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.

But is it so?

The most famous dissidents within the Puritan community, Roger Williams and Anne Hutchinson, were banished following disagreements over theology and policy. From Puritan Boston’s earliest days, Catholics (“Papists”) were anathema and were banned from the colonies, along with other non-Puritans. Four Quakers were hanged in Boston between 1659 and 1661 for persistently returning to the city to stand up for their beliefs.

Throughout the colonial era, Anglo-American antipathy toward Catholics—especially French and Spanish Catholics—was pronounced and often reflected in the sermons of such famous clerics as Cotton Mather and in statutes that discriminated against Catholics in matters of property and voting. Anti-Catholic feelings even contributed to the revolutionary mood in America after King George III extended an olive branch to French Catholics in Canada with the Quebec Act of 1774, which recognized their religion.

When George Washington dispatched Benedict Arnold on a mission to court French Canadians’ support for the American Revolution in 1775, he cautioned Arnold not to let their religion get in the way. “Prudence, policy and a true Christian Spirit,” Washington advised, “will lead us to look with compassion upon their errors, without insulting them.” (After Arnold betrayed the American cause, he publicly cited America’s alliance with Catholic France as one of his reasons for doing so.)

In newly independent America, there was a crazy quilt of state laws regarding religion. In Massachusetts, only Christians were allowed to hold public office, and Catholics were allowed to do so only after renouncing papal authority. In 1777, New York State’s constitution banned Catholics from public office (and would do so until 1806). In Maryland, Catholics had full civil rights, but Jews did not. Delaware required an oath affirming belief in the Trinity. Several states, including Massachusetts and South Carolina, had official, state-supported churches.

In 1779, as Virginia’s governor, Thomas Jefferson had drafted a bill that guaranteed legal equality for citizens of all religions—including those of no religion—in the state. It was around then that Jefferson famously 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.” But Jefferson’s plan did not advance—until after Patrick (“Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death”) Henry introduced a bill in 1784 calling for state support for “teachers of the Christian religion.”

Future President James Madison stepped into the breach. In a carefully argued essay titled “Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments,” the soon-to-be father of the Constitution eloquently laid out reasons why the state had no business supporting Christian instruction. Signed by some 2,000 Virginians, Madison’s argument became a fundamental piece of American political philosophy, a ringing endorsement of the secular state that “should be as familiar to students of American history as the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution,” as Susan Jacoby has written in Freethinkers, her excellent history of American secularism.

Among Madison’s 15 points was his declaration that “the Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every...man to exercise it as these may dictate. This right is in its nature an inalienable right.”

Madison also made a point that any believer of any religion should understand: that the government sanction of a religion was, in essence, a threat to religion. “Who does not see,” he wrote, “that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects?” Madison was writing from his memory of Baptist ministers being arrested in his native Virginia.

As a Christian, Madison also noted that Christianity had spread in the face of persecution from worldly powers, not with their help. Christianity, he contended, “disavows a dependence on the powers of this world...for it is known that this Religion both existed and flourished, not only without the support of human laws, but in spite of every opposition from them.”

Recognizing the idea of America as a refuge for the protester or rebel, Madison also argued that Henry’s proposal was “a departure from that generous policy, which offering an Asylum to the persecuted and oppressed of every Nation and Religion, promised a lustre to our country.”

After long debate, Patrick Henry’s bill was defeated, with the opposition outnumbering supporters 12 to 1. Instead, the Virginia legislature took up Jefferson’s plan for the separation of church and state. In 1786, the Virginia Act for Establishing Religious Freedom, modified somewhat from Jefferson’s original draft, became law. The act is one of three accomplishments Jefferson included on his tombstone, along with writing the Declaration and founding the University of Virginia. (He omitted his presidency of the United States.) After the bill was passed, Jefferson proudly wrote that the law “meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew, the Gentile, the Christian and the Mahometan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.”

Madison wanted Jefferson’s view to become the law of the land when he went to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787. And as framed in Philadelphia that year, the U.S. Constitution clearly stated in Article VI that federal elective and appointed officials “shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution, but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”

This passage—along with the facts that the Constitution does not mention God or a deity (except for a pro forma “year of our Lord” date) and that its very first amendment forbids Congress from making laws that would infringe of the free exercise of religion—attests to the founders’ resolve that America be a secular republic. The men who fought the Revolution may have thanked Providence and attended church regularly—or not. But they also fought a war against a country in which the head of state was the head of the church. Knowing well the history of religious warfare that led to America’s settlement, they clearly understood both the dangers of that system and of sectarian conflict.

It was the recognition of that divisive past by the founders—notably Washington, Jefferson, Adams and Madison—that secured America as a secular republic. As president, Washington wrote in 1790: “All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunity of citizenship. ...For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens.”

He was addressing the members of America’s oldest synagogue, the Touro Synagogue in Newport, Rhode Island (where his letter is read aloud every August). In closing, he wrote specifically to the Jews a phrase that applies to Muslims as well: “May the children of the Stock of Abraham, who dwell in this land, continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other inhabitants, while every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and figtree, and there shall be none to make him afraid.”

As for Adams and Jefferson, they would disagree vehemently over policy, but on the question of religious freedom they were united. “In their seventies,” Jacoby writes, “with a friendship that had survived serious political conflicts, Adams and Jefferson could look back with satisfaction on what they both considered their greatest achievement—their role in establishing a secular government whose legislators would never be required, or permitted, to rule on the legality of theological views.”

Late in his life, James Madison wrote a letter summarizing his views: “And I have no doubt that every new example, will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt. will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.”

While some of America’s early leaders were models of virtuous tolerance, American attitudes were slow to change. The anti-Catholicism of America’s Calvinist past found new voice in the 19th century. The belief widely held and preached by some of the most prominent ministers in America was that Catholics would, if permitted, turn America over to the pope. Anti-Catholic venom was part of the typical American school day, along with Bible readings. In Massachusetts, a convent—coincidentally near the site of the Bunker Hill Monument—was burned to the ground in 1834 by an anti-Catholic mob incited by reports that young women were being abused in the convent school. In Philadelphia, the City of Brotherly Love, anti-Catholic sentiment, combined with the country’s anti-immigrant mood, fueled the Bible Riots of 1844, in which houses were torched, two Catholic churches were destroyed and at least 20 people were killed.

At about the same time, Joseph Smith founded a new American religion—and soon met with the wrath of the mainstream Protestant majority. In 1832, a mob tarred and feathered him, marking the beginning of a long battle between Christian America and Smith’s Mormonism. In October 1838, after a series of conflicts over land and religious tension, Missouri Governor Lilburn Boggs ordered that all Mormons be expelled from his state. Three days later, rogue militiamen massacred 17 church members, including children, at the Mormon settlement of Haun’s Mill. In 1844, a mob murdered Joseph Smith and his brother Hyrum while they were jailed in Carthage, Illinois. No one was ever convicted of the crime.

Even as late as 1960, Catholic presidential candidate John F. Kennedy felt compelled to make a major speech declaring that his loyalty was to America, not the pope. (And as recently as the 2008 Republican primary campaign, Mormon candidate Mitt Romney felt compelled to address the suspicions still directed toward the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.) Of course, America’s anti-Semitism was practiced institutionally as well as socially for decades. With the great threat of “godless” Communism looming in the 1950s, the country’s fear of atheism also reached new heights.

America can still be, as Madison perceived the nation in 1785, “an Asylum to the persecuted and oppressed of every Nation and Religion.” But recognizing that deep religious discord has been part of America’s social DNA is a healthy and necessary step. When we acknowledge that dark past, perhaps the nation will return to that “promised...lustre” of which Madison so grandiloquently wrote.

Kenneth C. Davis is the author of Don’t Know Much About History and A Nation Rising, among other books.

Single Page 1 2 3 4 Next »

Subscribe now for more of Smithsonian's coverage on history, science and nature.

Comments (123)

our middle school teaches this!

Posted by elizabeth on February 8,2013 | 12:41 PM

being a cristion is awsome

Posted by william on January 31,2013 | 10:27 AM

The writer of this article would do well to point out that Catholics in Florida predated the Huguenot settlement by 51 years. Florida was not some Huguenot safe haven before Catholics arrived. Maybe that wasn't the point the author was making, maybe it was close. Regardless, Davis has a good point though misguided.

Posted by JohnG on January 29,2013 | 12:17 AM

I agree that religious persecution is wrong.

Posted by robert skurlock on November 26,2012 | 12:26 PM

Religious persecution has become so common that atheism is trendy, and believing in God is seen as a sign of ignorance. I am an American born Jew. Militant Atheism is a religion. There are so many atheist forums and on YouTube people who have made hundreds of videos which are all about trashing religion. . I am Jewish, and the fact that is now "OK" to persecute Jews is disgusting., even worse is trying to start a "holy war" by equating Christians and Anti-Semitism. there are Jews Alive right now who survived the "Final Solution" and the religious persecution of Jews remain. Just because you can say something doesn't mean you should, We(Jews) are pacifists and pretty much keep to ourselves. I respect a persons right to believe (or not believe) in anything they want. That respect goes bothways, if you believe you are better than someone solely based on the fact they are Jewish,Christian, Muslim...etc. You are a bigot. Good Job on covering the holocaust, I guess it's not a part of American History or just a small footnote. Am Yisrael Chai

Posted by Anonymous999 on November 18,2012 | 09:23 AM

Thank you, Smithsonian, for underscoring the complexities that religious beliefs by people from many origins brought to the Americas. The last decades have somehow propagated the myth that America was founded as a Christian nation and that christians came to America in order to practice their faith. I see from many comments above that history is not a strong subject matter for many and many wish to see the myth or variations on it continue. I underscore the intent of the article emphasis on knowing the facts of history (and reading original text) in order to understand the basis for the "..wall of separation.." between church and state and the the freedom it allows for both church and state.

Posted by ouali on November 1,2012 | 01:25 PM

To Kim, who posted on April 3 2012 at 11:29 AM: Thank you. Well said. Hear! Hear! And may God save our beloved fraternal republic from public-trough-slurping revisionist Leftards.

Posted by Brian Richard Allen on September 25,2012 | 09:14 PM

My high school actually does teach about this. It's quite revealing on how our country was established through deception and murder of the Native Americans.

Posted by Zach on September 20,2012 | 07:43 PM

In light of recent events, I thought this Library of Congress article from 2002 on the subject of the Founding Fathers and Islam would be pertinent to the conversation. It includes a reference to Jefferson's autobiographical mention of "Mahometans" cited in my article above: http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/0205/tolerance.html

Posted by Kenneth C. Davis on September 19,2012 | 05:11 PM

A good overview; I wanted to learn more. I was surprised by the comments. The article seemed fair, accurate, and insightful to me. Indeed, a positive history of how we have evolved as we still struggle with religious differences and government involvement.

Posted by Bruce on September 14,2012 | 01:35 AM

The day an athiest member of congress gets elected, then America will be tolerant.

Posted by Richard on September 10,2012 | 08:44 AM

It's nice to see of the thoughts of the founding fathers concerning religion. They all seem to be expressing their personal beliefs, which is great. We all have our opinions on religion. However, I don't see a single one where one of the founders advocates the creation of a "Christian Nation".

Posted by Edward Joseph on July 8,2012 | 09:45 PM

this is a good site too use

Posted by mollee on June 4,2012 | 01:50 PM

To Barbara, who quotes the fraud David Barton on the Treaty of Tripoli: You have so overstated your case as to have made it utterly irrelevant. Nothing whatever in your post supports the notion that the U.S. was "founded as a Christian nation." How does the fact that George Washington never saw the treaty support the "truth" that America was founded as a Christian nation? You say it is "absurd" that John Adams would have endorsed any provision which "repudiated" Christianity, yet Adams signed the treaty without objection to the language repudiating the idea that America was "a Christian nation." No Senator raised any objection to the language, either. Some of them had been at the Constitutional Convention. Wouldn't they have noticed if the Treaty of Tripoli had contravened the intent of the Constitution-makers? The Treaty of Tripoli, whether you or David Barton like it or not, was a binding document. It expressed the official position of the United States government. You'll just have to deal with that fact.

Posted by Jeff Reeves on May 10,2012 | 10:02 AM

IN RESPONSE TO THE PERSON WHO INVOKED THE "Treaty of Tripoli" post to refute that America was founded as a Christian nation, read the following truth that supports the fact that America WAS founded as a Christian nation: Those who attribute the Treaty of Tripoli quote to George Washington make two mistakes. The first is that no statement in it can be attributed to Washington (the treaty did not arrive in America until months after he left office); Washington never saw the treaty; it was not his work; no statement in it can be ascribed to him. The second mistake is to divorce a single clause of the treaty from the remainder which provides its context. It would also be absurd to suggest that President Adams (under whom the treaty was ratified in 1797) would have endorsed or assented to any provision which repudiated Christianity. In fact, while discussing the Barbary conflict with Jefferson, Adams declared: The policy of Christendom has made cowards of all their sailors before the standard of Mahomet. It would be heroical and glorious in us to restore courage to ours. 25 Furthermore, it was Adams who declared: The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were. . . . the general principles of Christianity. . . . I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God; and that those principles of liberty are as unalterable as human nature. 26 Adams' own words confirm that he rejected any notion that America was less than a Christian nation. Source - David Barton, Wallbuilders

Posted by Barbara on May 5,2012 | 07:45 PM

Excellent article. There is a minor correction about the Mormons. Gov. Boggs of Missouri issued "Missouri Executive Order 44" also known as the Mormon Extermination Order. One line says "....Mormons.....must be exterminated or driven from the state". Extermination means to kill. Gov. Boggs did not care how the Mormons were gotten rid of from his state. The Mormons were driven away but many were killed and many died on the trek to what is now Utah. It is a shame that religious intolerance is still prevalent in the United States today.

Posted by jan on May 3,2012 | 04:26 PM

I was very surprised when I read this article because I didnt know about this kind of religious dispute .

Posted by Reshma Tamrakar on April 21,2012 | 05:08 PM

One can tell how intolerant American has become by just reading the comments. In fact, American is now more intolerant than Europe. I know, I have live in both.

Posted by A. Lochin on April 12,2012 | 07:50 PM

Posted by diane baumgart on April 9,2012 | 04:21 PM

From the comments received it seems that a series of articles, complete with quotes and references, is needed to detail the history of religion in America, point by point, and period by period. Such would provide teachers and university professors reasonably accurate resource information on this question. We cannot hope to solve the problem of separation of church and state until those ignorant of what has been a long-term national problem have an opportunity to examine the historical information. Included in such a series would be the divergent views of the various religious groups on specific points regarding the separation of church and state. Finally, the series should include the conditions across Europe that caused our founding fathers to take their positions regarding this question.

Posted by Charles on April 7,2012 | 02:58 PM

Thank you Luigi and the others here who are calling this article bogus. We the People are fed up with liberal attempts at hijacking truth and liberty, such as this article sponsored by Smithsonian! Once again, the "progressive" left is attempting to distort; even erase and rewrite facts in our history. Shame on you, Smithsonian, for your pathetic, transparent contribution. Our family will terminate monetary contributions until your lens is cleaned and restored. Good day.

Posted by Kim on April 3,2012 | 11:29 AM

What a bunch of leftists bunk. Get over it. For crying out loud. Than anti-Americanism couldn't get more transparent. At least you could practice more originality. So, basically, we're getting more of the left's main complaint: THE UNITED STATES ISN'T PERFECT! What nation is? Let's look at the OVERALL record. I'd say Americans have demonstrated tremendous understanding and acceptance. Strange that leftists like those at the government-run Smithsonian look to europe for enlightenment--hardly a place which has ever or currently practices tolerance of any kind.

Posted by Mario on April 3,2012 | 09:57 AM

This article shows how true it is by the comments. Everyone gets offended by the truth, especially the Christians LoL

Posted by John on March 30,2012 | 11:59 AM

Et tu Smithsonian. Well, it was to be expected. After all, you are in D.C. This is an attempt by a "has been" credible institution to create anti-religious feelings. Name a single country on earth where there are so many religions and so much tolerance for all of them. You cannot, because it doesn't exist. America is where the pilgrims and puritans came to escape religious persecution in Europe. What is my source of information? Well, first, it is myself. My family came to America in the 1700's [maybe even earlier] for that reason and I have my family tree with documentation to prove it. I know others who can trace their families back that far and they also have the same history. Don't let our domestic enemies re-write history to suit their agenda. They are only interested in tearing down everything our founders built for us. Contrary to the progressive agenda, the founding fathers did an amazing job of starting a country.

Posted by Luigi on March 21,2012 | 12:37 AM

To: Phillip C. Smith

I havent heard of a time where a muslim has hurt anyone or took over another's property. Ive never heard of a Muslim terrorizing someone in the states, and I urge you to read about the religion before making any comments. I live in a Muslim neighborhood and your comments are not true at all. Religion doesnt poison everything, its man who interprets religion to fit his needs.

Posted by Kathy Mustafa on March 10,2012 | 05:06 PM

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

After reading all of the comments poated here, the author's point is proved.

Posted by Martin Pal on November 27,2010 | 03:23 PM

Too bad that Chistine O'Donnell, running for the US Senate seat in the state of Delaware, did not read the article in the October issue entitled "God and Country" before her debate with her opponent Chris Coons. She might have had a "heads up" about where in the Constitution the separation of church and state is guaranteed. The founding fathers were wiser than many people are today in providing for a secular state with religious freedom for all.

Posted by Kathy Heuer on November 18,2010 | 07:54 PM

After reading this history I now realize why I feel so strongly about the Atheistic viewpoint that nothing "religious" should be tolerated in schools. Not even a prayer before class starts, which all but one student had voted to participate in. People and Govt fail to understand that Atheism is a strong belief which is anti-religious! Therefore a religion of it's own! Per the author; Jefferson said legal equality for all; but that is not the case today. Madison's point: "the religion of every man must be left to the Conviction and Conscience of every...man. This is an inalienable right"! As the author states there is to be a Seperation of Church and State but this has not been truly the case. The Judicial System is the "State". A "State" system. The highest authority in Govt. Atheism is the new "religion", Atheism is the new Qualification for the Govt, the new sectarian conflict, the religious context that is required as a Qualification to office and "Public Trust". Atheism is a clear sectarian conflict!
As far as the Muslim Community Center and Mosque are concerned, the language the author quotes is that George Washington stated in part that "the Children and Stock of Abraham who dwelt in the land shall continue to merit & enjoy the good will of the other inhabitants while every one shall sit in safety under his own vine, & there shall be none to make him afraid". Yet the citizens of New York are feeling afraid. Yet the Government has interferred simply by deciding cases within the confines of the law & the supreme court's making of law. Clearly the minority rules. Yes, everybody but the majority rules these days. And that includes the "religious". Seperation of Church & State has been breached. The minority rules.... This article has cleared up my confusion in my own mind about why it is that a simple minority can file a lawsuit & still deprive the majority. The government has made unconstitutional decisions.

Posted by Still Standing on November 17,2010 | 12:05 AM

Isn't it grand that it is possible for one's education to go on and on. I love this country, and I love this Communication.

Posted by J. Paton Marshall on November 15,2010 | 06:24 PM

Everyone is making comments about how Mr. Davis left out this and left out that and blah blah blah, but I suppose if he was writing an entire book he would have included what you deem is important. I don't believe he had motives to leave out large parts of American history. If he included everything everyone feels is important, then there would be no point in having it as an article on a website. Honestly.

Also, it is important to note that just because currently there are certain things done in this society that reflect us as being a "Christian Nation" it does not mean these reflect the beliefs of the Founding Fathers. In fact, I believe both George and Tom (and Abe for that matter) would be completely disgusted with the way our country is run currently. What "we the people" find important in our government now was absolutely not necessary during their time.

You have to give amazing credit to these men that had the courage to say NO to the idea that religion should rule the society. They were able to set aside their own opinions (by the way, Thomas Jefferson did not consider himself a Christian) and declare laws that prohibited the advancement of any certain group of people, Christian or not. While their times were flawed with Tom having slaves and believing in that institution, you cannot expect someone to be absolutely infallible (unless you believe in the supernatural, which by the term proves unreasonable and also completely up for debate).

I think what can most be drawn from this article is the importance of education on the matter. Maybe if we can teach our children that the men who created this country believed in religious tolerance, they can learn some themselves

Posted by Emily on November 11,2010 | 03:19 PM

Sometimes I forget that this accurate version of history is not common knowledge -- that the early settlers we venerate as superhuman men of God were, in fact, religous zealots and extremists who persecuted and even killed those who believed differently. . . rather similarly to the persecution we say they came here to escape. And that only around the time of the drafting of the Constitution was "religious freedom" engrafted into the fabric of our political experience. Ironically, some people now turn to those same early extremists for quotes (which are not difficult to find) to support the argument that America is, and should remain, a Christian nation.

Posted by BP on November 2,2010 | 11:54 PM

Mayhap the author and commenters confuse religious tolerance with religious freedom. The law of the land is immutable and indeed something the Founding Fathers had specifically intended and proven by their own words in letters, tracts and official government documents. That is religious freedom.

How or if those laws are interpreted and enforced are subject to the vagaries of individuals and the prevailing zeitgeist. That is religious tolerance or lack thereof.

Posted by Rita Ashley on October 31,2010 | 01:46 PM

@ K. Wellman:

How is refusing to accept something due to lack of hard evidence a religion? I think you may need to do just a *bit* more research on the subject of atheism.

Posted by mattand on October 27,2010 | 12:09 PM

The printed version of this article is entitled "God and Country," whereas the online version has the title "America's True History of Religious Tolerance." Why was it changed?

Posted by Dan Blanks on October 25,2010 | 04:59 PM

All that stuff that the writer thinks is true about Christians and the Pilgrims is wrong! And just to let you know, the Puritans WERE the Pilgrims, dummy! Man, I don't think the writer put ANY research into this article! Very poorly written...

Posted by imrightallthetime on October 23,2010 | 09:14 PM

The bottom line is that hatred, bigotry, and religious, class, sexual, and economic intolerance are the hallmarks of this country. Sadly I don't see this changing any time in the foreseeable future.

Posted by B. Gibson on October 22,2010 | 09:11 AM

I was astonished that the article makes no mention of Pennsylvania which was established by Quakers as a haven for religious freedom. While the Quakers were in power there was considerable religious tolerance.

It is true that the US has a history of anti-Catholicism. Even to this day there is a large number of conservative evangelical Protestants who do consider Catholics Christian. America's formation as a nation, however, was distinctively Protestant and it is impossible to understand the evolution of the Republic without taking into consideration the long history of Protestantism that preceded the Revolution and that influenced intellectual thought, mores and laws after the Revolution. While the 18th century was the Age of Enlightenment and a number of the Founding Fathers were Deists, a string strain of Protestantism has always influenced American life. Concepts of religious tolerance must be considered in the context of history. Seventeenth, eighteenth and nineteenth century Americans had a different mindset with little respect for Catholicism which they considered retrograde in the light of Reformation thinking, the guiding philosophy of the earliest American colonists.

As for Mormonism, it is questionable that it can be considered Christian as the revelations of Joseph Smith are rejected by all Christian denominations. While not justifying 19th century attacks on Mormons, the practice of polygamy was surely a serious provocation to the American Christian way of life.

On the whole, I found this article unnecessarily narrow minded. The US (and the predecessor colonies) has a long history of religious freedom - far better than that of other nations. The good far outweighs the bad.

Posted by Matthew on October 21,2010 | 11:14 PM

Any article with "true history" in the title should raise eyebrows. Daniel Webster's speech on religious tolerance, given on the Centennial honoring Roger Williams, has a more "thematic" view of our religious heritage. Webster eloquently noted that every time in America's history a religious group was ostracized, they simply moved on and started their own community. Early Rhode Island was once a sea of differing religious communities,each formed after some dispute with a mother religious community.
By the time of the revolution there were too many religions to count in all colonial rural areas. What brought them together? The letters of Adams or Jefferson? Arguments given by Madison?--Hardly! They were brought together, by necessity, against the largest and most capably fighting force on earth at the time: the (Anglican)British Empire. If Davis had argued that Britain was responsible for our religious diversity and tolerance, he would be much closer to the "mark" if not to the "truth." It just was not possible to fight such an Empire if serious religious disagreements were occurring in the colonial ranks. Necessity and geography had as much to do with our religious freedoms and tolerance as the writings of the Founders, great as they are.
America was never "in truth" a land of intolerance with European-style biases preying on the population. Those seeking religious freedom in a great and bountiful land planted the seeds, nursed by geography, that coalesced into a successful fight against the British Empire. For perhaps the first time in many centuries,the diversity of religions contributed to victory, as opposed to sole allegiance to one religion, as the British with their Anglicanism. This, I think, is more in line with our proud heritage than random "post-it" notes on our failings.

Posted by Dan Biezad on October 20,2010 | 04:14 PM

Conservative Christians should be eliminated. They have fought against any minority to get equal rights as them, when they have the majority, this since the beginning of America. These people want to be perceived as "victims" when they aren't, but their bible tells them to be martyrs and that the more they suffer for their faith, the more their god would be pleased. So I say, given them what they want, bring back the lions, and lets watch them all get shredded and eaten to death.

Posted by Corey Mondello on October 18,2010 | 06:10 PM

It was nice to see atheism included in an article on religion even though a lot of atheists don't see atheism for the religion that it is. If you look up the definition of religion in Webster's Dictionary you'll probably see what I mean. My only other comment is that in order to get 13 separate colonies of different religious persuasion to pass a constitution it was necessary that the constitution not promote any particular brand of religion. It could not have worked any other way. The founding fathers were being practical. Religious freedom happened because of religious intolerance.

Posted by K. Wellman on October 18,2010 | 05:47 PM

What so many of the commenters fail to address, after much bleating about how Christian the founders were, is why they utterly FAILED to mention Christianity in the Constitution? No Yahweh, no Jesus, no Lord God of Israel. Just squat.

Quotation after quotation affirming the absolute belief by the founders in the own religious views and yet, AND YET, nada, zero, zilch, nothing was put into the Constitution to make this point. NOTHING.

I think they need to face up to the rather simple and obvious fact that either the founders just weren't as Christian as they want to believe they were or the founders simply didn't want this nation to be yet another flag bearer for Christianity in the world.

Posted by Michael T. Hollingshead on October 18,2010 | 12:34 PM

I'm sorry, but anyone who thinks Mormonism is a form of Christianity is mistaken. I am a theologian by training. Dogmatically and doctrinally, Mormons are NOT Christians. Their theologies are absolutely divergent and exclusive of the other. This is not to say that one is better than the other. I am saying that they ARE different. And to lump them into the same category is uninformed and misguided. Just because they USE the Bible does not mean they interpret or apply it in the same manner as Chrisitans. And I know of NO mainline Chrisitans---or any Christians for that matter---who believe Mormonism is a sect of Christianity. Jehovah's Witnesses also use the Bible...but they are NOT theologically Christian.

Posted by Aaron on October 17,2010 | 04:00 PM

Like most secular views of our American history the author of this tirade is quick to point out the obvious... that there are bad apples in every bushel. The irony is that the mistakes of others are used as an excuse to perpetuate an attitude of ignorance when it comes to our history and individual faith. While most secular minded individuals believe that religion and a belief system are the same thing, spirit filled folks know that isn't the case. How different the view of history becomes through both lenses. Take into consideration this article is referencing secular authors and the bias is revealed. I therefore question the entire validity of the sources used in concocting this sneer at American History and therefore the organizations standards for allowing it to be published. Reader beware! If you want an accurate and truthful view of our history, take the time to read the original documents versus some pontificating "scholar" whose most likely quoting some secular revisionist of post 1916. I wish you well in your journey of discovery... that our nation was founded by God fearing spirit filled blood washed forgiving followers of Christ. Not some nation of accidental secularists that on their own initiative figured out a decent form of government. Only the ignorant and unyielding would describe such a thing. Regardless, I encourage all who reads this to do their own independent research seeking the facts versus listening to opinions.

Posted by Tired of Secular Revisionists on October 17,2010 | 02:41 PM

Minor point, but the term "grandiloquently," which is used in the article to characterize Madison's comments, is usually used as a pejorative to mean "pompous" or "bombastic." It is not used to mean "especially eloquent."

Posted by Swift Loris on October 17,2010 | 10:44 AM

Religion breeds intolerance. Even if it preaches love, it's only love for the "right" people.

Posted by Nancy Whitman on October 15,2010 | 12:05 PM

The separation of Church and State was intended to protect the Church from the Government, not the other way around, so that we all have the freedom from government interference.

Posted by Chuck on October 15,2010 | 10:03 AM

David,

The problem is that there IS a religious test for public office now. It's not explicit and compulsory, but just as real. Politicians fall all over each other in front of the media to see who can be more pious. It's disgusting, embarrassing, and look at the quality of our political leaders over the last couple of decades.

Posted by TalkingSnake on October 14,2010 | 10:30 PM

one of the problems with freedom is that millions of others have their own ideas about what freedom means and soon without proper rules, and the support of them nations descend into anarchy because confusion reigns as to what which freedom a nation should hold to. it is clear that those who blame christianity for life's ills just do not understand what christianity is and they use those who do not follow its teachings but claim membership in the faith to influence their conclusions.
people are often misguided to what christianity teaches and it is partly due to the fact that they do not believe what is contained in the Bible and they want to pursue their desires not God's way.
interesting article but leaves out too much information to be of real use.

Posted by archaeologist on October 14,2010 | 07:32 PM

Allan Lykins said:
"Mormons ARE Christians and recognized as such by other sects of Christianity. They use the Bible (King James) and believe Jesus Christ to be the son of God. Get it straight, you might be quoted by someone else who does not do their own homework."

In fact, Allan, go back 60 years in this country and you'll find that the Mormons didn't really talk about Jesus much. They distanced themselves from Christianity. They believe in a god who is a flesh-and-blood being who was once human; that Jesus, Lucifer, and all of humanity are literally siblings - souls born of the sexual union of the bodily God and his numerous wives; that there are three heavens (celestial, terrestrial, and telestial); that there are many gods who compete with each other (hence the reference to God as Heavenly Father rather than THE Heavenly Father); and that human beings can become gods of our own universes if we live our lives as Temple-worthy Mormons (this is called the Doctrine of Exaltation - do your OWN homework!).

They're about as far from a Christian sect as you could possibly get, without being a Scientologist.

Posted by Michael McElroy on October 14,2010 | 06:41 PM

If you're really interested in this stuff and are open-minded, see this brief video: http://ur.ly/nQ4k .

Posted by Steve on October 14,2010 | 06:11 PM

Kenneth C. Davis' excellent article "God and Country" debunks well the American myth that our history is one of religious tolerance. However, he (perhaps unwittingly) accepts another myth promulgated by the Mormon church (officially the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) about Mormon persecutions in the 19th century.

The tarring and feathering of Mormon founder Smith was done not by an anti-Mormon mob, but by his own followers, led by the brothers of a young woman to whom Smith had made improper sexual advances. Governor Boggs' order to drive the Mormons from his state was the direct result of an inflammatory sermon by Mormon leader Sidney Rigdon in which Rigdon declared a "war of extermination" against non-Mormon Missourians, who were rightly fearful of the Mormon assertion that God had given them Missouri as a "land of inheritance." The massacre at Haun's Mill must be seen in comparison with the Mormon burning and looting of Gallatin, Missouri, during the "Mormon War," in which historians such as Stephen LeSueur (The 1838 Mormon War in Missouri, Univ. of Missouri, 1990) place blame on intolerance (political, not religious) on both sides. And Smith's murder by a mob in 1844 at Carthage jail was a result of Smith's own intolerance for dissent, since he had been arrested and imprisoned for destroying a dissident newspaper that had exposed his abuses of power and his illegal and secret practice of polygamy.

Thus the Mormons' claims of persecution were the result of their own intolerance and their political (not religious) ambitions. Davis could also have mentioned the frequent persecution of "Gentiles" and Mormon dissenters in Utah under Brigham Young, to balance the picture.

Posted by Richard Packham on October 14,2010 | 05:42 PM

Craig Hundelt swings and misses:
"God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God ? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed,I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just;that His Justice cannot sleep forever."

Where in that statement does it say "christian"? Did you not read the part of the article that said the founding fathers constructed the Constitution to ensure a secular nation DESPITE the fact that they were christians? And Jefferson himself was not a christian, he was a deist. He said in other writings that he saw no use for any particular religion, it was not up to religion to define the way he perceived god.

Try again.

Posted by Richard Fraser on October 14,2010 | 02:49 PM

John Actons comments are nothing more than a series of non-sequitors and quote mining. The best case of a quote taken entirely out of context due to the misreading of one word is:

"The catholic principle of republicanism [is] that every people may establish what form of government they please and change it as they please, the will of the nation being the only thing essential." --Thomas Jefferson: The Anas, 1792. ME 1:330

To Mr. Acton, the usage of the word "catholic" means Thomas Jefferson implied republicanism was a Roman Catholic principle.

But it's the wrong definition of the word catholic. Used by Mr. Jefferson, it meant "of universal scope". But hey, don't let that get in the way of a good argument.

Posted by Richard Fraser on October 14,2010 | 02:42 PM

Some here are seizing the one sentence regarding America as a Christian nation and not paying any regard to the main theme of the article - that no semblance of religious tolerance was present in the founding of the colonies. That came later and, more importantly, by design of the founding fathers.

Posted by bullet on October 14,2010 | 02:12 PM

@ Steve Cornell,

A lot of anthropologists and archeologists point out that life was more violent in primitive times than today. They conclude that inter-tribal warfare killed more people per capita than 20th century World Wars.

And during most periods of European history we have limited statistics on thefts, assaults and deaths due to crime and war. Diseases were rampant of course, sometimes famines, and women died in childbirth.

I will say this about the rise of fascism and communism in the 20th century, they were both belligerant ideologies sworn to destroy each other. Moreover, Christianized Europeans with plenty of churches and prayers were destroying each other with the most advanced weapons at their disposal during World War 1, including firing poison gas shells at each other, and the Russian revolution succeeded during the last year of World War 1 while Europe was busy gassing itself. And Chinese communism arose in reaction to China having been exploited by foreign powers for centuries, and then invaded by Japan. Sadly that's how history works. Communism was an idealogue driven system that even invites comparison to a religion since it promised a worker's paradise, and replaced the devil with the bourgeousie, and had a holy manifesto in Russia, and a holy little red book in China.

The Good Old Days?
http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/babinski/religious-right.html

See Also

Do You Fear What Might Happen If The World Believed In Evolution? Long For A Return to "The Good Old Days?"
http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/belief_evolution.html

Posted by Edward T. Babinski on October 14,2010 | 02:06 PM

@John Acton

I feel compelled to point out that in all your quote mining only three specifically mention religion and none are relevant unless one believes the fallacy that religion is required for morality or virtue. The ratio of Christians to atheists in the prison system turns that opinion directly on its ear.

I also have to take issue with your correlation of burning Korans in the United State to Muslims burning churches and murdering Christians. I know of no atheists who are not outraged by the religiously motivated murders happening all over the world. If you are suggesting that I as an atheist harbor more animosity towards Christianity than I do any other repressive religion, you have obviously not taken the time to learn much about atheism. You are also ignoring the fact that, not so long ago, Christians in this country were also burning churches and murdering innocents for a similarly ridiculous reason - the skin color of those inside.
-----
As to those who equate Catholics with Christians, you are either ignorant or in denial of continuing anti-Catholic bias in this country. Neither Catholics nor Mormons are regarded as True Christians(tm) by the vast majority of those of the Protestant faiths. Don't believe me? Grow up Catholic in a predominantly Protestant area, like I did.

Posted by bullet on October 14,2010 | 02:03 PM

Treaty of Tripoli

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

Authored by American diplomat Joel Barlow in 1796.
Senate on June 7, 1797 unanimously approved.
John Adams signed it and proudly proclaimed it to the Nation.

Posted by Eric Youngstrom on October 14,2010 | 11:24 AM

Just another reason why religion fails and one day hopefully will be given up by rational people.

Posted by momentofsciencetx on October 14,2010 | 10:25 AM

@Mr Acton: Yes, communists suppressed Christianity. But to claim that they did no because of their professed (not actual) atheism is bunk. Communists suppressed other religions because they saw them as rival to their own. Communism, you see, is itself a religion; their claim to Atheism is only correct insofar as they did not believe in a "personal" god. But Communists do believe in the supernatural, in the form of the "Historical Dialectic"; in this, they are similar to the American Right, which believes in a so-called "Manifest Destiny". Communism has (had) articles of faith and relied entirely on arguments from authority, something anathema for an Atheist, but something which is fundamental to religion.

So please take the time to understand what you are talking about before slandering people.

Posted by JJGDR on October 14,2010 | 09:46 AM

There seems to be a common misconception among believers that atheists, or more specifically, atheistic regimes like those of North Korea, Soviet Russia, China, and Pol Pot's Cambodia, have been persecuting and killing Christians in the name of atheism. That's pure hogwash.
These regimes persecute Christians in the pursuit of power, nothing more. Christians believe in a greater power than the state and this is intolerable to the totalitarians and has nothing to do with atheism.

Posted by Berny G on October 14,2010 | 09:36 AM

Paul Reim writes above, "America IS a Christian nation!" as if capitalizing will make it true. Aside from all other arguments presented by the author of this article and our "godless" constitution, we have the Treaty of Tripoli, unanimously passed by the Senate in 1796, Article 11 of which reads:

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen,—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

Posted by Robert Schneider on October 14,2010 | 09:25 AM

I hear in the evocative pleas of the Native Americans a cry of solidarity with my people. The people of no faith. As your faiths have been excluded from the secular nation's consideration, so have the 16% of the U.S who choose to practice no religion.

First Americans, join with the Secular Coalition of America to fight for representation!

Posted by Rob Schneider on October 14,2010 | 09:12 AM

The founding fathers were actually not mostly christians. They were deists such as freemasons.
And the mention of god doesn't state which one. It also isn't a statment about the belief in christ.

Freedom of religion means all religions and also from religion.

Statements with the tone of 'well they burn churches down in other countries so why is it such a problem that we burn a few korans' is similar to 'well that person is stealing stuff/beating people up/etc. so why is it a problem that I am also'?
How is that intolerance any different than their intolerance? It is best to work on improving yourself.

Comments about Stalin, Pol Pot, etc. being atheists, isn't entirely accurate. They just wanted the religion to be about them. They wanted to be worshiped, they wouldn't allow others to be worshipped.
And as a counter point, what of the christian leaders of various countries perpetrating pograms/exterminations, etc. of other religions? Hitler was a christian and tried to exterminate people of other religions.
What about how France seriously damaged their economy for decades because of the catholic persecution of protestants?

There are consequences to a government promoting any one religion. Washington, Jefferson and the others tried to keep government out of religion and religion out of government.

Posted by Kim on October 13,2010 | 11:18 PM

I think it also important to remember that the founding fathers had the bitter memory of 200 years of religious wars in Europe guiding their thoughts. Nothing is more savage or devastating: both sides are convinced that God is on their side and even death brings glory. Given the differing religious foundations of many of the states, it would have been clear that - if the states were ever to be united - they would first have to defuse this potentially most volatile and dangerous threat to working together.

Posted by Rev. Peter Schiefelbein on October 13,2010 | 10:25 PM

Learned in school as a youth, my understanding of the reason our founding fathers included Freedom on Religion as a precept for our nation was because they knew each other too well. No one wanted to let any of the other religious groups get the upper hand. It was set in place to forestall that competitive religious mind-set that existed everywhere in Europe.

I view it as the moment when the world seriously began to embrace true religious tolerance--without a state religion as enforcer. I could be wrong; I'm not a historian.

Posted by M D Reser on October 13,2010 | 07:08 PM

Posted by Jessie Jay on September 27,2010 | 10:51 PM

"Like the many various religions that people have been persecuted for believing in, Atheism has a bad rep too"

atheism has no prayers, no churches, no songs to sing to an invisible creator, it is not a religion

Posted by J Frost on October 12,2010 | 02:19 AM

Donald Botsai notes that he is "perplexed by the author's distinguishing between Christians and Catholicsm in his earlier paragraphs. While there is debate about how 'Christian' Mormons are, there are few today who would argue that Catholics are not Christian." True enough today, but not always. In the late 1940s, a neighbor of mine, who was a Southern Baptist, told me flatly that Catholics are not Christians. When I protested that I was a Catholic and regarded myself as a Christian, he told me I was wrong. He was reflecting the teachings of his church and would brook no discussion to the contrary.

Posted by Martin Parker on October 12,2010 | 12:22 AM

"America's True History of Religious Tolerance" is a bit of a misleading title. I don't think that because something happened within the geographic bounds of an area that it really justifies that event to be part of a later countries history. For example, the Spanish established convents are exactly that--Spanish. Moreover, French Protestants are just that as well--French.

Also, I'm not quite sure if the existence of laws really means that they were enforced, and I'm not really too certain if the laws that were mentioned really carried weight for the argument. One reason, many of the laws mentioned didn't have dates attached, and so it's difficult to judge their relevance. This leads me to believe that these facts were shaped subtly so as to bolster an already unconvincing claim.

I believe that a more appropriate way to approach the subject matter would be to talk about the proposed philosophy of religious tolerance of said nation, in this is essay it's the United States. So, because the nation was not quite shaped nor was national identity until sometime after what I like to call the feeler years of American history, I think that one can legitimately claim that the United States has been a religiously tolerant country since its inception.

Posted by One Who Walked Away on October 12,2010 | 11:26 PM

How is it that those most likely to believe that the US is being punished by God for the transgressions of its citizens never wonder whether the rise to power of people like themselves and the US' ensuing actions might be the thing that God is upset with?

Posted by gzuckier on October 12,2010 | 08:44 PM

Mr. Davis, perhaps in an effort to overstate a valid point, conveniently ignores more than 100 years of history as well as a semial document in America's push towards the free practice of religion. He's article gives the impression that religious freedom in America was not advocated until the later seventeen hundreds. However, in 1657 Edward Hart who was the Town Clerk of what is now Flushing, N.Y., drafted a petition known as the Flushing Remonstrance. This document was signed by some thirty one fellow townsmen including several other town officials. This petition was in direct opposition to the Director-General "Peter" Stuyvesant's decree prohibiting anyone from harboring Quakers. The Flushing Remonstrance asserts that any person who "come in love unto us, cannot in conscience lay violet hands upon them" Upon receipt Stuyvesant arrested several of the signers who were forced to recant and admit their "error" Nevertheless, Mr. John Bowne who was arrested and banshished, managed to convince West India Company directors to reject Stuyvesants decree and in 1663 grant religious tolerance in accord with the precepts of the Flushing Remonstrance.

Posted by Peter E. Suter on October 11,2010 | 10:54 PM

In this otherwise excellent and educational article, there is the passage "...the pitched battles between various sects and, more explosively, between Protestants and Catholics, present an unavoidable contradiction to the widely held notion that America is a 'Christian nation."" While many people use the term "Christian" as a code word for their particular sect of usually fundamentalist Protestantism, the fact is that all Protestant denominations, as well as Catholicism, are types of Christianity. Conflicts between any of these groups has nothing to do with the question of whether America is or is not a "Christian nation." It's like saying sibling rivalry "contradicts" the fact that the squabblers have the same two parents.
I expect this magazine to use words correctly, and get the logic straight. Where was the editing before this went to press? Who failed to tell the author "This passage makes no sense. Fix it."?

Posted by Jean SmilingCoyote on October 8,2010 | 06:05 PM

Some commentors seem to believe that there can be no morality or virtue without religion, which is nonsense, just as it is nonsense to suppose that all religious people are moral and virtuous.

Also, the fact that people are sworn into office on the Bible (although they can chose other religious texts or simply affirm) does not mean that there is no separation of church and state. What makes for that separation is that there shall be no religious test for election or appointment to an office. A secular state is not to be equated with a "godless" state.

I'm a dedicated athiest myself, but I do think that some objections to religious symbols in government buildings and on government land go to rediculous extremes

Posted by David J. Dick on October 6,2010 | 02:47 PM

Among others who have attacked this article, I am perplexed by the author's distinguishing between Christians and Catholicsm in his earlier paragraphs. While there is debate about how "Christian" Mormons are, there are few today who would argue that Catholics are not Christian. He has also totally ignored the place of Orthodoxy (primarily Russian and Greek Orthodox) in the history of religious tolerance. And what about other sects and denominations, Shakers, Quakers, Seventh Day Adventists, and Jehovah's witnesses. All in all a pretty poorly done article.

Posted by Donald Botsai on October 3,2010 | 04:26 PM

What a strange omission of New York and NYC history in an article that begins there. The Dutch origins - and the reluctant religious tolerance - of an important founding state didn't get any treatment here at all. While I have no disagreement with this esteemed author's argument, without such reference, the story simply isn't complete.

Since I recently enjoyed the book "The Island at the Center of the World," which makes the argument about the lasting impact of the Dutch on the US history, I'm compelled to mention it here to complete the narrative.

On a side note, I'm still truly astonished at the inability of the opponents to pinpoint precisely (granted, subjectively, to my own satisfaction) the problem with the Islamic project near ground zero.

Yes, sacred ground. Yes, tragic death of thousands of innocent US citizens. And yes, most definitely evil (and criminal or enemy) Islamic terrorists were the cause, and some are still left to be brought to justice. If Saudi Arabia were to build a welcome center, perhaps I'd understand the problem. Conversely, would there be a similar problem if an Indonesian Cultural Center with a mosque were built nearby?

That some people may at times offend other people is true even without describing the exact nature of the offense, but in the present case the net is cast way too wide. Dan Sullivan's post, for example, mentions "honor[ing] the memories," but what exactly does that mean? If all Muslim presence is offensive geographically, why not remove the existing nearby mosques? Are American Muslims tourists automatically disrespectful in visiting Ground Zero? Are foreign Muslim tourists (yes, acknowledging that some Muslims danced in the streets following the 9/11 tragedy)?

To digress, much like the bulk of the anti-cultural center arguments (excepting perhaps some victims' families who may feel an emotional aversion) are thinly veiled intolerance, so is the bulk of recent anti-Obama sentiment merely racism.

Posted by ES on September 30,2010 | 01:55 AM

This is the same Thomas Jefferson who wrote Notes on the State of Virginia famously otherizing blacks and claiming that they are inherently against the American way so much so that if they were ever freed from slavery they should be given an all new nation instead of reside in the US. This is while he is sleeping with his black slaves who had many children with and apparently loved beyond anything else...

This is a man that lies to suit his purposes, and in the end, does it really matter what someone 300 years ago, if you can't find preform the anwser you'd like to hear then it is most likely not going to happen...

Posted by diligent on September 30,2010 | 12:40 AM

Throughout the narrative advocating the revisionist, exclusively Christian Founding of this Nation is the equation, as expressed by John Acton in his earlier comments here that 'virtue' and 'morality' are sole franchises of religion and that the terms should be understood to be exclusively pertaining to religion.

Inconveniently, reality is much to the contrary. As evidenced by the manifold un-virtuous and ammoral actions by religious groups committed in the name of their various religions that dot the history of this nation as they do the history of nations the world over; religion does NOT, by any rational assessment hold a monopoly on the purveyance or stewardship of virtue and morality.

When the founders said 'virtue' they meant 'virtue'. When they said 'morality' that also is exactly what they meant. Neither of these broad attributes were intended to be limited by an equivalence with religion. Such an equivalence was anathema to the majority of the founders quoted in John Acton's comment.

Virtue and morality are universal principles embraced, discussed and defined in as much detail by secular philosophers as in any, or all, religious texts.
There are no rational grounds to treat the terms as if they are interchangeable. To do so would be like equating clouds and climate.

This equation, perhaps by design, serves to greatly restrain the reach and utility of the terms virtue and morality, as they then are understood only in religious terms. Virtue comes to mean only religious virtue; piety, modesty,etc., this to the functional exclusion of more universal, secular virtures like integrity, empathy and compassion.

Morality's reach is by this limited meaning likewise restricted to religious morality; issues of sexuality and matrimony, to the exclusion of the broader, secular constraints.

This confined and misdirectd understanding of morality and virtue is contrived for and by political forces that in practice display neither.

Posted by Rodman820 on September 30,2010 | 03:29 PM

We are a country founded on principles - a country of conscience if you will. It is vital that we constantly strive to attain our stated mission. If we fall sort over and over we must never the less arise and strive again.

Posted by lyn grotke on September 30,2010 | 10:50 AM

The historian who wrote this article seems to suffer from the progressive malady (bias)that this nation was not founded as a Christian nation. The overwhelming majority of the Founding Fathers were practicing Christians. For the author to state that the Founders desired this nation to be a secular state is poppycock. The writings (the large body of works) of the Founders attest to this. Even Jefferson stated in Query XVIII of His Notes on the State of Virginia which portions are engraved on Jefferson Memorial:
"God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God ? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed,I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just;that His Justice cannot sleep forever."

Posted by Craig Hundelt on September 29,2010 | 08:01 PM

It amazes me that the author of this article can compare the efforts of New Yorkers to use common sense and honor the memories of those innocent Americans who died that day at the hands of, dare I say it, ISLAMIC, terrorists, by not allowing a mosque in the vicinity of the former World Trade Center. They are not trying to ban the practice of Islam, nor are they trying to persecute or deny the Islamic people the right to practice their religion. All they are trying to do is for someone to use common sense and relocate the mosque to a more appropriate place.

How can one equate the above, with the persecution of the Mormons and Catholics, or for that matter the Jehovah's Witnesses, who during WW II were jailed for sedition, for refusing to serve in the armed forces. The same can be said of the jailing of Muhammad Ali for his beliefs.

People, stop making mountains out of mole hills!

Posted by Dan Sullivan on September 29,2010 | 05:35 PM

In 1875 the Blaine Amendment attempt to force States to abandon support of church related schools. It stated:

"No State shall make any law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; and no money raised by taxation in any State for the support of public schools, or derived from any public fund therefor, nor any public lands devoted thereto, shall ever be under the control of any religious sect; nor shall any money so raised or lands so devoted be divided between religious sects or denominations."

Of course, it failed to be passed oiut of Congress. Unfortunately, the Supremes took it upon themselves to amendment the Constitution by judicial dictat in the middle and later part of the 20th by finding a "seperation of Church and State" that Congress failed to put in there!

Posted by John Acton on September 29,2010 | 04:23 PM

To demonstrate the level of regligious tolerance in the US, look at the react when some church group decides to burn a few Korans. Now compare this reaction to what happens in say Nigeria, when some group of Moslems decides burn a few Chrisitian Churches along with several thousand Christian. I am the atheist's "moral equivalency meter" is damaged beyond all possibility of repair.

Posted by John Acton on September 29,2010 | 04:10 PM

A bit off point, but, to my mind, the article may help to perpetuate another myth—the founding of the nation by Pilgrims and Puritans—by skipping the establishment of the Virginia Colony and the Church of England at Jamestown in 1607.

No mention, either, of the earlier, ill-fated, just-as-Anglican adventure at Roanoke Island.

The English didn't settle Plymouth until 1620. Even English Bermuda is older than that. Wherever the examination of the beginnings of English religion in North America should begin, it shouldn't begin in Plymouth.

Posted by Dennis Montgomery on September 29,2010 | 04:08 PM

"Our liberty depends on our education, our laws, and habits . . . it is founded on morals and religion, whose authority reigns in the heart, and on the influence all these produce on public opinion before that opinion governs rulers." - Fisher Ames, Founding Father

"It is certainly true that a popular government cannot flourish without virtue in the people." - Richard Henry Lee, Founding Father

"Whenever we are planning for posterity, we ought to remember that virtue is not hereditary." - Thomas Paine, Founding Father

"[N]either the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt. He therefore is the truest friend of the liberty of his country who tries most to promote its virtue, and who, so far as his power and influence extend, will not suffer a man to be chosen onto any office of power and trust who is not a wise and virtuous man." - Samuel Adams, Founding Father

For a teacher of World and American History your knowledge is rather stinted!

Posted by John Acton on September 29,2010 | 04:01 PM

If the goal was a secular Nation and government, please provide your take these thoughts of our Founders:

"The aggregate happiness of the society, which is best promoted by the practice of a virtuous policy, is, or ought to be, the end of all government . . . ." - George Washington, Founding Father

"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters." - Benjamin Franklin, Founding Father

"The institution of delegated power implies that there is a portion of virtue and honor among mankind which may be a reasonable foundation of confidence." - Alexander Hamilton, Founding Father and Framer of our Constitution

"To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people, is a chimerical idea." - James Madison, Founding Father and Framer of our Constitution

". . . Virtue, morality, and religion. This is the armor, my friend, and this alone that renders us invincible. These are the tactics we should study. If we lose these, we are conquered, fallen indeed . . . so long as our manners and principles remain sound, there is no danger." - Patrick Henry, Founding Father

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams, Founding Father

Posted by John Acton on September 29,2010 | 04:00 PM

Please kindly explain, then, how the Congress can appropriate money to pay for the services of clergyman who acts as chaplain for both the House and Senate since the 1st Congress, which, as I recall past the both Constitution and well as the Bill of Rights which contains the 1st Amendment. Additionally, the American Military has been paying Chaplains with taxpayers' moneyt since the Revolutionary War. How do you square that with your godless, purely secular State?

Interestingly, virtually EVERY Federal, State, and Local government officer, elected or other, have been sworn into office with one hand raised and the other on a bible. How does a secular State prompt such a religious ceremony. Of course, we also have the various Judicial Systems, which have all sworn in witnesses with a bible? Again, hardly something a secular State would insist upon.

Posted by John Acton on September 29,2010 | 03:53 PM

If you think i was hard being an atheist in the Bibloebelt of the US, you should try being a Christian in countries controlled by atheistic Communism should as Stalin's Russian, Mao's China, Pot Pol's Cambodia, or North Korea. You have no idea what religious prosecution is until the atheists crank it up!

Posted by John Acton on September 29,2010 | 03:31 PM

If Tom Jefferson was much in favor of "Separation of Church and State" then kindly explain why he made virtually every Federal Building in Washington, DC available on Sundays for various Christian Churches to hold services there. In fact, he even used Federal funds to paid some of the preachers.

Of course, there NO reference to the "Separation of Church and State" in our Constitution, and Thomas Jefferson never acted to put it in there. What he did object to was States forcing tax-payers to fund "State Approved" Christian denomiations, which was the very question he was address to the Danbury, CT Baptists in his letter where he used this phrase.

"It is in the manners and spirit of a people which preserve a republic in vigour. . . . degeneracy in these is a canker which soon eats into the heart of its laws and constitution." - Thomas Jefferson, Founding Father

"The catholic principle of republicanism [is] that every people may establish what form of government they please and change it as they please, the will of the nation being the only thing essential." --Thomas Jefferson: The Anas, 1792. ME 1:330

I'll bet you wont find those quotes by Tom Jefferson in any school textbook put together by Progressives, such as the ones who controlled Texas' school books!

Posted by John Acton on September 29,2010 | 03:24 PM

Ken, Your proposition in paragraph 4, that the conflict between Protestants and Catholics, supports the claim that America is not a Christian nation, is ignorant. Catholics and Protestants are both Christian faiths. There is conflict bewtween doctrines, but still both Christian. A little more research on your part could furhter your understanding. America IS a Christian nation!

Posted by Paul Reim on September 29,2010 | 01:59 PM

"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."

"present an unavoidable contradiction..." That seems to me to add unavoidable evidence to the fact that America was certainly a Christian nation. Iraq has much worse battles between its Sunnis and Shiites, yet it is a Muslim nation, is it not?

Also, my understanding of Jefferson and Madison's thoughts on religious freedom meant freedom to practice the different sects of Christianity, both Protestant and Catholic, or to not practice a religion at all. I do not believe they envisioned "exotic, foreign" religions being worshiped on all those small farms dotting America that Jefferson espoused.

Posted by Sterling Harris on September 28,2010 | 08:48 PM

Excellent writing, Mr.Davis. I have always loved history of any kind. I taught American and world history for over 30 years, and I enjoyed every minute of it. Every American should read this article. It would provide a much-needed review of the fact that the founders put much thought into the Establishment Clause and meant for America to have a secular government, free of the influences of religion. The wishes of Jefferson and Madison are definitely not being fulfilled in the present time, and I see that as being one of the biggest threats to this country because it almost always leads to an abuse of power.

Posted by majii on September 28,2010 | 08:15 PM

I dislike how Atheism is reduced to one line towards the end. Like the many various religions that people have been persecuted for believing in, Atheism has a bad rep too. Going through high school, though this was merely five years ago, I went through hell for being openly Atheist (granted I live in the Bible Belt of the South).

Posted by Jessie Jay on September 27,2010 | 10:51 PM

See also:

Blaming Religion for violence in world

http://thinkpoint.wordpress.com/2007/02/26/blaming-religion-for-violence-in-world/

The Most Violent Century of Human History

http://thinkpoint.wordpress.com/2007/09/14/the-most-violent-century-of-human-history/

Posted by Steve Cornell on September 27,2010 | 05:46 PM

Good History. I noticed the current treatment of Islam today is eerily similar to Catholicism in the 1800's.

@Allan Lykins- You claim that the Author should do his homework and that Mormons ARE Christians and recognized as such by other sects of Christianity. You should check your facts because the Southern Baptist Convention, the largest protestant denomination, the PCA, the Christian Churches/Churches of Christ, the Missouri Synod Lutherans Church, the Worldwide Anglican Communion, The Church of the Nazarene and any other Protestant Church will claim Mormons are not Christians in the Historical Orthodox sense of the word.

Do your homework. Read the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price (all of which Mormons say are equal in authority while Christians will not) which will say it is not a Christian sect but a better, truer form of all of the sects (since all of the other ones are abominations to God). Take a closer look and you will see how different the two define the term Son of God. Just because a group share a Book and use the same title for some one doesn't automatically mean they are the same.

Regardless, those are the facts of history so even if you believe they are the same doesn't mean that historically everyone has thought that way. This is a historical treatment of the past and not theological analysis of their claims. The facts are as the author told them.

Posted by Dan Staifer on September 27,2010 | 02:08 PM

“do we exist, do we really exist
sometimes you have gone looking for us
oh for whom do we live
do we exist do we really exist
this is what you say
don’t break our hearts again”

paraphrase of Nahuatl idigawesdi.

Traditional American Indian faiths banned in 1883 allowed legally since 1978 but ignored up to the present with no seat at the table of world religions in the U.S. even though traditional faiths are 123 million souls world wide.

Posted by Digoweli on September 27,2010 | 11:08 AM

That the Smithsonian would leave out the most egregious act of discrimination that could only be settled by an act of Congress in the year 1978, Freedom of Religion Act for American Indians, is strange considering that the Smithsonian houses the Museum of the American Indian. From 1883 at the institution of the American Indian Religious Crimes Codes down to 1978 traditional American Indian Priests and practitioners were jailed for praying outside the European Churches. My adopted father had to incorporate a "temple" in seven states for Native Americans not to be hassled by the police for practicing traditional faiths. It was called a "Temple Adanvto Adanudo" Temple of the Great Spirit and was in place until 1978 when we could once again practice the Traditional Keetoowah Faith, the Sundance, the Longhouse, the Medewin and the other faiths. It took an act of the UN to keep the Yarok's sacred practices from being destroyed in the 1980s by the U.S. Supreme Court and they have done their best to destroy the Native American Church. That America still considers Indians in the modality of the Samuel Morton racist anthropologists vein of inferiority is clear by the exclusivity of this article. Pity. We are all citizens and we all deserve to be heard.

Posted by Ray Evans Harrell on September 27,2010 | 10:34 AM

1790 - "...while everyone shall sit in safety under his own vine and fig tree..."

If these words had only been adhered to...Good article, but you so lightly touch upon the perscecutions and genocide of Native Americans herein...greatly persecuted based on Eurocentric Christian beliefs that they were savages, pagans and the like; who also still struggle for religious freedom today. How can America be an asylum for the persecuted and oppressed when America is still an oppressor?

Posted by Bettina C. on September 27,2010 | 08:52 AM

I belong to an American ethnic group that was prohibited by numerous Federal and State directives, policies and laws from practicing its religions until the enactment of the American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978.

One need merely read the annual and special reports of the Office of Indian Affairs (predecessor to the Bureau of Indian Affairs) to understand this country's approach to the "Indian problem." In these documents, one discovers that one of the longstanding goals of official Federal policy with regard to this "problem" was the forced "Christianization" and "civilization" of American Indians. This policy led to the establishment of the infamous Indian Schools where Native children, often forcibly removed from their families, were punished for speaking their languages, uttering a Native prayer or wearing any items of cultural significance.

On a personal note -- I am one of those whose "Coming of Age" ceremony, an innocuous four-day event central to the culture of my "tribe," had to be conducted in secret because it was, until 1978, specifically prohibited by Federal directives.

All that said, I suppose we First Americans should be grateful that the recommendation of L. Frank Baum, author of The Wonderful Wizard of Oz, was not put into effect. Shortly after the massacre of Lakota at Wounded Knee, Baum suggested editorially that American Indians be exterminated.

Posted by Susana de la Luz on September 26,2010 | 07:45 PM

Thank you for this correction of our patriotic myths, perfectly timed for World Communion Sunday in the Christian Church the first Sunday of October!

Posted by Carol on September 26,2010 | 06:11 PM

Excellent article on a very timely topic. At a time when fear has gained prominence in the lives of Americans and Christian nationalists are trying to rewrite history to prove that our Founding Fathers intended America to be a "Christian nation," it is important to remind Americans that the Constitution and Bill of Rights were not intended just for Christians but for ALL American citizens, as this article makes abundantly clear. Paradoxically, if it were not for the tolerance intended by Washington, Madison, Jefferson and others who supported separation of church and state, many of the most rabidly Christian nationalist groups would not have even been allowed to gain a foothold to practice their brand of Christianity in America. Those who criticize separation of church and state, were the ones who most benefited from this important democratic principle. Now, they want to deny that freedom to others.

Posted by Ed Powell on September 26,2010 | 01:50 PM

Mr. Davis has helped me formulate an answer to the friend who told me that "Separation of Church and State" is not in the Constitution. Indeed, those words do not occur, but the consequences of Article VI "no religious Test shall ever be required" and the First Amendment make it very clear. Justice Scalia tells us that nothing that is not explicit in the Constitution can be considered. How much more explicit does it need to be?

Posted by Richard D. Rich on September 26,2010 | 01:19 PM

It's important to note that Mormons were not viewed with great suspicion solely on the basis of doctrinal variation, but also on the basis of their actions, which at the time were perceived as provocative, militaristic, and distastefully libidinous. While nothing justifies any form of religious persecution, then or now, the fact that Joseph Smith was arming his followers, declaring sovereignty, destroying property of those opposed to him, and openly practicing polygamy, led to extreme unpopularity and government intervention, just as such behavior would today.

Posted by RVM on September 25,2010 | 06:10 PM

It is astonishing how quick many Americans are to forget the 1st Amendment when it's not their religious freedom, but that of others which is at stake. It is a truly sad tale that Brigham Young had to flee the nation and take his followers to the Great Salt Lake (which for about two years time was still part of Mexico). Think about the fate of the Native Americans who were forced onto reservations and subsequently stripped of their religion and culture. Or, for that matter, the fate of the poor Jews aboard the St. Louis that made it to our shores and were turned around and sent back to Nazi occupied Europe.

Posted by Daniel on September 25,2010 | 10:26 AM

And it continues today In Texas the school board has almost eliminated refernces to THOMAS JEFFERSON. He was one of the most outspoken for separation of church and state

Posted by tommyb on September 25,2010 | 09:52 AM

Good for the most part. The mention of the battle between Christian America and Mormonism will go a long way to keep the battle going. Does the author actually do his homework or just rewrite others work? Mormons ARE Christians and recognized as such by other sects of Christianity. They use the Bible (King James) and believe Jesus Christ to be the son of God. Get it straight, you might be quoted by someone else who does not do their own homework.

Posted by Allan Lykins on September 24,2010 | 02:46 AM

Yes, and? This is the religious history of the United States that was taught in every Catholic school in the country when I was there (1960-1976). The point being that since the adoption of the First Amendment, while the law was clear, political realities on the ground were just that: things to be resolved politically. Demographics eventually solved the problems: even of "those others" around going to school, voting, generally being American. Solved perfectly? No. But enough so that a family like mine, which had no relative on the ground in 1776, is American enough to spit in the eye of anyone who says we ain't.

Posted by mregan on September 24,2010 | 01:11 AM

Author is correct when he states this is a topic "sanitized" for social studies' classes; re: "The American Journey" textbook from Glencoe-McGraw Hill.

Posted by Anne on September 24,2010 | 02:28 PM

I'm surprised that the author didn't discuss the fact that Boggs' order also gave legal permission to "exterminate" Mormons. A little more drastic than just their expulsion from the state.

The order was rescinded in 1976.

Posted by Nick on September 23,2010 | 08:06 PM

Thanks for what seems like a fair appraisal. The Lord only knows how many scrimmages there actually were.

Posted by Don Frank on September 21,2010 | 01:38 PM

In The Magazine

February 2013

View Table of Contents »

Travel with Smithsonian

Smithsonian Store

View full archiveRecent Issues

About Us

Smithsonian.com expands on Smithsonian magazine's in-depth coverage of history, science, nature, the arts, travel, world culture and technology. Join us regularly as we take a dynamic and interactive approach to exploring modern and historic perspectives on the arts, sciences, nature, world culture and travel, including videos, blogs and a reader forum.

Smithsonian.com

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

Add New Comment

Comments (123)

Most Popular

View All Most Popular »