It has been many years since any numerous group of people were advocating directly for the suppression of certain religious groups. However, a recent display took place between Senator Dianne Finestein of California and Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois toward a judicial nominee. This represents a bit of cruel irony, as this nominee is a Roman Catholic.
There was a time when a Catholic would be put out of several segments of the American government and culture. I think it's safe to say that most people thought that this line of thinking had gone away -We had hopes that this line of reasoning died out at least since the Kennedy administration. Unfortunately, the types of questions being asked seem to indicate that this is a cause that continues.
Most American Protestants, having been accustomed to an ethos of toleration for other beliefs, would have found this display very disturbing. The role fo the senators is to discern wether they can execute the decisions needed for the position in question.
I can think of two possibilities so far. The first is the possibility that Finestein and Durbin both seek to cast people of certain religious persuasions out of government. the second is the possiblity that coming from Roman Catholic backgrounds, Finestein and Durbin believe they can ask certain types of questions that those from Protestant background have not. Either way, questions are being asked that are completely out of place in a confirmation hearing. Even as a Protestant, it's disturbing. It begs the question: who will they come after next? If the roles had been reversed and a different set of politicians were asking similar questions of somebody who adheres to a Non-Christian religion, people would rightly be outraged. Let's have some consistency!
Thursday, September 21, 2017
Wednesday, September 20, 2017
Religious Freedom Then and Now
In recent months and years, there has been an increasing amount of attention paid to the issue of religious freedom as certain religious bodies find themselves more and more at odds with real or perceived cultural trends. I think an important question to ask is whether this is the first time in American history that this has occurred.
Of course, the answer to this question will, at least in part, depend on what is meant by "American history." if we include the colonial era, than the answer is definitively "no." Jamestown and the Virginia colony were under Anglican rule just as the mother country was. In New England except for Rhode Island, the government basically amounted to a Puritan theocracy rather than an Anglican one. Colonies founded on religious toleration, notably Rhode Island and Pennsylvania, were the only places of refuge for many groups who deviated from state churches.
After the founding of the Republic, all religious groups were granted equal rights on paper. In reality, the situation was much different. A good illustration of this is the fact that Catholics faced significant prejudice when running for political office. It would be 170 years after the ratification of the United States Constitution that a Catholic would be elected President of the United States. and even then, the idea remained controversial in some circles.
As we examine this, we can clearly see that whether one defines "American History" as beginning with the first colonists landing at Jamestown or if it is defined as beginning with the ratification of the United States Constitution, the phenomenon of certain religious groups being shut out of certain sectors of society due to prejudice is not new in American History. The old idea of a Catholic president taking direct orders from Rome has it's parallel in the idea of people who adhere to certain religious beliefs being unable to uphold certain aspects of the constitution.
As people began to get used to the idea that a Catholic could just as easily be President of the United States as a Protestant, the Catholicism of Catholic candidates for President has become largely irrelevant as a political issue. Perhaps the formula for getting past our current impasse in regards to religious freedom is the reintroduction of certain types of religious people into roles in which they will be defending rights that they themselves likely oppose. As people see this, there is likely to be a softening of attitudes in general. These individuals are more than likely to be seen as real people, rather than as some sort of caricature.
Of course, the answer to this question will, at least in part, depend on what is meant by "American history." if we include the colonial era, than the answer is definitively "no." Jamestown and the Virginia colony were under Anglican rule just as the mother country was. In New England except for Rhode Island, the government basically amounted to a Puritan theocracy rather than an Anglican one. Colonies founded on religious toleration, notably Rhode Island and Pennsylvania, were the only places of refuge for many groups who deviated from state churches.
After the founding of the Republic, all religious groups were granted equal rights on paper. In reality, the situation was much different. A good illustration of this is the fact that Catholics faced significant prejudice when running for political office. It would be 170 years after the ratification of the United States Constitution that a Catholic would be elected President of the United States. and even then, the idea remained controversial in some circles.
As we examine this, we can clearly see that whether one defines "American History" as beginning with the first colonists landing at Jamestown or if it is defined as beginning with the ratification of the United States Constitution, the phenomenon of certain religious groups being shut out of certain sectors of society due to prejudice is not new in American History. The old idea of a Catholic president taking direct orders from Rome has it's parallel in the idea of people who adhere to certain religious beliefs being unable to uphold certain aspects of the constitution.
As people began to get used to the idea that a Catholic could just as easily be President of the United States as a Protestant, the Catholicism of Catholic candidates for President has become largely irrelevant as a political issue. Perhaps the formula for getting past our current impasse in regards to religious freedom is the reintroduction of certain types of religious people into roles in which they will be defending rights that they themselves likely oppose. As people see this, there is likely to be a softening of attitudes in general. These individuals are more than likely to be seen as real people, rather than as some sort of caricature.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)