When the Constitution was setup the states were allowed to use their own interpretation of the guidelines and allowed to make and enforce their own rules as long as they weren't deemed too far out of line with the nation's regulations. At the time you are talking about there was no rules to allow everyone the right to vote, hold public office, practice law or receive education. Now, while I'm not saying it was right I am saying that it wasn't forbidden in the Constitution. The Catholics that you are talking about were allowed to believe what they believed.

Under the rule of Queen Elizabeth I of England the nation's religion was changed to Anglican, which Elizabeth supported. Those who were found to oppose the Anglican church were beheaded. A country was supposed to believe what their monarch let them believe, this is what the freedom or religion clause was all about, giving people the ability to believe what they wanted to believe without having to fear for their lives. As the nation has evolved so has our ability to deal with diversity.

MOMMIE4LIFE POSTS:

It's true the First Amendment of the Constitution intended to prevent only the federal government in the area of religion. Jefferson's writings confirmed this scope and pointed out that this power rests with the states.  So, yes, it was completely permissable for the States to have their own State-established denominations and most did make express provision for the public "Protestant teaching of piety, religion and morality".  (Protestant was later changed to Christian).

And this is where the rub was for Catholics and so-called religious liberty secured by the Constitution. The Founders and Protestant state leaders did not want Catholics involved in state government becasue of their allegiance to the authority of the Pope. Besides New Hampshire, Massachusetts and Maryland, the North Carolina Constitution prohibited those who denied "the truth of the Protestant religion" or those who held "religious principles incompatible with the freedom and safety of the State." Truth is Catholics were denied from holding public office, voting, and educating their children in the Catholic faith up until 1865 about the same time when slavery was abolished.

~Lula~

For once, we can agree on something. What happened then was unfortunate, to say the least. An interesting note is that one could say that any contempt and/or disregard for the Constitution started there, right off the back. The 14th Amendment should have prevented that, ideally. Since it was established in the US Constitution itself and reads:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

So any state that was doing that - was violating the Constitution. Go figure, eh?

~Alderic

Okay.. I'm starting to get a little confused by what you're getting at. Catholics were supposed to have been discriminated against in some states up until 144 year ago... What does that have to do with whether or not our country as a whole had freedom of religion? The individual states were setup so that if like minded individuals wanted to live together with certain rules they could. Yes, in some cases the individual states did not allow everyone equal rights, but it's not just Catholics that had this problem. In 1870 the 15th Amendment was ratified, which provided specifically that the right to vote shall not be denied or abridged on the basis of race, color or previous condition of servitude. It wasn't until 1920 when women finally won the vote throughout the nation. Sorry... I'm just really not getting your point here I guess.

Actually, they're talking about pre 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment was adopted on July 9, 1868.

Alderic,

so why are you sticking your tongue out then?

Well, because we hardly ever agree. You and I are pretty much as opposite as can be, so far as I've noticed.

My bad, I knew that, I so knew that. Duh, Alderic! Forgive me for my momentary ineptness.

Interesting that you should point this out.

Yes, until the Protestant Reformation England was a Catholic country. King Henry VIII was a Catholic and subject to the Pope until 1534 when he rebelled against the Catholic Chruch, left it, and made himself created head of his own new chruch, the Chruch of England by the Act of Royal Supremecy in 1534. So, he set up the Chruch of England independent of the CC and gave himself the divorce he wanted.

Henry was not going to be told even by the Pope to keep God's law and so he rebelled and his rebellion was the genesis of Anglicanism. It began in disobedience even as all the world's troubles began with the cry of Satan, "I will not serve".  In 1559, the first year of Queen Elizabeth's reign, she renewed the Act of Royal Supremecy and set up the independent Chruch of England on a definitely Protestant basis and this has continued since under the "flag of liberty".

Regarding the highlighted part of your comment, I must ask...is there such a thing as absolute liberty...freedom of religion giving people the ability to believe what they want to believe? I always thought that liberty implies limited restriction. For example, if I am free from truth, I am subject to error or if free from virtue, then subject to vice...When science proved the world was round, it took our liberty away to believe it is flat!

Same thing with God's law...when He revealed His law, that revelation took away my liberty to do what that law forbade. His law took away the liberty of divorce and re-marriage. Yet, good ol' England gives her subjects the liberty to have it! But that is the liberty of the devil and refusal of submission to God. A person can be free from God and the servant of Satan or be free from Satan and the servant of God. We choose which liberty we will have. But as I see it, quite alot of England's liberty is liberty from the law of God. Protestantism gave men so-called liberty to think for themselves and people have interpreted it as license to believe whatever they want. Christian conditions are rapidly fading in England to the point its drifitng into irreligion or false religion.

And this is something that we here in the US of A should give serious thought and take to heart.

There is a saying that I believe sums up the freedom system that the US was founded on quite well. It says that one person's freedom ends where another's begins. Meaning that your freedoms shouldn't take away someone else's freedoms.

I'm going to borrow this to try and make a point.

Lula, you know when I'm always trying to debate religion/secularism with you and KFC. When I'm talking about non-religiouis people's right not to be religious, or that society is pluralistic. This is what i mean, to an extent. 

My point is just that...we've been discussing this broad term of our country as a whole has freedom of religion, of religious belief and relgious practices...when in truth, it didn't apply to Catholics and not many people know that.

Back to the small Catholic colony of Maryland. Despite antaganism and armed invasion  in Virgina, the Jesuit missionaries had protected and converted Indians, including intermarriage, and in 1641 the first Black man was elected to the Maryland General Assembly. But following the Revolution, and just as we discussed, the Church of England became the established Church in Maryland and Catholics were denied civil rights, the Holy Mass was illegal and execution was the punishment for making converts. One measure that sounds more Stalinist provided that a Catholic child who apostazied from the Faith had a right to all his parent's possessions!

Problem is that the Republic system of checks and balances in the division of powers that were so very important to the Founders is no more...it has long gone down the drain when the Courts started "legislating" from the bench.

Take the 1973 Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision as a prime example...a majority of justices found somewhere a freedom to privacy (later called a woman's right to choose abortion) which deprives the unborn baby's freedom to be born, or his right to life.

I fear that we've arrived at a point that our Founders and brave miliary who fought and died for this freedom system would be filled with disdain for what America looks like today. We've made a mockery of God's laws, of guaranteeing religious freedom and of the Constitution itself.

It's their job, they're to inteperate and uphold laws, etc.

As per, the freedom of privacy - would you like the government in your private life?