Brief History of Religious Liberty in America
Phil Orenstein • November 1, 2009 • Uncategorized
Introduction
Our country was founded on the principles of religious liberty, which are now under assault in a dirty political campaign of vulgar religious slurs in the 19th District NY City Council race between Dan Halloran and Kevin Kim. Originally I wasn’t going to publish this article electronically which was my monthly column for the print-only issue of the Queens Village Eagle, since the Halloran campaign strategy was to keep the religious issue, perpetrated by the Queens Tribune, under the radar. But now, since the Kim campaign has mailed out un-American religious attack ads to influence voters on the basis of Halloran’s minority religious affiliation, the Halloran campaign is striking back.
Today, we put together a spontaneous protest when we heard Chuck Schumer was coming to Bayside, Queens to endorse Kim. Our vociferous counter-rally was a smashing success for freedom of expression and religious liberty. You can read a brief write-up at Blue Collar Corner and videos of the event and interviews are coming soon. NY1 News, Daily News and other media were there to cover the event and they heard us loud and clear.
Brief History of Religious Liberty in America
In 1960 John F. Kennedy famously declared: “I am not the Catholic candidate for President. I am the Democratic Party candidate for President who also happens to be a Catholic. I do not speak for my Church on public matters — and the Church does not speak for me.” The specter of religious intolerance in politics appeared to be settled 50 years ago.
But this outdated issue of religious tests for public office has been revisited again in the New York City Council race in District 19 between Republican Dan Halloran and Democrat Kevin Kim. Times have changed from 50 years ago especially for those living in Queens, the most diverse place in America, where tolerance for all races, religious creeds and ethnicities are the norm. But a little history lesson is required for the unethical journalists of the Queens Tribune, Congressman Gary Ackerman’s media arm, that has stooped to a new low in vulgarity revealing their contempt for American history by maligning a candidate’s religion for political purposes. Religious liberty is one of the fundamental principles of America, but its glorious achievement has been a history of struggle against religious intolerance and persecution, a battle against repression and evil which continues today.
Starting in the 17th century a mass migration of English settlers sailed to America to escape religious persecution in old Europe. The religious and political climate of the established Church of England was so threatening and intolerant to dissenting religious beliefs, that they determined to make the dangerous Atlantic voyage to set up colonies in the New World to worship freely, but in most cases became intolerant themselves. The Puritans led by John Winthrop came in droves to the shores of New England to form the Massachusetts Bay Colony, with the promise of being the “city upon a hill.” However they established their own rigid state church and punished non-Puritans. Quakers, Roman Catholic and Jewish minorities were restricted in their religious practices and denied the right to vote and hold public office throughout the colonies.
In Massachusetts Bay even Puritans who questioned the established church, such as Roger Williams were driven out. Williams went on to launch the colony of Providence, Rhode Island based upon religious liberty and tolerance for all differing faiths. He established a unique government that was the first in the colonies founded on the principle of separation of church and state. Religious restrictions were abolished and there was no requirement for church membership for the right to vote or to hold public office.
John Bowne, after whom the Bowne House in Flushing was named, was a pioneer in the struggle for religious liberty. He also left Massachusetts Bay after becoming an adherent of Quakerism. After holding a Quaker meeting in Flushing, which was banned under the established Dutch Reformed Church of the colony of New Netherland, he was arrested. After a long struggle he was exonerated and tolerance was extended to all religious sects in the colony. The Flushing Remonstrance was a petition against religious persecution to the governor, Peter Stuyvesant, which became the precursor to the provision for freedom of religion in the Constitution. More colonies soon adopted policies of religious tolerance, and restrictions on differing religious sects were gradually lifted. Progress toward complete religious freedom in the colonies accelerated and the establishment of state churches diminished as the migration of settlers from diverse religious affiliations from the Old World gathered steam.
The framers codified the principles of religious liberty in the Constitution. The first Amendment protects the people from the interference of government in religious matters, such as favoring one religion or no religion over another and prevents the establishment of a national church. The “no religious test” clause of the United States Constitution in Article VI states that: “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” This clause was meant by the framers to provide for religious liberty by preventing religious prerequisites for holding public office that the Church of England and early New England colonies required. This was an unprecedented achievement for the time, since even John Locke who inspired the framers of the Constitution, denied the right to hold public office to atheists and Catholics.
However the complete abolition of religious tests and state religions didn’t happen overnight. Some states still upheld established religions years after the Constitution became the law of the land. Connecticut still maintained an established religion, the Congregationalist church which dominated all other religions and granted preferential treatment to their own members. The Danbury Baptists, a persecuted religious minority in Connecticut wrote a letter in 1801 to recently elected President Jefferson complaining that they were being treated like second class citizens, and forced to pay taxes to the state church. They complained that in the State of Connecticut, their religious liberties were not inalienable rights, but “favors granted” by the legislature. Jefferson wrote back to the Danbury Baptist Association, assuring them that separation of church and state that prohibited the establishment of a national church and eliminated religious tests, applied to them in the state of Connecticut as well, saying “religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship.” He denounced the establishment of powerful state churches and religious tests for public office as vestiges of the evil of old Europe. Connecticut disestablished its state religion in 1818.
Fast forward to the present where religious intolerance is now on display on the front pages and devious editorials of the Queens Tribune. The Tribune is ostensibly a community based newspaper that proudly celebrates the ethnic, cultural and religious diversity of Queens, the most diverse county in America. The latest issue cries out against the hate crime attack against a gay man in College Point. But their editorial pages spew their own unique brand of religious hate crimes. The Tribune has mounted a weekly series on the question of religious qualifications for political office replete with malicious articles, cartoons and photos that have maligned Dan Halloran’s personal pre-Christian religion starting with the September 17th issue and continuing up until the present. The Tribune’s editor Michael Schenkler has the temerity to justify the Tribune’s persecution of Halloran’s religious beliefs, in the name of investigative journalism.
There is no place in America for a religious inquisition for political purposes and candidate Kevin Kim should repudiate the Tribune, its editor and associates. But Mr. Kim is the Deputy Director of Community Affairs for Congressman Gary Ackerman (D-Queens), the founder of the Tribune, who owns a compelling interest in the newspaper today. The Tribune’s sister company, Multi-Media Corp. whose president Michael Nussbaum is also associate publisher and executive vice president of the Queens Tribune, handles the political campaign advertizing for Mr. Kim. Going back to August we see a drama of political vindictiveness unfolding, when Dan Halloran spoke out at the Recess Rally in front of Ackerman’s office and the townhall meeting protesting the dangers of ObamaCare which he moderated, where Ackerman was a no-show. Halloran excoriated Ackerman for his failure to meet with his constituents during the summer Congressional recess, cowering from the questions and concerns of the people he is supposed to represent. If we connect the dots we see Ackerman’s malicious way of tearing down political opponents who challenge his exalted status. Presently in the Tribune we see Ackerman proudly standing by Kim, and using its pages for the religious persecution of Dan Halloran.
Is Mr. Kim ready to make a statement to denounce the anti-American religious inquisition of the Queens Tribune? Will he stand with Gary Ackerman and the Tribune editors, or with the U.S. Constitution, Thomas Jefferson and his famous dictum that religion is not a matter of politics but only between man and his God, “that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship”?
Comments
2 Responses to “Brief History of Religious Liberty in America”
Leave a Reply
There are too many important issues facing NYC then to focus on somebody’s religion, which is none of my business. NYC is facing a 3 billion dollar deficit next year. People are leaving NYC at the fastest rate in our history because they can’t afford to live here anymore because of the mismanagement of our state by these socialist liberals. The really sad thing is that the Liberal Daily News and NY1 totally ignored our protest at Bay Terrace yesterday.
I was a poll watcher for Dan Halloran. One of the Democrats working the district voting desks asked me about the religious slurs involving alleged animal sacrifice. I told him that my grandfather, an Orthodox Jew, used to sacrifice a chicken for the the Jewish New Year. It is called “kapirot” or “kaporis” in Hebrew. There is no proof that Dan Halloran engaged in animal sacrifice, but there is a lot of proof that very religous Jews do it, therefore the article in the Queens Tribune, written by someone with a Jewish sounding name, is arguably making a case for anti-semitic disparaging of people who sacrifice animals. Perhaps even the Queens Tribune author’s great grandfather. No wonder the voters rejected this pathetic attempt at a smear.