Fordham University - Maroon Yearbook (New York, NY)

Page 11 text:

Religious Liberty in the United States N 1620 the Puritans landed in Massachusetts. Bravely sacrificing temporal advantages on. the altar of the faith, they braved the dangers and hardship of an unknown land and established a community where they could worship God according to the dictates of their conscience. To them was given a great opportunity. In a world torn by religious strife they could have risen to the height of a great principle,—the principle of religious freedom. But such a broad liberalism was contrary to the spirit of the time. It was an age when intolerance was regarded as a virtue by all sects. To bum or banish heretics was a sacred duty. Heretics, when they secured power, were no less hostile to their former orthodox persecutors. The Puritans were content to rest on the plane of universal bigotry. In 1636 Roger Williams was cited before the General Court of Massachusetts for preaching the doctrine of liberty of conscience. Thus the odium theologicum, the curse of Europe, was introduced on the virgin soil of the new continent. Roger Williams was exiled from Massachusetts, and in midwinter lie journeyed through the primeval forests to Rhode Island, where he unfurled the banner of religious liberty and established a state where he and all men might worship God according to the dictates of their consciences. No such land had previously existed in the wrhole civilized world. Roman Catholics and Quakers were especial objects of persecution in England, and, quite naturally, they turned to the new world as a place of refuge. Lord Baltimore, a devout Catholic, by reason of his high official position, and being in the good graces of James I, succeeded in obtaining a charter for Maryland, which embodied a very broad conception of toleration. The Quakers, likewise, under the leadership of William Penn established religious freedom in the colony of Pennsylvania. In Rhode Island, Maryland, and Pennsylvania therefore was first evidenced the spirit that was to become a

Page 10 text:

498 The Fordham Monthly greater wealth, evading the laws of the country, and totally subordinating the welfare of the community to their own individual good. They use their wealth to secure the passage of special legislation, they seek to monopolize the great commercial industries of the country and frequently, especially in the mining states of the West, the local government of a coriimunity is frustrated before the power of their wealth. The poor cannot obtain justice, and when justice is gone, violence and strife reign supreme. Among the wealthy the desire for greater riches has made them forget that there is something greater than the riches, the pleasures and the honors of this life. Every effort they make, every thought they have is for the accumulation of greater wealth. Men have become worshippers at the shrine of Mammon; bowing down in admiration of the golden calf. Their hopes and desires are influenced by the power of the almighty dollar. The wealth they can grasp, The material prosperity they can reach are the objects of their desires and the limit of their aspirations. It creates- grave responsibilities, and occupied, as be is, with the preservation, the increase and the management of his riches, the man of wealth is wont to forget his eternal salvation. Mere earthly gains and material cares distract his attention, and all thought of the spiritual is lost to him forever. As long as the world endures there will be some who will be unable to provide sufficiently for themselves. Until the end of time, unequalities of fortune will exist, the fatal result of the physical, intellectual and moral inequalities nature herself has established among men. These evils will never entirely disappear, but nevertheless, upon everyone of us rests the duty of mitigating them as far as lies within our power. Were men of wealth to realize that they are not the absolute owners of their riches, but merely the administrators, that their wealth belongs to God, and. they are His stewards, they would use it in accordance with the intentions of their Maker. Were they to realize that they are under a solemn obligation to better the poor and to enable them to obtain the necessities, the comforts and some of the luxuries of this life, the great social inequalities would be lessened, the bitter class antagonism woufd disappear, and the rich arid the poor would live together in the brotherhood of man and under the fatherhood of God. Walter A. Lynch, T5.

Page 12 text:

500 The Fordham Monthly great American ideal,—a free Church in a free state. All the other colonies either had an established Church or prescribed certain religious tests. In Virginia, where the Anglican Church was established as firmly as in England, the agitation for the overthrow of state churches on the American continent was first begun and successfully effected. That great apostle of liberty, Thomas Jefferson, led the fight for the repeal of the obnoxious laws relating to religion. He was ably supported by James Madison and Patrick Henry and, finally, the problem of religious liberty was solved. “Opinion,” said Mr. Jefferson, “is something with which government has nothing to do. . . . it is error alone which needs the support of government; truth can stand by itself.” The action of Virginia in establishing religious liberty, together with the arguments contained in Jefferson’s “Notes on Virginia,” undoubtedly had tremendous weight in the Federal Convention which assembled in May, 1787, in Philadelphia, for the purpose of framing the Constitution. Virginia at that time was one of the most powerful states. Moreover, the statesmen who framed our Constitution knew well the history of other governments. The difficulties of the colonies in religious matters were clearly before them. They determined to found a government in which the greed and selfishness of sects would be curbed, and freedom of opinion allowed to all. They, therefore, enacted that “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” A resolution introduced by Pinckney that “The legislature of the United States shall pass no laws on the subject of religion,” failed of adoption. Many were uneasy at this, and, when ratifying the Constitution, three states, New Hampshire, New York and Virginia, urged the adoption of an amendment similar to the rejected proposal. The conventions held in the several states to ratify the Constitution reflected the prevailing opinion on the question of religious tests. Those states which required such tests opposed their exclusion. It was feared by some that the Federal Government “might pass into the hands of Roman Catholics, Jews, or infidels.” It was seriously urged that, as the Constitution stood, the Pope of Rome might become President of the United States, and a pamphlet setting forth that objection was circulated. In the North Carolina Constitutional Convention, James Iredell, who was the leader of the