Joachim Stephani Quotes

This was the second liberal constitution in the world following on the heels of United States Constitution upon which some of this constitution is based. See {585394}. This particular clause is noteworthy for its internal contradiction regarding freedom of religion. After making it illegal to convert any Catholic to any other religion, the constitution goes on to establish freedom of religion. So one was guaranteed the right to practice one’s own religion but if the religion advocated evangelizing and converting others, that part of religious freedom was banned when targeting Roman Catholics.

Some politicians then and later were not as religious as the leading clerics would prefer. The quotation shows that priests commonly married at that time even though the church had forbidden it.

This quotation is one of the first to make the critical observation that the only time that tolerance of a religion is necessary is when there is an established church and others that deviate from it. If there is no established church, as the Founding Fathers envisioned, there is no preeminent church to do the tolerating. All are equal. In practice, Protestant churches were proportionately dominant in early America and up through the 20th century. So most of the issue of tolerance problems in America were cultural. And there is still a minority of Christians who believe that America should be a Christian country and other religions should be “tolerated.” However, Clinton and most of the founders did not want to see even general Christianity established as the national religion even they it was the majority religion.

Those who claim that the founding fathers contemplated religion as a critical component of government often point to this article of the South Carolina Constitution. However, they ignore the almost simultaneous passage of the New York constitution as in {612166}. When the framers of the Constitution met in 1787 in Philadelphia the separation of church and state issue was not really resolved and awaited the Bill of Rights where the separatists won out.

1st Viscount Bolingbroke. This is the argument that was and still is given by most theocracies and nations opposed to pluralism. It was also a quotation which with the American founders were familiar and were targeting this view when they demanded the 1st Amendment.

This quotation is an excellent summary of view of most fundamentalist Muslims’ current views towards Christians and Jews. In the Koran, the Prophet made exceptions about required conversions to Islam for Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians (the pre Islamic Iranian religion). However, although they were to be allowed to maintain their religion. They had to pay a special tax called “Jizya” described in the quotation. Islam interpreted these words of the Prophet very differently in different places and times. Jews and Christians were not only treated very well in Islamic Spain and in Ottoman Turkey when Turkey was the seat of Islamic religion and power in the world, but they achieved some of the most important positions of power in the Empire and in the professions: law, military, teaching, philosophy, science and medicine. However, in other times and places, non Muslims were not allowed to worship in public or hold any position of influence or power and certainly never teach Muslims. So Jews and Christians in this world view will be tolerated but they must exist under a Muslim theocracy. That is the view that most of the ultra fundamentalist Muslims have today, which of course sets up a serious conflict potential.

Note that in addition to getting rid of the authority of the King, New York—over a decade before the Bill of Rights and the First Amendment, provided for a ban on an established church or favoring one Christian sect over another. Even then New York was a multi religious and multi ethnic society with its strong Dutch tradition along with the English tradition. New York did not go as far as the First Amendment would do later in terms of freedom of religion. NY only mentioned Christian sects. However they did implement separation of church and state and an establishment clause. See {621429} for another clause that ensures separation of church and state.

England had, under Henry VIII, left the Roman Catholic Church where the King replaced the Pope as head of the English Church. Henry’s successors then had to organize and manage the national Christian church. James was discussing the hierarchy of the Church of England and there was a suggestion that Bishops be eliminated and have every priest directly responsible to the crown. Bishops would be powerful figures who might form a power center. (They did later). However, King James I observed that the King is God’s choice and rules by divine right. So there had to be bishops to crown kings. The bishoprics were retained.