To be tolerant means to be accepting or open-minded. The United States today is, in general, very tolerant when it comes to many things – whether it be race, sexual orientation, ethnicity, or especially religion. America may not be perfect when it comes to toleration, but looking back at history we have definitely made a lot of progress as a country. When the English colonists were coming to the New World in the 1600s, religion was an essential part of their lives. Although there were a variety of religions represented, the vast majority of the colonists were Christians. When Lord Baltimore founded the colony of Maryland, he intended to create a refuge for Catholics. With religious tolerance in mind, Baltimore insisted that the Maryland Assembly …show more content…
Therefore, any Jews, Atheists, Muslims, or members of other religions could be killed in Maryland under the enforcement of this document. The Maryland Act of Toleration stated, “That whatsoever person or persons…deny our Savior Jesus Christ to be the son of God…shall be punished with death and confiscation or forfeiture of all his or her lands and goods” (pg. 6). On a small scale this parallels World War II in which Christians were protected and all other religions, especially Jews, were killed for their beliefs. Although Lord Baltimore intended for this document to encourage religious tolerance, in reality it did the opposite: favoring one religion and persecuting all others. This contrasts the United States today, in which the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights guarantees all American citizens freedom of religion. By comparing Maryland right after 1649 and the United States today, it is clear to see which is more …show more content…
Any anti-Christian words said were absolutely forbidden in the colony under the terms of this document. It declared, “that whatsoever person or persons shall from henceforth use or utter any reproachful words or speeches concerning the Blessed Virgin Mary…shall in such case for the first offence forfeit…the sum of five pounds sterling” (page 6). No one was permitted to speak out against or question the church unless they wanted to pay a fine. The church already had a history of censoring the public: when the printing press was first created, the Christian church tried to censor free speech by requiring any writers to obtain an official license before they could publish anything. Now in the United States, the First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech to all citizens. This allows American citizens to freely express their opinions on any topic they choose. By restricting colonists’ freedom of speech in the 1600s, the Maryland Act of Tolerance was limiting the liberality of the colony and therefore spreading
In the controversial court case, McCulloch v. Maryland, Chief Justice John Marshall’s verdict gave Congress the implied powers to carry out any laws they deemed to be “necessary and proper” to the state of the Union. In this 1819 court case, the state of Maryland tried to sue James McCulloch, a cashier at the Second Bank of the United States, for opening a branch in Baltimore. McCulloch refused to pay the tax and therefore the issue was brought before the courts; the decision would therefore change the way Americans viewed the Constitution to this day.
Puritan practices didn’t dominate over the colonies in the way that they used to. Many people grew tired of the old-fashioned, strict thinking of the Puritans. Some people even went so far as to say that humans were not all destined to go to hell, which was a pretty outrageous change in thought for this time. Most people who believed this were of the new faith known as Arminianism, which was founded by Jacobus Arminius. Arminianism had a rather large following, making it a definite threat towards the Puritans. This is just one of many examples in which people of this time began moving towards liberalism.
Firstly John Winthrop whom was the governor of Massachusetts Bay was accusing Anne hutchinson of “troubling the peace of commonwealth and the churches here”. Anne was holding meetings at her house; teaching women and sometimes even men about religion. To quote directly from the document John Winthrop said: “You have maintained a meeting and an assembly in your house that hath been considered by the general assembly as a thing not tolerable nor comely in the sight of god nor fitting for your sex.” with this quote alone you can see Winthrop’s distaste for Anne ;a women, teaching people about religion. you can make the connection that because John Winthrop is the governor of Massachusetts he has more than likely instilled in his people the idea of a strict patriarchal society. In the Quote Winthrop says ‘...considered by the general assembly as a thing not tolerable nor comely in the sight of god nor fitting for your sex”. A General assembly is basically a community, more...
Religion was a key component to the construction of the early American colonial society. It shaped the beliefs and actions of the settlers within the society in many ways. Originally, the newcomers settling on North American land had main motives of owning their own land, increasing their country’s empire and gaining personal profit. Alongside those motives came the sheer desire to spread their religion with whom they encountered in the new land of opportunity. As stated, settlers set out to convert others towards Christianity because they believed freedom was found in worshiping God. Socially, if a person identified as a Christian they automatically were placed higher on the hierarchy. In the same respect, religion and politics at this time were delicately intertwined. Being Christian also meant the government heavily favored you and your peoples since you were to be considered influential in society. In the Maryland Act Concerning Religion (1644), John Winthrop’s Speech to the Massachusetts General Court (1645), the Trial of Anne Hutchinson (1637) and Roger Williams Letter to the Town of Providence (1655) one can notice the striking role religion plays both socially and
First of all, during their time, it was recognized that one did not have a right within the choice of religion versus government. It seemed that whatever one wanted to believe was not an option when it came to following a creed, it was more than probable that one’s government had made that choice for its people. Roger Williams, having been educated by Sir Coke on religious ideals seemed to be bothered by this fact and was fervent to change this as his former master whom had spent time in a London jail for his own ideas (Humanities, 1983). Anne Hutchinson being the daughter of a dissenting puritan minister (Reuben, 2011) had ideas differing from the major religious institutions of her land, and was especially dissatisfied with not being able accept creeds differing from the main. Williams’ works touched on this subject beautifully as he logically, even through quotes in scriptures, explained why it was that if one wished to be a true follower of Christ, that religious tolerance was a must. In The Bloudy Tenet of Persecution, Williams explains that Christ ‘abhors’ the practice of forced worship and persecution of differing beliefs of even those who are not Christian. Anne Hutchinson openly practiced the freedom of conscience as part of her life. She had at one point in England, meetings where she would speak about the doctrines and treatises written by John Cotton, and she would always add in her own interpretations (Anne Hutchinson...
The Church of England was not a good religion during the sixteenth century, the puritans want to practice their own religion but the Church of England would not allow them. People didn’t want to obey the churches authority anymore. The Puritans it particular did not want to follow the Church of England. Over time, “the church of England began to crack down on those who refused to bow to their authority” (www3.gettysburg.edu) this caused the Puritans to leave England. The puritans left England and went on a dangerous journey to be free from the church. It was so bad that, “it got to the point where the puritans decided to face the dangerous journey to the New World rather than be persecuted for their religion” (www3.gettysburg.edu) these people would rather put their lives and families in danger than to be put down by the Church of England. There were ranks inside the church and women were at the bottom.
The case of Marbury v. Madison centers on a case brought before the Supreme Court by William Marbury. Shortly after Thomas Jefferson defeated John Adams in the election of 1800, Congress increased the number of circuit courts. Adams sought to fill these new vacancies with people who had Federalist backgrounds. To accomplish this, he used the powers granted under the Organic Act to issue appointments to 42 justices of the peace and 16 circuit court justices for the District of Columbia. Adams signed the appointments on his last day in office and they were subsequently sealed by Secretary of State John Marshall. However, many of the appointments were not delivered before Adams left office and Jefferson ordered the deliveries stopped when he took charge. Marbury was one of Adams’ appointees for justice of the peace. Marbury brought a case before the Supreme Court seeking a writ of mandamus compelling the new Secretary of State James Madison to deliver the appointment.
From the sensitive topics, like those of ethnicity, race, mental disabilities, sexual orientation, or gender identity, society has taken some slow steps in a positive and more progressive direction regarding tolerance. It would be prudent to first take a closer look at how Merriam-Webster’s dictionary defines and differentiates tolerance versus acceptance. Tolerance is defined as, “capacity to endure pain or hardship.” (Merriam-Webster) Acceptance on the other hand is defined as, “A taking or consenting to take something offered; 2. Approval.” (Merriam-Webster) The most identifiable difference between these two concepts is the interactive consent present in acceptance that is not as apparent in tolerance. Tolerance is a more passive concept,
A common justification for Quaker imprisonment was blasphemy (Trevett 17). Elizabeth Hooton, a strong female figure in Quakerism, performed many of the same roles that Blaugdone did, and in return, she was imprisoned for merely reprimanding a priest (18). Hooton was arrested numerous times for activities such as public speaking, refusal to swear an oath in court, and disturbing the peace. In Blaugdone’s Account, disturbing the peace seems to be merely stepping foot in town. Numerous laws were also passed that enabled the arrest and persecution of Quakers, including The Blasphemy Act, The Conventicle Acts, The Five Mile Act and The Quaker Act. All of these laws basically prohibited Quakers from disrupting the ministry of the church (18). By challenging priests in their own churches, organizing and attending gatherings, and meeting with and preaching to others on street corners, Quakers broke the law. Blaugdone clearly took part in these ‘unlawful’ activities: “And then I was moved to go to Great Torrington in Devonshire, unto the Steeple-house there, where was a very bad Priest” (Blaugdone 13). Of course her only outcome at talking to the priest was to be once again put in prison.
In the “Letter to Birmingham Jail,” Martin Luther King Jr. alluded to the Bible multiple times throughout the passages. These allusions are sometimes considered the main reasons why this letter was as powerful as people perceive it to be.Martin Luther King Jr. called the clergymen, “...incurable devils,” in his writing. This was undoubtedly one of his most powerful allusions. Not only was he comparing them to the evil in the Bible; moreover, he was calling out the clergymen’s complacency of not acting. By continuously referring to the Bible, he is showing the clergymen their injustice of their actions. Therefore, he is using the words the clergymen preach against them in a intelligent and meaningful way.“Like Paul, I must respond to the call
Throughout history, standing up for one's rights has been a big part of America’s growth in regards to: women’s rights, segregation, taxation, religion...etc. However, with the expansion of America over the last few hundred years, Americans have gone from respecting others’ point-of-views to being offended when those point-of-views that differ are shared. “We often hear it said that ‘if your religious beliefs work for you, that’s great, but don’t impose them on others’”. Because of this dilemma, words such as; “judgmental”, “hypocritical”, and “intolerant” are all accusations that are placed onto Christians because of their moral standing on subjects that differ from public opinion. More often than not, Americans overlook the positive impact of the public influence of Christians. This concept of intolerance is something that is highly frowned upon in the America that we live in today. Intolerance is defined as, “Not willing to allow or accept something; not willing to allow some people to have equal freedom or other social rights; or unwilling to grant equal freedom of expression, especially in religious matters”. People within America today have confused the concept of being intolerant with keeping someone accountable to their actions, or fighting against a wrong for the betterment of a larger society. As you examine the history of America and see the countless people who have been advocates of the Christian faith, it is apparent that the lines have been blurred between standing up for what you believe in and being intolerant to the viewpoints and opinions of others.
“I love the pure, peaceable, and impartial Christianity of Christ: I therefore hate the corrupt, slaveholding, women-whipping, cradle-plundering, partial and hypocritical Christianity of the land. Indeed, I can see no reason, but the most deceitful one, for calling the religion of this land Christianity.” Frederick Douglas’s infamous quote was used to explain how slave masters seem to value a different form of Christianity than he was used to. Slave masters would explain to slaves and slave families that Christianity wrote it into their bible and laws that they were meant to be slaves and pick out particular passages that they would manipulate to support their views. For centuries, slave owners have looked for way to justify the need for slaves and a way to manipulate slaves into believing that slavery was their true calling. They would use Bible stories such as the Curse of Ham as well as the Mark of Cain in reference to African Americans to legitimize slavery to their slaves. Slaves often spoke on this in their narratives of the time as slaves. Harriet Jacobs was another enslaved child that spoke on this misuse in her narrative “Incidents in The Life of a Slave Girl”, Jacobs spoke from a more domestic view of slavery. She often questioned religion for this very reason, how can something so cruel possibly be of God? Olaundah Equiano was different from Jacobs in the respect that he never doubted his own religion, simply believed that he worshipped a different Christianity than Whites did. Just as education is presented as a paradox in “Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglas” so too is the issue of religion and Christianity. On the on...
The Prohibition Amendment, which took effect on January 16, 1920, outlawed the manufacture, sale, and transportation of alcohol in the United States and its territories, until its repeal on December 5, 1933. Today, Prohibition is often referred to as the “Noble Experiment” because it was created to reduce the adverse effects that alcohol had on families and society. Excessive consumption of alcohol, primarily by men, often resulted in domestic violence, poor work performance, and wasteful spending of wages on alcohol, which were needed to support families. Although the Prohibition Amendment did decrease alcohol-related consequences, ultimately this legislation should not have been enacted because it led to more organized crime and an increase of economic problems.
When viewing the history of the United States of America and that of its revolution, it is plain to see that the United States owes a large amount of credence to its religious aspirations. The colonies were vibrant in religious practices. Some were more fundamentalist and some were more lax in their convictions. The one thing that was common though is that there was dissention and rebellion in their roots.
As agriculture students at Oklahoma State University, it is very important to understand the history behind the establishment of our institution. Attending a land-grant university is certainly unique, but what does it mean? This paper will discuss the legislative acts that organized our university, as well as other agriculture and mechanic schools across the United States.