The controversies surrounding religion and its relationship with the state are deeply woven into the American fabric. Likewise debates about intolerance, heroic fights to worship freely, sectarian prejudice, man’s ability to relate with God, and the scope of government influence over the consciences of men.
While too many episodes induce shame and wincing, America’s story is ultimately one of the growth of religious freedom, the elimination of state control of faith, and the overall diminishment of intolerance. That is, until now. Not since the campaign to adopt the Blaine Amendment has America witnessed so direct an attack on a religious faith as it has with President Obama’s HHS regulation, which demolishes the conscience rights of Catholic institutions.
Advertisement
Barack Obama and his staff need a salutary reminder of the various battles that colonists and Americans have waged to establish the right to worship without government imposition. One such battle occurred from 1656 to 1664, in Dutch-run New Netherland. This historic fight for religious freedom — against an intolerant government — gave birth to The Flushing Remonstrance, widely considered a forerunner to the First Amendment.
The town of Flushing was established in 1645. Then it was known as “Vlishing” and “Vlissengen,” and located where the Mets now (allegedly) play baseball. The town operated under a charter that established “the right to have and enjoy liberty of conscience, according to the custom and manner of Holland, without molestation or disturbance from any magistrates, or any other ecclesiastical minister.” But despite having such a clear mandate, the infamous Peter Stuyvesant, New Amsterdam’s Governor — famed for his bad temperament and wooden leg — had little patience for any religion that was not the Dutch Reformed Church. (His treatment of Jews earned him reprimands from his Dutch overlords.) Stuyvesant bristled over the growing Quaker community in Flushing. Learning that one Henry Townsend had allowed his home to be used for a Quaker meeting, Stuyvesant fined him and banished him to Holland. A complete account of this affair is found in a wonderful article by Michael Peabody in Liberty.
Disturbed by such an action, which clearly violated their charter, 30 Flushing residents wrote Stuyvesant in December of 1657. The Flushing Remonstrance argued in part that the townsfolk could not shun Quakers:
The law of love, peace and liberty in the states extending to Jews, Turks, and Egyptians, as they are considered the sonnes of Adam, which is the glory of the outward state of Holland, soe love, peace and liberty, extending to all in Christ Jesus, condemns hatred, war and bondage. And because our Saviour saith it is impossible but that offenses will come, but woe unto him by whom they cometh, our desire is not to offend one of his little ones, in whatsoever form, name or title he appears in, whether Presbyterian, Independent, Baptist or Quaker, but shall be glad to see anything of God in any of them, desiring to doe unto all men as we desire all men should doe unto us, which is the true law both of Church and State; for our Savior saith this is the law and the prophets. Therefore, if any of these said persons come in love unto us, wee cannot in conscience lay violent hands upon them, but give them free egresse and regresse unto our Town, and houses, as God shall persuade our consciences. And in this we are true subjects both of Church and State, for we are bounde by the law of God and man to doe good unto all men and evil to noe man. And this is according to the patent and charter of our Towne, given unto us in the name of the States General, which we are not willing to infringe, and violate, but shall houlde to our patent and shall remaine, your humble subjects, the inhabitants of Vlishing.
Stuyvesant was unmoved. He had four of the signers imprisoned on a bread-and-water diet and, in March of 1658, ordered a Day of Prayer for (in Peabody’s words) “the purpose of repenting from the sin of religious intolerance.”
Our history is replete with officials who abused executive power. Fowler's lesson reminds us that the flawed larger-than-life characters from our past make Obama seem small, mean, and merely incontinent. It's been a long strange trip but here we are right back to where we started.
Since when is religious liberty the equivelent of Christians dictating to the rest of us??? Christians dominate American culture and politics, and still that is not enough. They claim there is a war against them...not yet, but perhaps one is coming. I personally do not care for religion, and I find that Christians and Muslims are, by far, the worst of the lot. They think they have the right to tell the rest of us how to live. I can tell you that I never shielded a pedophile from justice. I recently found out that the Catholic Church is the largest landowner in the United States, and they make a fortune off of rent. I wish they would pay their fair share of taxes. They are a parasite upon the nation. Religion should be a personal thing, and have no bearing upon government. I should not be subject to their beliefs, just as they should not be subject to mine.
And by asking that we not be forced to pay for contraceptives and abortifacients we are forcing our religion on others how? Your point is off-topic here. Religious folk are the ones being forced here, not forcing.
As to your point -- of course people with certain values are telling others how to live. Honest people tell criminals to stop robbing banks; city councils tell property owners via zoning how they can use their property. You fight for your values, others fight for theirs. That's what politics is all about.
How are Christians dictating to the rest of us? How are you subject to their beliefs?
Presumably (and, I suppose, it is a big assumption on my part to assume that there is a logical trigger for your rant), given your obligatory comment about shielding pedophiles, you refer to the contraception mandate woven into HHS regulations by Commisioner Sibelius. I do not follow the logic, however. How does the Catholic Church's desire not to pay for contraception or offer free access to it as part and parcel of the compensation plan offered to their employees constitute subjecting the rest of us to their beliefs? The Church is not banning their employees from using contraception. They are not threatening to terminate the employment of anyone using contraception. They aren't even bombarding their employees with anti-contraception messages (to my knowledge). They are exercising the same right that every other individual or corporation has under United States law to contract on such bases as they desire.
What is most interesting to me isn't that Catholics are being deprived of their right to freely exercise their faith, but that the free exercise of faith is the issue upon which this unconstitutional power grab may well break, and not the plainly unconstitutional attempt by the administration to compel participation in a stream of commerce in order to shoehorn federal control by virtue of the regulatory powers associated with the commerce clause. If the Federal government were expected to have the power to mandate health coverage, then one of the enumerated powers in the Constitution would probably have mentioned that. At last check, the power to be Nanny was not (yet) granted to Big Brother. There was a time when people would have been astounded that anyone would want the Federal government to exercise jurisdiction over so personal a thing as health, but four generations of expecting government handouts has inculcated the masses to not only accept but in some cases desire such patronizing behavior by the rapidly growing mass of federal civil servants.
This is only one of the ways Obama and company have been eroding our sovereignty as citizens of this miraculous country. Recently with Mrs. Clinton in tow he has been trying to have the U.S. become subservient to the whims of the World Court. I hope the Senate is wide awake enough to put the kabosh on that one.
This whole attack on religious liberty and its "recanting", which is not a recant, is just a ploy by these characters to distract for a few weeks from the terrifying economic situation our president has placed us in.
I am ever so glad that Catholics and others rose up in rage against this attempt at usurpation. Now I hope that Americans rise up weekly in rage against the dying of the light caused daily by Obama and friends.
Great article, but I think you meant to write that the day of fasting was declared for the purpose of repenting from the sin of tolerance, not intolerance.
It's only a matter of time until the "right to marry" becomes a right to marry where ever you want. A gay couple will sue for the right to marry within the Catholic church or Mormon temple of their choosing.
By performing legally-binding marriages in their holy places, they are acting as agents of a state that has proven over and over that it wishes they would cease to exist. churches which don't want to face such issues need to adopt the European marriage model ASAP - husband and wife are legally 'married' by the state at the courthouse, with the religious rite of marriage - free of all complications and interventions of the state - performed at the place-of-worship of their choice.
If Obama's latest attack on US churches is allowed to stand, this will be the next target of progressive's anti-religious philosophy...
The time has come to reveal the buried truth about the land called Fort Totten on Willets Point in Flushing, New York
I am very pleased to read that the National Review Online has drawn attention to this very important historical document and the courageous people who helped shape our country’s freedoms.
As a descendent of William Thorne Sr. and Nicholas Parsell both signers of the 1657 Flushing Remonstrance, I am dismayed as to why New York City has not yet properly established a memorial at what is currently an unmarked burial site within Fort Totten Park in Flushing, NY. These grounds hold the remains of thirty five colonial settlers, some of them are descendents of two signer’s of the Flushing Remonstrance, one of which may be Martin F. Wilkins, an attorney who’s signature is found on the 1790-1792 Roll Call to the Supreme Court “sworn to true allegiance to the State of New York as a free and independent state”.
Fort Totten Park is part of the New York City parks system and offers scheduled guided tours. Currently there is no mention of the Flushing Remonstrance descendents, the Thorne/Cornell/Wilkins families or the unmarked area that serves as their final resting place. The time has come for New York City and it’s Parks Department, to acknowledge and honor these brave souls by establishing a “Freedom Memorial” at the Fort Totten Park site and to include this on their guided tour, not only to keep the memory of the Remonstrance signers alive but also as a reminder that without the brave sacrifice of these early colonial settlers we may not have the right to express our religious freedoms as we do today.
Sincerely,
Thomas Loggia
43 Zerner Blvd.
Hopewell Jct. New York 12533
914-490-3173
