America's True History of Religious Tolerance
The idea that the United States has always been a bastion of religious freedom is reassuring—and utterly at odds with the historical record
- By Kenneth C. Davis
- Smithsonian magazine, October 2010, Subscribe
Philadelphia's Bible Riots of 1844 reflected a strain of anti-Catholic bias and hostility that coursed through 19th-century America. Granger Collection, New York
Wading into the controversy surrounding an Islamic center planned for a site near New York City’s Ground Zero memorial this past August, President Obama declared: “This is America. And our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakeable. The principle that people of all faiths are welcome in this country and that they will not be treated differently by their government is essential to who we are.” In doing so, he paid homage to a vision that politicians and preachers have extolled for more than two centuries—that America historically has been a place of religious tolerance. It was a sentiment George Washington voiced shortly after taking the oath of office just a few blocks from Ground Zero.
But is it so?
In the storybook version most of us learned in school, the Pilgrims came to America aboard the Mayflower in search of religious freedom in 1620. The Puritans soon followed, for the same reason. Ever since these religious dissidents arrived at their shining “city upon a hill,” as their governor John Winthrop called it, millions from around the world have done the same, coming to an America where they found a welcome melting pot in which everyone was free to practice his or her own faith.
The problem is that this tidy narrative is an American myth. The real story of religion in America’s past is an often awkward, frequently embarrassing and occasionally bloody tale that most civics books and high-school texts either paper over or shunt to the side. And much of the recent conversation about America’s ideal of religious freedom has paid lip service to this comforting tableau.
From the earliest arrival of Europeans on America’s shores, religion has often been a cudgel, used to discriminate, suppress and even kill the foreign, the “heretic” and the “unbeliever”—including the “heathen” natives already here. Moreover, while it is true that the vast majority of early-generation Americans were Christian, the pitched battles between various Protestant sects and, more explosively, between Protestants and Catholics, present an unavoidable contradiction to the widely held notion that America is a “Christian nation.”
First, a little overlooked history: the initial encounter between Europeans in the future United States came with the establishment of a Huguenot (French Protestant) colony in 1564 at Fort Caroline (near modern Jacksonville, Florida). More than half a century before the Mayflower set sail, French pilgrims had come to America in search of religious freedom.
The Spanish had other ideas. In 1565, they established a forward operating base at St. Augustine and proceeded to wipe out the Fort Caroline colony. The Spanish commander, Pedro Menéndez de Avilés, wrote to the Spanish King Philip II that he had “hanged all those we had found in [Fort Caroline] because...they were scattering the odious Lutheran doctrine in these Provinces.” When hundreds of survivors of a shipwrecked French fleet washed up on the beaches of Florida, they were put to the sword, beside a river the Spanish called Matanzas (“slaughters”). In other words, the first encounter between European Christians in America ended in a blood bath.
The much-ballyhooed arrival of the Pilgrims and Puritans in New England in the early 1600s was indeed a response to persecution that these religious dissenters had experienced in England. But the Puritan fathers of the Massachusetts Bay Colony did not countenance tolerance of opposing religious views. Their “city upon a hill” was a theocracy that brooked no dissent, religious or political.
Subscribe now for more of Smithsonian's coverage on history, science and nature.
Related topics: American History Religion
| Tweet | Digg |






Comments (97)
+ View All Comments
Our founding fathers were excellent historians and realized that the enlightnements answer to the question of organized religion was Diesm (beleif soley based on reason with a supream being as only a watchmaket). While not popular,in one fale swoop they disarmed the eccelastic community. The beauty of Diesm is that it does not recognize any medium between the watchmaker and mankind (ex Jesus). This allows for true religous tolerance. Thomas Jefferson wrote "But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.
Relious tollerance is the epitome of an oxymoron. Just look at the world we live in.There has never been nor will ever be any form of goverment that is based on religion (blind faith) that is successful. As a freethinker I have great respect for those who practice what they preach, just don't preach to me!
Posted by jim on January 23,2012 | 03:15 PM
"When contrasted with other nations of predominantly non-Christian religions the facts show that America has been far more free regarding religious choice than the article may lead the reader to believe."
I wonder where this self-flattery comes from. East Asian countries(China, Korea, and Japan) throughout their long histories rarely experienced religious persecutions (at least, not to the degree that they occurred in Europe and the US, and when they did happen, they were more about politics than about religion per se.) The arrival of Christianity in later history changed the whole religious landscape and religions conflicts and persecutions became a prominent theme in history.
I appreciate comments revealing historical complexities and nuances the article missed, but it seems most comments here sound so solipsistic, which I am not really surprised about.
Posted by Beilang on December 31,2011 | 03:15 AM
Re "religion poisons everything." If we're talking about religion and government, that's backwards--it's government that poisons. In the recent Smithsonian article about Roger Williams (http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/God-Government-and-Roger-Williams-Big-Idea.html ) Williams makes the point that government, being intrinsically corrupt, must be kept away from religion. I think the current incompetence of our government to do even the basics, like creating a budget, is proof that Williams was right.
Posted by Ken Lyon on December 29,2011 | 12:37 PM
Wow, talk about missing the point. It isn't that the USA has always had the perfect atmosphere of religious tolerance it's that the US has as root law and principle religious tolerance, something no other nation had at the time it was founded. It is that undergirding that and the following eventual growth of tolerance that is the key. Further, it was different that in one nation one could go places where their religion was tolerated. In other nations many religions could find NO PLACE where they could find somewhere to live in peace. This "history" doesn't see the forest for the trees.
Posted by Warner Todd Huston on December 15,2011 | 01:11 PM
I really appreciated Karen Harper's post. There is nothing here to back up their accusations. I'd like to see some facts. Some fact based accusations at least, if your going to be accusing anyone.
Posted by Austin on November 29,2011 | 09:17 PM
Religious freedom should mean, among other things, that no one should cause physical harm to individuals or to their personal property. If we could get all individuals, Muslim or otherwise, to follow this principle, then we have no need to deny any the right to build houses of worship where they would like. It is unfortunate that some members in society refuse to treat others this way.
Part of this ethic is that all religious leaders should teach, in their churches, synagogues and mosques, that their members (and leaders) should never harm others. It should concern all of us if mistreatment of others is either taught or encouraged in religious settings.
Each person should have the right, of course, to express his or her religious or secular beliefs, but such should be done with respect for others.
Let the Muslims build their center in lower Manhattan, but ask them in advance, leaders and followers, to promise publicly that they will refrain from any physical harm to others and sincerely teach their fellow religionists to do the same.
Posted by Phillip C. Smith on November 21,2011 | 06:21 PM
Well, I'm glad to see that Smithsonian.com is not willing to allow things like historic accuracy and credible research get in the way of a "good" article.
Although the article was originally published October 2010, I challenge Smithsonian.com to publish a rebuttal by historian David Barton. But hey, not much chance of that, is there. (Written Nov 14, 2011)
Posted by J.D. Dickerson on November 14,2011 | 11:42 PM
Wow. That was an impressive display of anti-religious sentiment. One opinion after the next, with no citation to his sources. The first several paragraphs gives no proof, no source, nothing. It's funny how people accuse religious groups of using rhetoric to influence people, yet that was the very substance of this article only in reverse. This is nothing but anti-religious rhetoric and nothing more.
Posted by Karen Harper on September 26,2011 | 01:18 PM
The author finds nothing good about American religious tolerance or its history, except to mention a few idealistic words penned by founding fathers. The author would no doubt smugly proclaim that even those were written by "rich, greedy, dead white men" and are therefore meaningless. This is the liberal view of America and it is being taught in our schools every day, at public expense.
Posted by CK JAGUAR on August 3,2011 | 06:23 PM
I honor the ideal of freedom of religion and hope that all learn to treat those in other religions the way they would like to be treated. The U.S. Constitution embodies the best of protections. We need to extend this to all religions, Christian and non-Christian.
True religion and reason are not in conflict. All who reason do so from some ideological or religious perspective. Atheism, agnosticism and theism are all position that are ultimately based on faith in something or someone.
We have another intolerance infecting society and that is that of many secularists toward religion. This is manifest in the efforts of some to impose their perspectives on others in schools, the media and in government. This is manifest also in the intimidation and persecution of those who do not share one's ideas, noted recently in the treatment of Proposition 8 supporters in California.
What we have is not so much discrimination today but real differences in what should constitute a healthy culture. Should we support traditional marriage or sexual license. Intolerance is indeed a two-way street, thus what is best for society in the long run should be our goal.
Posted by Phillip C. Smith on June 16,2011 | 05:53 PM
I'm not even a Protestant and I can clearly see the strong anti-Protestant slant in this article.
Posted by Richard Thoman on April 18,2011 | 01:09 PM
When contrasted with other nations of predominantly non-Christian religions the facts show that America has been far more free regarding religious choice than the article may lead the reader to believe. The fact that factions of Christianity war against each other does not negate the freedom of choice.
I've read history from diverse sources, followed current events, and traveled in non-Christian but highly religious nations (including secular/agnostic/atheistic countries) and there is a stark difference in all freedoms not just freedom of religious choices.
While people who practice Christianity are human and fallible the one thing I admire about them is their not forcing by law or threat of death and/or severe persecution a belief in any deity. That choice with Christianity is between God and human not between human and government or any other human entity.
In fact if choice is not between human and God then it is not truly Christian. To truly be Christian is to follow Jesus, the Christ and that is a whosoever will choice (although there are eternal consequences involved for good or bad.)
This seems real as no one can truly force a religious belief on anyone internally. How can those who do use physical force in an attempt to make another believe in God be of God? May as well be created robots with no ability to reason, to question, to think and decide freely. Unity can be a good thing but when it is as a horde of lemmings going over an eternal spiritual cliff -- then unity is a sad exercise in self-delusion and self-destruction -- the exchanging of a lie for the truth and worshiping creation instead of the Creator. If interested in my line of thinking check out 1 Corinthians 1.
Posted by Billy Noll on December 31,2010 | 03:04 PM
When they say America is a Christian nation, Christians are lying to everyone just trying to take credit for this country being as great as it is in hopes of making their religion look good. America is not a Christian nation; it's a car country. It is as powerful and successful as it is because even God cannot defeat a car nation, it says so in the bible. (Judges 1:19 And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.) Too bad Christians don't know squat about the truth and apparently not much about their very own bible.
Posted by Robert Huckabee on November 28,2010 | 10:18 AM
I am a fervent subscriber to Christopher Hitchens belief that "religion poisons everything"...
Posted by arthur mcallister on November 27,2010 | 05:50 PM
+ View All Comments