English History
The European settlers of the area which later became the initial thirteen states making up the new country of The United States of America were, by and large, English expatriates, or their descendants, men & women whose experience with English events was, at its most distant, third hand; more often, it was second hand or even personally witnessed. It is entirely reasonable to suppose this culture, this history, informed the choices of the Founding Fathers who helped form the legal, formal frameworks on which the United States rests. A brief history of the relevant times, visceral as it will be, will serve to inform the skeptical reader of the knowledge, formal and informal, acquired through schooling and popular play (such as that of Wm. Shakespeare) available to those who sought to create a new country.
Henry VIII (reigned 1509 – 1547)
A period of civil unrest began with Henry the VIII’s famous break with Roman Catholicism and his founding of the Anglican Church; concomitant with this act was the attachment of England to the Anglican Church. One of the primary immediate results was the Dissolution of the Lesser Monasteries Act of 1536 (the remainder were dissolved in 1542), a law which stirred up resentment in northern England. 20,000 to 40,000 rebels rose up against the law, but were dispersed when
“Henry VIII promised the rebels he would pardon them and thanked them for raising the issues [certain acts Henry had passed] to his attention. [Robert] Aske told the rebels they had been successful and they could disperse and go home.”
Alas, the promise was merely convenient; when more violence occurred, the leaders and 200 of the followers were rounded up and executed.
Noteworthy in 1540 was the death by burning of three men accused of religious heresy, in that they preached Lutheranism, these being Robert Barnes, William Jerome and Thomas Garret.
Scotland was invaded, with hopes of imposing Anglicanism on the then-Catholic Scots; it ceased with the death of the Scottish King but then resumed, with the destruction of Edinburgh, when the Scots reneged on the treaty that had been imposed upon them.
Henry felt he ruled purely by the Grace of God, and the kingdom was often near bankruptcy, at war, and suffering from civil strife.
The son of Henry VIII, adherent to the new Church of England, became King at age nine and never held true power; this was held by the Privy Council. In his short reign religious difficulties continued. The war on Catholic Scotland was uninterrupted, and the Scots’ alliance with Catholic France made the fighting bitter; witness the utter destruction of Edinburgh and a network of English garrisons, although the dream of uniting England with Scotland was not achieved.
The Prayer Book Rebellion broke out in 1549 in Devon and Cornwall, when religious services were ordered to be performed in English. Catholic sympathizers were executed, prisoners had their throats slit, and the usual battlefield atrocities were committed. 5500 died amidst the chaos.
Church properties continued to be converted to Royal and private purposes, embittering Catholic priests and laity alike.
Jane, Protestant cousin of Edward, was Queen for several days before the Privy Council discovered its 3000 man army faced a 20,000 man army supporting the Catholic Mary, daughter to Henry. Some supported Mary for religious reasons, others because of their detestation of the Privy Council, and so Jane was deprived of the throne, and later her life, due to her religion.
Queen Mary, Catholic ruler of Anglican England, aka Bloody Mary, proclaimed that no one would be imprisoned or executed because of their religious inclinations, yet did exactly that; reversed most of the policies enacted by her father and brother; and burned at the stake more than 280 Protestants during her tenure, using the newly passed Heresy Acts. The executions were considered cruel even by her own, yet Mary persevered; thus the chalice of Catholicism in England came to be poisoned.
Like her father, she felt she ruled by the Grace of God.
Elizabeth I, Protestant, and last of the Tudors, succeeded Mary upon her death, and England once again became Anglican as she (under the guidance of counselors) introduced the Elizabethan Religious Settlement, which dismantled “Popery”. Known as “Good Queen Bess,” her long reign was relatively quiet for our purposes, once the official religious designation of England had been switched; this was pursued for both personal (she was raised Protestant, unlike her sister) and practical reasons (being illegitimate in Catholic eyes made being Queen impossible). Still, the Rising in the North, a Catholic attempt to install Mary, Queen of Scots, on the English throne, did result in the executions of 750 of the imprisoned Catholics, plus the general disorder of a revolt.
She also faced the vexing problem of the Catholic Irish:
Crown forces pursued scorched-earth tactics, burning the land and slaughtering man, woman and child.
Then came the 9 Years War, an Irish revolt. Even for Good Queen Bess, generally thought to have believed faith was personal, religious cruelty was not entirely absent. Still, one must observe the general positive view of her reign and the correlation with religious tolerance.
James I, of the House of Stuart, King of Scotland, and son of Mary, Queen of Scots, succeeded Elizabeth after charming her into naming him successor, despite her execution of his mother. He was the eponymous sponsor of the King James Version of the Bible, adherent to the Church of Scotland (Presbyterian), and, later, the Church of England, and the author of two books on the theological basis of kingship. During his reign The Gunpowder Plot occurred, the attempt of a Catholic group to destroy the King and Government of England; a possible motivation was the failure of James to relax prohibitions on English Catholics. Unfortunately, greater misfortunes were then visited on the Catholics, including an Oath of Allegiance, which could be demanded of any Catholic and included denial of the Pope’s authority over the King: a distressing requirement. The Puritans, founded during Elizabeth’s reign, registered objections to various religious practices; James initially required conformity from them, but later softened his stance somewhat. His reign was, perhaps, relatively quiet.
Charles I (1625 – 1649)
Charles I, son of James I, was deposed by the English Civil War. He strongly believed in the divine right of Kings, and such was his downfall – actions contrary to Parliament, including imprisoning members so they could not vote, and continued support for a Duke of Buckingham who failed at many important missions, angered Parliament. Various acts of taxation, alliance, and war, all informed by his belief in divine right, eventually led to the famous revolt, his beheading, and the rise of Oliver Cromwell to prominence. “Princes are not bound to give account of their actions,” Charles wrote, “but to God alone.”
Within the religious realm, his sympathy with Arminianism upset Puritans & Calvinists alike; preachers were restricted; unpopular policies insisted upon; High Courts used to prosecute dissenters; the convicted, even gentlemen, were subject to harsh penalties. His homeland of Scotland rejected his attempts to spread Anglicanism to Scotland, instead opting for the Presbyterianism of the Church of Scotland.
After the execution of Charles I, Lord Protector Cromwell executed most of the garrison and some of the inhabitants (3500 people) of Drogheda in Ireland after the successful Siege of Drogheda of 1649. Cromwell, fervently anti-Catholic, wrote
I am persuaded that this is a righteous judgment of God upon these barbarous wretches, who have imbrued [sic] their hands in so much innocent blood and that it will tend to prevent the effusion of blood for the future, which are satisfactory grounds for such actions, which otherwise cannot but work remorse and regret.
Once Ireland had been subjugated, Catholicism was banned; 50,000 people deported; his name, even today, is a curse for what his religious leanings did to the country. The same is not true of Scotland, which, after defeat, was largely left alone, if occupied.
The American colonies, too, were unbothered, except Cromwell restrained his Puritan colleagues in their attempt to usurp control of Maryland Colony from Catholic Lord Baltimore.
As Lord Protector he was somewhat more tolerant; he invited the Jews to return to England after banishment 350 years earlier (mostly to convert them and hasten the End Days), and in general advocated for a tolerant national church.
His son, Richard, succeeded him as Lord Protector, but resigned after less than a year and did nothing of consequence to this summary. The country then returned to monarchy.
An advocate of religious tolerance, he was overruled by Parliament, which passed bills that required office-holders swear allegiance to the Church of England, making the Book of Common Prayer the official book of the Church of England, and prohibitions on religious assemblies except those under the auspices of the Church of England; later, when it came to light that his presumptive successor was Catholic, Parliament attempted to exclude him from succession; the effort failed through the machinations of the King.
Sadly, a hoax propagated by one Titus Oates caused an uproar:
The Popish Plot was a fictitious conspiracy concocted by Titus Oates that between 1678 and 1681 gripped the Kingdoms of England and Scotland in anti-Catholic hysteria.[1] Oates alleged that there existed an extensive Catholic conspiracy to assassinate Charles II, accusations that led to the executions of at least 22 men and precipitated the Exclusion Bill Crisis. Eventually Oates’ intricate web of accusations fell apart, leading to his arrest and conviction for perjury.
To his credit, Charles never believed the hoax, but he was unable to restrain those who found the plot credible.
King of England, Ireland, and Scotland (James VII), a convert to Roman Catholicism, succeeded his brother, Charles II. While advocating for relaxation of restraints on Catholics, he called for the persecution of Presbyterian Covenanters in Scotland; on the other hand, he authored the Declaration of Indulgence, one of the earliest moves toward religious freedom in Great Britain (for it applied to Scotland as well). This caused an uproar for both religious and legal reasons, as it suspended an act of Parliament. This came to naught as his will was voided by the Glorious Revolution which terminated his reign: the successful invasion of William of Orange.
Mary II and William III (1689 – 1694 [Mary], 1702 [William])
At the invitation of Protestant nobles, William of Orange invaded England and defeated his father in law, James II; James was permitted to escape from custody, but would never be King again. William and Mary then ruled England, but with the recognition of an English Bill of Rights, limiting monarchical power, defining Parliament’s rights, and focusing on individual rights. During their reign there was remarkably little conflict of a religious nature, only an Act of Parliament barring Roman Catholics from the throne, passed when William and Mary failed with regard to heirs.
Anne, a Protestant despite her father, James, being Catholic, was the last of the Stuarts. She favored the Anglican church and dismissed Whig politicians from office, as they were most likely to be Catholic, but other than that there was little religious controversy, nor civil disturbances.
George, first of the Hanoverian dynasty, Lutheran, also Elector of Hanover, was not entirely popular; “James the Pretender” attempted to overthrow him, beginning in Scotland, but failed quickly. While some executions followed, George’s response was moderate. As King of Germany, his attention was split; in England, he was considered wooden and distant; Europeans considered him enlightened. Little of religious affiliation occurred; nor did violence.
The son of George I, Elector of Hanover, faced rebellion led by Bonnie Prince Charlie, but the end result, the execution of many of the rebels after their defeat at Battle of Culloden, appears to be the result of foreign influence and political considerations, despite George being Lutheran and Charlie Catholic.
Other Wars
During this same period, roughy 1500 – 1770, England was involved in a number of wars, most of which had at least the excuse and instrumentality of religion. The religious underpinnings of Catholic vs Protestants were doubtless apparent to witnesses and combatants alike, and, if the clerical personnel involved manipulated the followers, this would have come to light.
On Their Own Continent
A little known part of the history of the United States is the period when it functioned as a confederacy, 1781-1789; during this period, many of the States had a religious component to their Constitutions, as documented by the Library of Congress. A very quick review of the activity during this short period is sadly reminiscent of the history of England. Virginia:
The Parson of the Parish [accompanied by the local sheriff] would keep running the end of his horsewhip in [Waller’s] mouth, laying his whip across the hymn book, etc. When done singing [Waller] proceeded to prayer. In it he was violently jerked off the stage; they caught him by the back part of his neck, beat his head against the ground, sometimes up and sometimes down, they carried him through the gate . . . where a gentleman [the sheriff] gave him . . . twenty lashes with his horsewhip.”
This abuse of Swearin’ Jack Waller, a reformed gentleman, by the Anglicans favored by Virginia is also described here and here.
Another incident in Virginia:
David Barrow was pastor of the Mill Swamp Baptist Church in the Portsmouth, Virginia, area. He and a “ministering brother,” Edward Mintz, were conducting a service in 1778, when they were attacked. “As soon as the hymn was given out, a gang of well-dressed men came up to the stage . . . and sang one of their obscene songs. Then they took to plunge both of the preachers. They plunged Mr. Barrow twice, pressing him into the mud, holding him down, nearly succeeding in drowning him . . . His companion was plunged but once . . . Before these persecuted men could change their clothes they were dragged from the house, and driven off by these enraged churchmen.”
Such incidents contain two-fold dangers: to the States’ peace & prosperity, as the individual attentions of the citizenry is focused not on matters of survival and prosperity, but instead upon those which, we will see, are of an unverifiable nature, to the waste of that scarce energy; and more importantly, to the sects involved: their reputations are impugned, and the vulgar tastes of the sects’ members are tantalized, basted in the hatred of another’s arbitrarily selected tenets in favor of one’s own tenets – of perhaps equally dubious plausibility.
But the nadir of these attitudes centers on the confusion of the divine with the world, the struggle for the control of the State. In this contest lies the seed of corruption, the diversion of the attention of the contestants from the contemplation of proper behavior (and less tangible matters), thus encouraging dubious activities to take place. Worse, given the primacy of religion, the contestants may conclude that the importance of victory justifies almost any possible action. This sad path most often terminates in tragedy and dishonor.
In the end, in an unfortunately lost reference, when the State regulation of religion was ended by the Constitution and Bill of Rights, at least one clergyman expressed relief and, in his analysis, concluded the overt influence of religion over the States’ governments had been a burden and mistake. As one laid claim over the other, the other sadly influenced the first in directions not salubrious to its intentions.
Historical Summary
Few societies are trouble-free, and indeed such a society may be considered empty of the yeast necessary for the progress permitting continued competition and survival with other societies. But as any parent will espouse, violence and uproar is not a conducive context for the raising of the next generation. As we see in the summaries, the Founding Fathers had a rich history of the problems of mixing religion and secular rule, gathered from their own experience as well as that of their immediate forefathers in England. Not that religion is necessarily always a source of evil in our world, but it often acts as a multiplier for men’s intemperance, greed and foolishness. The benefit of one’s faith, the belief that one is blessed or sanctioned by the divinity, induces men to assume compliance when reality dictates opposition; indeed, religion often requires vast seas of certainty in the face of something for which there is no proof at all (a subject to be discussed momentarily) and leads some to such rock-like certainty that any who do not agree, to the least degree, are castigated and relegated to undesirable realms, metaphorically and sometimes physically as well.
In this very quick survey of English history, themes should become apparent: correlation of religious uproar with divine certainty; correlation of tolerance with civil peace. Correlation is not causation; quick surveys are not deep research. But these give the impressions gained from years of reading and observing. And this is just a portion of what the Founding Fathers experienced, the stories they knew – along, of course, with the reasons why many of them were in America, even as colonists: to escape religious persecution. This survey gives the operationality for that persecution, and begins to hint at the best form for mitigating, if not completely abolishing, such strife from a new society.
The Meaning of Faith
Wherein we elaborate upon the basis of the certainty of the member of the sect, and how it should impact the honest thinker.
* * *
This word, faith, we use to indicate our belief in something without proof– this is definitional, incontestable. If there was final, legitimate (or objective) proof that some divinity existed, even were it beyond our comprehension, then the only debate would be between those who accept the proof, and those very few to whom admission of that reality was repugnant. Faith would not play into the matter; of sects, there might only be one, or perhaps a very few. Instead, the least bit of attention will yield recognition of a thousand sects or more, each finding some facet, large or small, to differentiate themselves from the next, from the most xenophobic to the most inclusive. All are included within perhaps a dozen distinct religions, almost all vying with each other; within each, sect confronting cult confronting orthodoxy confronting heterodoxy– a history of disagreement leading to confrontation, sometimes terminating in horrific consequences. Witness any number of notorious battles in Western Europe alone: murders, massacres, and instances of mayhem, all associated with religious differences. The rare religion really practicing tolerance often finds itself persecuted. Such a sect is the Bah’ai, one of whom I knew for a short while many years ago. Yet, this is not to accuse religion of being the source of strife; to my mind, it is merely a lens that focuses a fundamental facet of mankind into something yet larger, crueler, meaner: that combative nature necessitated by the bloody claw of Nature. But to return to the point at hand, we use faith, or lack thereof, to justify our own belief in the degree of truthfulness of a particular religious system.
A key implication must then come to the fore – if there is no proof, then there can be no objective certainty, only subjective certainty. If this is so, then the serious inquirer must ask: how can I be so certain I am right, when the wellspring of certainty consists of dogmatic training, intuition, long traditions, and the bonds of my many friends? To be sure, a forcefully held opinion can be quite daunting, reinforced by the lungs and black looks of the holder; yet, without objective facts – and those have not been found by searchers with the best of intentions – they remain only opinions, dependent on nothing more than intuition.
Beware the approbation of the crowd: the opinions of the many, be they honestly and forcefully held even by friends, still remain arbitrary opinions in the absence of objective facts. They have not found the font of truth, but only (but not merely) the comfort of supporting opinions, of belonging, and sharing an important tie.
Perhaps the adherents of these various religions have found success in the course of their lives, however success may be defined. But to use that as a logical justification for the truthfulness of their religious claims – and, worse, the fallaciousness of their theological rivals’ claims – is a logical error called post hoc ergo propter hoc, or “after this, therefore because of this.” But in the absence of objective fact, drawing a conclusion concerning the nature of divinity, even that it exists, is a fool’s errand.
It is not inappropriate to wonder about those folks for whom the truthfulness of a religious system is less than primal; often, those whose exposure has been to a single such system from which they have benefited fail to question the truthfulness of the system; or their circumstances do not permit such investigations; or their temperament is such that it is more important to belong than it is to pursue the truth. For those students of science, their existence is unsurprising, for survival is an important facet of existence, and while knowing the deep truth about any number of things is not instrumental to survival, membership in a group may greatly enhance survival potential. Particularly for homogenuous groups, such an attitude is understandable. Again, though, this would be to mistake adherence for proof, for objective truth. They adhere, but for reasons peculiar to circumstance, have no particular insight into the final reality.
Before the summation regarding Faith, it is necessary to ask: what if we continue, regardless of the intellectual barriers heretofore erected, to be rock-solid in our certainty and to apply it in our government – to proclaim a theocracy as advocated by a few? I refer you to the English History, or at least its summary: the observation that confidence in one’s knowledge of the Divinity leads, tragically, to the disregard of those of one’s fellows who fail to adhere to one’s precisely formulated views: deprivation of equality, of property, of decision, and of life; the creation of chaos, of a society inhospitable to all but those most orthodox in today’s orthodoxy, and those few doomed when tomorrow’s orthodoxy differs from today’s. Does the reader doubt this? These very scenarios play out to this very day; attestations appear on the television news with appalling regularity. A retreat to the refuge of ‘Christianity’ merely begs the definition of Christianity, along with a murmur of ‘good luck’; a claim to modernity results in references to the barbaric actions of the various sects of Islam, the various sects of the Jews, and, at the very least, the words of the sects of the Christians, murmured, perhaps, into their beards. And forget not the fanatical acts of Warren Jeffs‘ group of Mormons, the Jim Jones cult, and even the activities of certain Amish groups! All done in the name of some solitary divinity; all done in the pursuit of temporal power.
So, to our summary: “Faith” is a dangerous word. It rationalizes any action, any assertion, because it is not subject to any restraint; the daring may use it to achieve their darkest desire, and very dark that may be.
And yet: Faith is also a path to a possibly better future. Faith comes in many forms, as mundane as faith that our fiat money will continue to be accepted within our nation, to faith that our neighbors will continue to do what is right, to the wondrous, everyday fact of altruism, that mysterious habit of the good to hold out a hand to someone who needs help, regardless of their nationality, their color, their station, their cleanliness, their location. To Americans at their best, show them someone in true need, assaulted by random Nature, and the American will stick out a mitt, haul the unfortunate to their feet, and help them get started; all with the Faith that this is the right thing to do, that some day that altruism will somehow be repaid to them. For those of us who think they are realists – and I often include myself in that number – there is a great blind spot that goes with that philosophy, and it is this: no, that cannot be done. It is not realistic. We cannot split our camp into two, the tigers will eat us. Can’t be done.
Sometimes those with Faith get eaten. And sometimes those with Faith are the leaders to the next great step on our journey. Here I use the word faith loosely, as simply attempting some great feat without any assurance of achieving same, of risking all, and achieving all, on scant anything but that it will turn out. Realists hardly do that.
And, finally, in all true Faith there must lurk a tiger of its own: Doubt. The sincere, clear-eyed believer, to achieve such a description, must forever be aware that Faith means belief without proof, and honesty then must beget doubt. The doubt need not be crippling, but must be honestly acknowledged and given its due; the believers’ behavior should be moderated toward those not entirely consonant in their belief systems. For the important point of doubt is this: perhaps your potential opponent is Right, and you are Wrong. Or you are both Wrong.
Or maybe the Atheist is right.
Obligations on Sects
Given the political position and intellectual attributes ascribed to many deities, it is important to understand the obligations inherent upon a sect contemplating existing within a governmental system intent on blindness toward the claims made by the sect. In the United States, a sect may operate freely unless it abridges any secular law imposed by the State; as the State is prohibited from making laws with respect to religion, the sect may consider all laws to be secular and must be in compliance with all. To take an extreme example, if a sect (perhaps of Mayan derivation, as an example) believes that blood sacrifice of the sect’s enemies on its altars is a divine requirement, then they should be aware of the State’s prohibitions on homicide, and either modify their deity’s requirements, or choose not to reside in the United States.
Since violent conflict is generally prohibited by modern societies, a wise sect will draw an important lesson: mutual respect. Respect burnishes reputations; spite, distaste, and hatred tarnishes it.
Immigration
It is perhaps not as well acknowledged as it should be, but the heart-blood of the United States has always been its immigrants. They are often brave, for they have left their homes, even if forced; they are intelligent, for they learn ways alien to them and become comfortable in our land, as do their children; and they are innovative, because the mental walls we construct for ourselves do not apply to them, and so they may view a problem in a very different way. Doctors, scientists, engineers, artists: they have brought their genius, their energy, their all, and have made the United State prosper. Their names are Legion, and need not be repeated here. All have come and flourished in this land of the free.
Land of the free, repeat it softly, and let that famous phrase circulate in your head for a moment. We have seen the morbid result of the explicit control of government by those of a religious bent, by well-meaning men & women convinced of the favor of their divinity, at the application of laws written by a subjective mind but proclaimed to be of a divine nature – but subject to no confirmation, and, even worse, no debate, with results scarce needing repeating: repression, offense, hatred, loathing, murder, extinction.
Empathize with our worthy immigrants- possessors of energy, talent, and motivation: they see one country, full of welcome, of guarantee of a lack of religious strife; they see another country, where sect rages against sect, where bodies appear in the morning to the grief of their loved ones, and a sad whirlwind of vengeance sets in. Which country should they pick to ensure the safety of their children? Should my valued reader, possibly an urger of divine control of the United States, still select that which would bring chaos to the United States, and divert the resourceful immigrant from this soil?
Conclusion
In review and summary …
The founding of the United States of America marks the coming together of a unique assemblage who decided they needed to live together in peace in order to survive a hostile world. Instructed in the ways of man by the history of their former home country, and thus realizing the necessity of surviving disagreements between citizens who are members of various sects, none of which could proclaim with certainty their grasp of any truth, they deliberately ejected religion from a central position within government structures in order to minimize the disorder a resolutely religious party might bring, and to enshrine that decision in the Bill of Rights. For those who doubt the wisdom of such a result, one might only consult the recent history of such countries as Saudi Arabia and other theocracies, or for that matter aspiring organizations such as ISIS, and the conditions, repressions, and, in extremis, horrors visited upon those religious minorities out of favor with a theocratic ruler.
This removal of religion from the source of worldly power permitted those of a religious bent to return their attention to the central focus natural to their vocation: the spiritual development of their fellows. By the same token, however, it becomes necessary that some slight subjection of the sect to the State becomes necessary; restrictions on activities are rare, but in the face of compelling State interest, required.
Thus, one of the most religious countries of the Western World is, in fact, secular: the governing laws are indifferent to the sects citizens might have chosen, and that indifference should remind those adherents that Faith implicitly teaches Doubt: we cannot know, but only hope, and through that lack of objective knowledge, we know that others may be more right than ourselves. Given that great mystery, we should not live in suspicion, hatred, loathing, or any other such adjective belonging to a dread realm, but rather in respect, trust, and a shared faith that, by having freedom of (or from) religion, by being secular, we are the stronger for it. To be anything else is to risk being torn asunder by our divisions, to fall from the high path into the fire, to fail the school of history as well as the heart-stopping lessons of today.
In the Founders time, a few dozen sects fled to the New World for a new home. Today we are home to hundreds, with relationships so diverse as to span the entire spectrum, from close alliance, to anger and hatred, and even murder. If the government of the United States were to descend into some divine alliance, then it’s power would be used to assert the dominance of the sect, much to the discouragement of all those other sects.
And this is why our demanding thesis, that the United States has been, is, and must remain secular, is true. The alternative is neither glorious nor honorable. It is only chaos.
E Pluribus Unum. There is no other answer.
(Completed with the help of Arts Editor Deb White and Wikipedia.)
