Rhode Island and The Surprising Experience of Religious Toleration
Perry Miller, The New England Mind, vol. 2: From Colony to Province, p. 124:
“In 1657 Commissioners of the United Colonies tried to force Rhode Island (which was not, of course, in the Union) to banish Quakers; that colony replied with the curious observation that Quakers had proved, when tolerated, to be hostile only against persecutors. “Surely we find that they delight to be persecuted by civill powers, when they are soe, they are likely to gain more adherents by the conseyte of their patient sufferings, than by consent to their pernicious sayings.” Roger Williams was shocked by the doctrines of George Fox and wrote against them, and the colony’s authorities assured the Commissioners that Quaker teaching did indeed threaten the overturn of all civil government. But Rhode Island found itself obliged, by its previous declarations, to tolerate differences of opinion, and so made this astounding discovery.”
This puts me in mind of Steve Waldman’s thesis in his new book, “Founding Faith,” that religious freedom IS the American religion. It is a commonplace truth, but the way Waldman places it, one realizes how revolutionary it was, and how true his observation is. Is that fading away today? And does such a creed lead to a vacuous civil religion?
Rhode Island is to be credited for the religious tolerance of its founders, but I’ve always thought it strange that Roger Williams, himself an exile from the intolerance of Puritan Massachusetts, had such a personal dislike of Quakers and of George Fox in particular. In 1672 Williams challenged Fox to a debate over a dozen or so Quaker tenets Williams found objectionable. Fox left the state. Williams said it was because Fox was afraid to debate, but I think historians aren’t sure on that point. Instead, Williams debated several of Fox’s subordinates in Newport for several days in what came to be known as the Great Quaker Debates, and Williams, obviously feeling triumphant, wrote a book about his perceived victory called “George Fox Digg’d Out of His Burrowes.” Not to downplay Williams’s admirable qualities and accomplishments, but he seems to have lacked a live and let live policy when it came to many of the Quaker beliefs.
Substitute Rhode Island with California.
Substitute those desiring same-sex marriage with the Quakers.
Happy Pride Sunday here in Sodom by the Sea.
Oops, Fox didn’t leave the state. He left the colony.
Does Miller say anything about the colony of Maryland whose religious tolerance act goes back to 1649, guaranteeing religious freedom to all Christian churches?
Jimmy Mac, same-sex marriage is not a religion, it is a relationship.
The marble dome of the State House in RI has the following motto engraved upon it: rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae uelis et quae sentias dicere licet. the words are adapted from Tacitus (Histories 1.1). I would translate: “in an ambiance of rare felicity in which you may think what you like and say what you think.” The building was put up in the early days of the last century and I do not know how the motto was chosen but it seems to me worthy of Williams.
Cathleen and all, speaking of incovenient Quakers, on June 26 the five Catholic members of the Supreme Court, disregarding the significance of reaction to Quaker concerns in 18th century constitutional debates, “converted” the Second Amendment into a provision which, at its “core” protects an individual right to possess and use handguns for “self-defense.”
Of course, the justices made few overly religious references–no Matt. 26:52, no reference to Augustine on self-defense and just war. The Quakers do make a “cameo” appearance in Justice Scalia’s opinion, but hardly productively from their point of view.
Some Catholics mit have hoped that their co-religionists on the Court would be among those who, with some vestigial attention to Latin constructions familiar to the framers, would recognize an “ablative absolute” when they saw it. What seems straightforward if one attends to the whole Second Amendment, becomes difficult when Justice Scalia slices the Amendment’s sentence into relatively unrelated pieces, which he then divorces from the historical concerns that produced it.
“Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our nation…,” says Justice Scalia, suggesting he shares the pride, but confidently presenting us with a great–if textually unmentioned–reason for the Second Amendment’s existence
Not that I’ve seen Joe. Miller’s story is the Puritan story; his concern is how the Puritans, whose ideal of the perfect Christian polity (non-tolerant) was cast into doubt by Cromwell’s failure, were slowly forced to accept tolerance in their City on a Hill despite themselves.
John Noonan, a Ninth Circuit Judge who sits in San Francisco, wrote a book in which he argued for the importance of experience in the development of both law and moral theology. His central case is religious liberty–and the importance of the American experiment. But he also talks about development of doctrine in contraception, the law of marriage, and other issues.
The Quakers, not to mention Jesus and Augustine, influenced the current Second Amendment debate even less than they did its earlier discussions. As for the Catholic justices, they seem to place their faith in what they understand to be the popular desire for access to a particular vehicle for salvific violence–the handgun. Candidates Obama and McCain, no novices when it comes to gauging the popular will, have commended the Court’s decision. Cathleen, Grant, Eduardo, anyone else–what next? Do presidential candidates have an obligation to address this issue, or should it be left to the lower courts–haplessly unguided by any Supreme Court guidance–to struggle through before candidates for the presidency do anything more specific than offer vague support for “reasonable” or “sensible” regulation of handguns? What can today’s polity offer to the Quakers and other troublesome folk who reject the Court’s remarkable analysis and “faith”?
Perhaps the key to tolerance is to change the language. If one is into dogma, how can one be tolerant. But if one is into practice then tolerance comes naturally since our common sinfulness impels us through all errors since bishops, pastors, popes, men and women have made plenty of errors. We are continually renewed by God’s Spirit because our working together and building up each other brings life despite human error.
Nancy,
Jimmy Mac’s comment is germane. Quote: “Rhode Island found itself obliged, by its previous declarations, to tolerate differences of opinion…”
What many in America and elsewhere appear incapable of doing regrading the issue of ssm is “tolerate differences of opinion”.
One of the more distressing aspects of ssm is the vile company many Catholic leaders are prepared find themselves in bed with in order to build a coalition against it.
This fact is, “gay” is about relationship, not religion. No special rights exist in the Constitution to protect sexual relationships. The Catholic Church is protected under our Constitution because it is an established religion that has been in existance for some 2,000 years. The Truth of our Church has not changed for 2,000 years. The Constitution provides for protection of our right to practice our Religion, our Catholic Faith. Freedom of Religion is protected under our Constitution.
Nancy, if I follow your logic, no marriages (relationships) are protected in or by the Constitution! Neither are families (relationships).
The Declaration of Independence opined on our fundamental rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Furthermore (source: Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life,_liberty_and_the_pursuit_of_happiness ) , the phrase “pursuit of happiness” appeared in the 1967 Supreme Court case, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967), which focused on an anti-miscegenation statute. Justice Warren wrote:
The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. ————– However, earlier judicial opinion, in Butchers’ Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 U.S. 746 (1884), considered Jefferson’s phrase to refer to one’s economic vocation of choice rather than the more ephemeral search for emotional fulfillment, although one may be predicated on the other. U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Stephen Johnson Field, in his concurring opinion[3] to Associate Justice Samuel Freeman Miller’s opinon, wrote:
Among these inalienable rights, as proclaimed in that great document, is the right of men to pursue their happiness, by which is meant the right to pursue any lawful business or vocation, in any manner not inconsistent with the equal rights of others, which may increase their prosperity or develop their faculties, so as to give to them their highest enjoyment.
“The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.__________” ” However, earlier judicial opinion, in Butchers’ Union Co.v Cresent City Co., 111 U.S. 746 (1884), considered Jefferson’s phrase to refer to one’s economic vocation of choice rather than the more ephemeral search for emotional fulfillment, although one may be predicated on the other.”
Jimmy Mac, given the fact that Marriage, during this period of time, was defined as a union between a Husband and Wife creating a new Family, obviously, Jefferson’s phrase was referring to this definition of Marriage from the beginning.
Jimmy Mac, the teaching of the Catholic Church, an established Religion, has been consistent for some 2,000 years. The State government does not have the right to force anyone to accept a sexual relationship that is not consistent with their Religion. Freedom of Religion is protected in our Constitution.
SSM posters, thanks for your spirited debate. Sooner or later, discussions of how and whom we “tolerate” seem to get around to “who gets to marry whom.”
In our national political system, how we abide (tolerate, engage, protect, etc.) difference is addressed most clearly through our Constitution’s Bill of Rights. The “rights” listed there are generally focused on the task of protecting those who need to be “tolerated” from the power of the majority (which controls the national government).
In last week’s opinion in Heller, Justice Scalia, admitting that it took the Supreme Court a long time to construe what he considers the “core” meaning of the Second Amendment, noted that the Court didn’t address Free Exercise until Reynolds v U.S. (1879), which held that Mormoms do not have a Free Exercise right to engage in plural marriage. Justice Scalia obviously thinks Reynolds is still good law (see Employment Division v. Smith).
Reynolds was the ultimate product of Republican Party platforms of the 19th Century, which were not just anti-slavery, but anti Mormom marriage “free exercise.” Which brings me back to toleration, rights and politics. Cathleen, David Gibson, others with an interest in history and politics–it has been a challenging couple of weeks for Bill of Rights provisions and our current candidates. Senator Obama has let us know that he is not so strong on the 4th Amendment as we might have hoped (FISA flip), that he is to the right of Justice Kennedy on the 8th Amendment, and that he agrees with Justice Scalia’s “reconstruction” of the 2nd Amendment. What do you say, when it comes to “toleration” as reflected in the Bill of Rights, does the current campaign place us more deeply into “lesser of two evils” territory than we would like to be? Is one justified in saying of either candidate, “Eo imperium tenente, eventum timeo”? (I will now try to leave ablative absolutes alone for awhile.)
Nancy: during that time, was there a freedom for people of different races to marry? Was there freedom for non-whites to vote? How about women?
The trouble with “original constructionists” is that original construction enabled and, in some cases, institutionalized elements of discrimination that we do not accept, and have overturned, in this day and age.
Your over-simplistic glorification of the Catholic Church reflects a mind-set that justifies opposing those who don’t agree with your quite narrow view of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. You had better get used to the fact that time and approaches change.
I do not ask for blessing, approval or support from this Church. My salvation does not depend on membership therein nor approval therefrom! I, and many others, do insist, however, that this Church get out of my life and bedroom when it comes to the relationship that I share with my partner of 36 years. I am not asking it to bless my relationship nor, at this stage of the game, would I accept such a blessing. I am asking for equal protection of my relationship under the CIVIL law and am perfectly willing to let Catholics be as discriminatory as they wish when it comes to their sacrament of matrimony. Just leave the rest of us alone!
Jimmy Mac, the Constitution now provides for these Freedoms because all Human Persons are to have the same rights and freedoms granted by the Constitution. The only Human Persons that have been excluded are Babies in their Mother’s Womb. “Gay” is not a person, it is a relationship.
It is the Church’s Mission to speak the Truth in Fidelity to Christ so that all of us may be united by His Way to Love. Charity, out of Love, requires all who are Catholic, to make His Truth known.
There are billions of Loving relationships that have existed for many years that are not afforded special rights under the Civil law because they are not Marriages. The State does not have the right to force anyone to accept sexual relationships that are not consistent with their morals and values because they do not respect the Dignity and Sacredness of Life. The state does not have the right to change the definition of Marriage in order to force the acceptance of such sexual behavior. That would be discrimination.
Jimmy Mac, I wish you Peace.