages of religious bigotry and worse — the religious warfare that had wracked Europe for a millennium.
What did they do? Well, in the first place they made no mention of God in the Constitution. What they did do, was to put in Article 6, a key phrase, “…no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” (Cornell University historian Issack Kramnick details the history of Article 6 in his book The Godless Constitution.)
What this meant was that for the first time in the history of the world, religious orientation would not be a consideration as to one’s qualifications for office. By logical extension, this also meant that one’s religious identity would be irrelevant to one’s status as a citizen. This clause, set in motion the disestablishment of the churches, by making religious equality the law of the land. It was a radical idea, and it passed overwhelmingly and with little debate. When the Constitution was sent to the state legislatures for ratification, the absence of mention of God and Christianity in the Constitution led the the Christian Right of the day to fight ratification. They lost.
- And here’s Teacherken:
There is a part of American history that few know. First some background. For all that many are taught about the toleration in Maryland, after all founded by a Catholic as a refuge for Catholics and othes, in fact the toleration in Maryland was actually quite limited. First, the famous Maryland Tolertaion Act of 1649 extended its protection only to those who were trinitarian believers. The second paragraph reads as follows:
- That whatsoever person or persons within this Province and the Islands thereunto helonging shall from henceforth blaspheme God, that is Curse him, or deny our Saviour Jesus Christ to bee the sonne of God, or shall deny the holy Trinity the father sonne and holy Ghost, or the Godhead of any of the said Three persons of the Trinity or the Unity of the Godhead, or shall use or utter any reproachfull Speeches, words or language concerning the said Holy Trinity, or any of the said three persons thereof, shalbe punished with death and confiscation or forfeiture of all his or her lands and goods to the Lord Proprietary and his heires.
Thus a Unitarian (not yet in excistence) or a Jew potentially could hae been executed merely for not denying his or her religious faith. Some Toleration.
Hey, he namechecks me at the bottom of his post! Lots of other reasons to read this one, though–not the least of which is Ken’s fantastic grasp of Maryland history.
- songbh is around too, though for the life of me, I can’t find the comment of hers(?) that I liked so much.
There are other posts and threads worth reading. Specifically, this entire thread on the historical convergence of religion and politics, and this one on common ground between the two, as well as this single post on the misunderstandings surrounding the separation of church and state in contemporary American society. Lots more besides.
Well, do with this what you will. I’ll try to make more sense of it all tomorrow.