Posted on 03/24/2008 9:07:10 AM PDT by Clemenza
You are incorrect; the Catholic religion was banned in Maryland in 1688. Only one Catholic - from Maryland- signed the Declaration
It was not banned in 1776. There were Catholics in Maryland and not all of them were imprisoned.
Only one Catholic - from Maryland- signed the Declaration
If there were 56 signers and if the Catholic population of the US was 1%, then Mr. Carroll represented 1.8% of the signers.
You are incorrect; The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was a Repulic, ruled by a Senate with an elected king. Also, the Protestand Revolt in England was the result of the king’s corruption. The Puritans and Pilgrims escaped from England to escape persecution from other Protestants — and then proceeded to persecute(more the Puritans than Protestants)other religions, especially the Catholic and to a lesser extent the Anglican.
In their own minds, to be pro-freedome you had to be anti-catholic. It doesn’t mean we have to be blind to the crimes, prejudice and bigotry of the Puritans and others in those days.
The point was that Maryland was included in the confederation because they had shown made their bones by banning Catholicism in the one place that was supposed to be a Catholic refuge. Catholics were not imprisoned, but the practice of their religion was banned, the church was not allowed to have property.
The problem for Maryland Catholics is that the Puritans started to move in when Anglicanism was established in Virginia. However, you are correct that following the Revolution the proscriptions against Catholics were lifted.
Wrong. There was no religious precondition to joining the Continental Congress.
This attempt by some posters here to portray the independence movement as some kind of anti-Catholic conspiracy is sickening.
Would you like some cherries ?
*maniacal laughter*
It’s not an attempt to show that the independence movement was an anti-catholic conspiracy. However, in my case it is an attempt to recognize that the colonial era - especially in colonies/states influenced/dominated by Puritanism- was virulently anti-Catholic. I have documented some of it regarding Massachusetts, the home land of John Adams.
By the way, since the Toleration Act of Maryland was already repealed, there was no need religious question for the Continetal Congress to consider.
No functioning Christian can not be monarchist in at least some meaningful sense. We worship Christ the King, not Christ the President. This truth has important implications for our family lives (how democratic are your dealings with your minor children?) and our political lives (in which we recognise that just law is rooted in something greater than the popular will). Democracy as honored in the United States is a false idol.
Your summary at #7 was fine until you wrote your last sentence.
Rather than a “moral flaw” any aversion to
Roman Catholicism that Adams or hsi New Englander peers held was simply senible historical prejudice as colonial englishmen.
The Roman Catholic church had been very much a part of historical international conflict for the previous two centuries. In an age where all nations of the old world had “established” state churches in control of religious life to one degree or another, many simply watched the influence of the most centralized of the denominations with a jaundiced eye.
A senible approach to political realities rather than a “moral flaw” from our modern perspective.
Theologically there must be absolute monarchy.
Politically there are various forms of societas - but no legitimate law can violate the natural law.
Democracy as honored in the United States is a false idol.
Even the founders and framers knew this, and established a republic instead of a direct democracy. When I first read The Federalist through, I was shocked to find what a low opinion the framers had of direct democracy and what a great fear they had of legislative tyranny.
Any knowledge at all would show that is what the Reformation was based on. Luther found out by reading the text that he was saved by grace and not by the church.
The point of my post was the US was founded on the priesthood of the saints. The people ruled and the rulers served the people. Exactly the opposite happened in countries where the king was God's man and infallible.
These principles were in direct conflict with anything going on at the time. This is why protestants to this day have trouble with Catholics praying and venerating dead people and pieces of bones and such. I can't even imagine praying to a statue on the side of a road. Any simple reading of the Bible would show that is in direct conflict with what the Bible teaches. All worship and glory belongs to Jesus and no one else. The president and congress are elected and impeached by the people. A king is permanent until there is revolt or invasion. I hadn't heard of the Polish republic. I will have to look it up, but we weren't fleeing from Poland. I'm just guessing the nobility were the ones doing the politics, and the people were still being murdered and imprisoned without trial, etc. I have never heard of an elected king. The very definition of king is God's man. In all other countries I've ever heard of the king was the head of the church. Did the pope approve of this? I'm not up on Polish history.
The thrust of the thread was the prejudice John Adams had with Catholics. It was founded on thousands of years of history. Even till 1961, JFK had to give assurances that the Vatican wouldn't influence his administration. Just look at today. What if a Catholic was president today. Would we be in Iraq? Would we surrender if Rome thought it was the right thing to do? The popes seem to lean to the socialist side, which isn't what the US is founded on. Wars are nasty things, but sometimes necessary. Why won't the pope call Catholics to fight terrorists and dictators throughout the world? How much help would he be if we had troops in the ME from S. America, Asia, and other countries? If the pope called Catholics to fight the head choppers, maybe we would overwhelm evil around the world. Instead, he is against the US fighting evil. How does a Catholic feel in the Marines with the pope saying he is fighting the wrong fight?
There are many conflicts caused by religions and government that are relieved by the first amendment. If Bush said the Methodist church told him to attack Iran, what would the citizens say about that? He should be a Christian, but his conscience should rule the day. We can't know every conflict a president will have, but we should be able to trust his judgment will be his own and not dictated from Rome. This is why I'm a conservative because I want my president to not be ruled by Satan. Obama and Clinton have no moral compass, so we know that they will fail every moral dilemma that arises.
I understand your confusion, if you actually think that Catholics pray to statues on the side of a road. Think of it as a small church (or if your denomination prefers, a meeting hall). We don’t pray to statues. It is simply a place to gather, pray and be reminded of God’s greatness and goodness. We don’t venerate bones, either. THink of it as akin to Westminster Abbey or a military cemetery. Frankly, I’m surprised, anyone still believes these things about Catholic practice, but there it is.
The US was indeed founded differently, but there were established churches throughout the 13 colonies. I believe VA at one point had mandatory participation in the Anglican church. In the colonial period, people in New England (non-Puritans) were hung for their faith. And persecution against Catholics was sadly common at the time.
Your point on Poland makes itself; people were fleeing English Protestant persecution, especially the Puritans. Interesting point, in Jamestown the Polish glaziers were denied the right to vote and held the first political strike in English America. They won, to their and the Virginians’ credit. But VA wasn’t Puritan, either.
In Poland, the Sejm elected the king beginning in 1572. Perhaps more of a chancellor since any noble could be elected king. Yes, Poland was Catholic at the time.
Your understanding of Catholicism seems to have stopped during the time of Al Smith’s election. Kennedy’s speech was required because of Protestant ignorance and prejudice, not because Catholics are required to listen to the pope and bishops unthinkingly. Catholics social teaching is based on subsidiarity, not socialism. The popes are a voice for peace as they see it; that is why JPII did not call for a violent overthrow of the USSR but non-violent revolution. Besides, which secular government could they appeal to to fight terrorism, save perhaps Poland who has been with us in Iraq and Afghanistan. All of the big countries are secularist, including our own. None are Catholic or Christian.
Yes I subscribed to HBO On Demand and have just watched the first three episodes.
All I can say is wow.
The series stays pretty close to the way I was taught history.
I have been an often critic of the trash that HBO puts on as entertainment but this John Adams certainly lives up to its billing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.