Religious Conflict In The New World
Religious tolerance has always been a topic that fascinates me, raising probing questions which I can’t easily answer. One aspect that has regularly confused me is the one discussed in this article: why America is seen as an example of freedom of worship when in reality, her history of religious conflict is stained with blood. We as Americans like to proudly and patriotically depict our country as a prime embodiment of religious freedom, and yet a closer glance at the historical record betrays the fact that this is not so. The strife between Protestants and Catholics in the New World, the brutal treatment of Quakers in Massachusetts Bay, and the Puritans’ callous intolerance for dissenters are just a few of the examples illustrating that the fluffy tale of religious tolerance often portrayed in children’s textbooks is merely a comforting myth. America has not always been the haven of freedom we imagine.
Religious conflict in the New World began long before John Winthrop and his fellow Puritans, with the often overlooked arrival of the Huguenots - French Protestants who had fled from Europe to escape persecution - at Fort Caroline, Louisiana. This colony was carrying along rather well, that is, until they were encountered by Catholic Spaniards, who proceeded to wreak destruction upon it and brutally slaughter those who were spreading Lutheran beliefs. And this violent episode was only a prelude to the bloody history that would follow thereafter.
The Pilgrims who came to Massachusetts Bay are most often cited as an example of America being a haven for the religiously persecuted: they had fled from England, where they were being hunted down for their extreme Protestant beliefs. However, often those who are the least tolerated are also the ones least tolerant of others. The strict theocracy that was maintained allowed no opposition whatsoever. The Puritans were firm in their religious beliefs and set boundaries accordingly; anyone who stepped outside of them were deemed heretics. Those who did dare to step beyond, such as Roger Williams and Anne Hutchinson, were prosecuted and could end up being banished from the colony.
Religiocentrism didn’t stop with the Puritans. On a mostly Protestant continent, anti-Catholicism raged fiercely. The state laws of Massachusetts decreed that Catholics were allowed to hold public office “only after renouncing papal authority.” In fact, King George’s Quebec Act, which acknowledged Catholicism, provoked Protestant colonists so much that it went on to play a role in fueling revolutionary feelings. And according to the article, Benedict Arnold, when questioned about why he had become a traitor, “publicly cited America’s alliance with Catholic France as one of his reasons for doing so.”
It was only with the case of Patrick Henry’s bill, which suggested that the state should support teachers of Christianity, that America took its first step towards religious tolerance. Thrusting himself into an argument against Henry’s bill, James Madison eloquently stated that religion should be left to the conscience alone, and should not be sanctioned by the state. Madison had a secular resolve for America that he shared with multiple others of the founding fathers. After seeing all the strife and discord that had been a result of different religious sects fighting each other, he was now working to make America a more secular nation. In the end, Patrick Henry’s bill was defeated, and Madison and Jefferson’s plan was implemented instead.
To be completely honest, this article raised more questions than answers for me. America’s transition from religious intolerance to relative tolerance seems a bit abrupt. In addition, I’m now wondering what it would be like our nation hadn’t ended up advocating freedom of worship. What would be different if America didn’t have the secular government and stark separation of church and state that it has today? What would be dissimilar about our core beliefs and education system if this wasn’t so? Would those changes be for the better or the worse? And would my opinions on religious freedom differ if I was part of a minority religion as opposed to the majority religion? I think the answers to these questions are subjective and can never be completely answered, but they’re interesting to think about.
