Religious Intolerance:
A Brief History

I’ve been enjoying the jousting in the letters column over the separation of church and state, specifically, whether a political candidate should be required to disclose his or her religious affiliation and views.

Exegesis of the wording in the Constitution itself can only go so far. The Constitution is a document that aimed to chart a new course for a new country, and so it must be placed into its historical context. The ruinous religious contentions that wracked England and Europe were uppermost in the minds of our Founders. They put their answer in the very first article of the Constitution.

England’s civil war was fought over religion, specifically, to end the bloody, expensive, and often capricious policies of rulers who claimed a divine right to do as they pleased. Buttressed first by the Vatican and then by the Church of England (established by Henry VIII with himself at its head), the supreme authority of kings fell—but ironically, religious orthodoxy did not.

Until the Reformation, Europe was uniformly Catholic, though scarred by the sparring for hegemony that comes with official state religion. Protestantism would usher in a new world, where individuals could enjoy a personal relationship to God and a chance at divine grace, without the intervention of the Pope and free of the perceived hypocrisies of church leaders.

In Henry VIII’s reign, people were executed for importing the English language Bible into England. His Lord Chancellor, Cardinal Wolsey, presided over the burning of piles of these volumes. Deplorable, yes, but Protestants would develop their own forms of persecution.

Some of the worst bloodbaths in Western history have been over who gets to sit at the right hand of God. The Inquisition; the hunting down and burning of "witches" all over Europe; the Smithfield burnings of Protestants by "Bloody Mary," Elizabeth’s precedessor; the expensive and pointless wars fought between Spain, France, and England for control of Christendom—the framers of the Constitution knew about all these and more.

They intended that it should not happen here. But even the early New England colonies were based from the outset on religious conformity and intolerance toward those who threatened it. As the civil war in England was building, the Pilgrims, also called Separatists or "Saints," set out to separate themselves from religious regulation and interference by irreligious or heretical "Strangers."

They saw themselves as followers of the only true faith—a faith that ultimately pitted neighbor against neighbor in the uncertainty as to who was among the chosen. Non-conformists were punished by public humiliation, ostracism, and even ruin. Then the Puritans arrived and established a full-blown theocracy—the Massachusetts Bay Colony—next door to Plymouth.

In Massachusetts Bay, the benefits of brotherly love were reserved for brothers and sisters in Christ. As Governor Endicott wrote, "God’s people are all marked with one and the same mark, and sealed with one and the same seal, and have for the main one and the same heart, guided by one and the same spirit of truth; and where this is, there can be no discord; nay, here must needs be sweet harmony."

One of the Puritans’ edicts was that everyone was required to attend the Puritan church. Since few were in a position to leave the protection of the Colony, even the non-Puritans (and there were many who immigrated to these shores at that time) were constrained to obey, on pain of punishment.

Evangelical ministers set to work to convert the "soulless" native people as quickly as possible, and persistent unbelievers or rebels were driven out or even executed. The conspicuously Protestant emphasis on personal witness and individual conscience went only so far. It was a repressive regime, based on theological dogma, of which the adjective "puritanical" remains as a permanent reminder.

The Salem witch-trial tragedy is well known. Less well known is the ostracism of the young preacher Roger Williams, a Puritan’s Puritan if ever there was one, yet who had serious issues of conscience with the Massachusetts authorities. Williams declared that forced worship "stinks in God’s nostrils" and makes hypocrites of otherwise honest but unconverted folk, thus impairing their ability to gain God’s favor. Literally thrown out, he ended up founding his own colony of Providence, an island of tolerance, in today’s Rhode Island.

Our Founders never expected that religious faith should be negotiable. But they also understood that there is nothing so divisive as religion, precisely because the stakes are so high—eternal salvation or eternal damnation. As we still see today, these forces can tear whole societies apart if they are given priority.

An intelligent and prescient application of the lessons of history informed the framing of Article I of our Constitution. The Constitutional injunction against Congress’ making any law that would establish religion is aimed at preventing the development of a national religion.

So who represents the firewall to prevent abuse of power by religious interests and abuse of religion by secular powers? Theoretically, these abuses would be blocked by the checks and balances already in place. But an unspoken allegiance to a set of rigid, non-negotiable religious tenets, if acted upon, can constitute a threat to a democratic society, from within. It is the public’s proper business to know what kind of leadership a political candidate is likely to provide. It is still possible to elect a despot.

Julia Purdy

Rochester