Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2026 Poal.co

1.5K

"In regard to religion, mutual toleration in the different professions thereof is what all good and candid minds in all ages have ever practised, and, both by precept and example, inculcated on mankind. And it is now generally agreed among Christians that this spirit of toleration, in the fullest extent consistent with the being of civil society, is the chief characteristical mark of the Church. Insomuch that Mr. Locke has asserted and proved, beyond the possibility of contradiction on any solid ground, that such toleration ought to be extended to all whose doctrines are not subversive of society. The only sects which he thinks ought to be, and which by all wise laws are excluded from such toleration, are those who teach doctrines subversive of the civil government under which they live. The Roman Catholics or Papists are excluded by reason of such doctrines as these, that princes excommunicated may be deposed, and those that they call heretics may be destroyed without mercy; besides their recognizing the Pope in so absolute a manner, in subversion of government, by introducing, as far as possible into the states under whose protection they enjoy life, liberty, and property, that solecism in politics, imperium in imperio, leading directly to the worst anarchy and confusion, civil discord, war, and bloodshed."

From "The Rights of the Colonists", 1772.

It's interesting to see how much they hated the Catholics. Makes you wonder how the Constitution ended up being so hands-off about religion when they were clearly interested in being a nation of Protestants.

"In regard to religion, mutual toleration in the different professions thereof is what all good and candid minds in all ages have ever practised, and, both by precept and example, inculcated on mankind. And it is now generally agreed among Christians that this spirit of toleration, in the fullest extent consistent with the being of civil society, is the chief characteristical mark of the Church. Insomuch that Mr. Locke has asserted and proved, beyond the possibility of contradiction on any solid ground, that such toleration ought to be extended to all whose doctrines are not subversive of society. The only sects which he thinks ought to be, and which by all wise laws are excluded from such toleration, are those who teach doctrines subversive of the civil government under which they live. The Roman Catholics or Papists are excluded by reason of such doctrines as these, that princes excommunicated may be deposed, and those that they call heretics may be destroyed without mercy; besides their recognizing the Pope in so absolute a manner, in subversion of government, by introducing, as far as possible into the states under whose protection they enjoy life, liberty, and property, that solecism in politics, imperium in imperio, leading directly to the worst anarchy and confusion, civil discord, war, and bloodshed." From "The Rights of the Colonists", 1772. It's interesting to see how much they hated the Catholics. Makes you wonder how the Constitution ended up being so hands-off about religion when they were clearly interested in being a nation of Protestants.

(post is archived)

You are currently inside a comment thread.
Click here to see all the comments (11).
[–] • 1 pt

>Makes you wonder how the Constitution ended up being so hands-off about religion when they were clearly interested in being a nation of Protestants.

Protestants may have been the majority, but they weren't everyone. Pennsylvania was still run by Quakers and small catholic and jewish communities existed. But even the Protestant majority was basically a catch-all term. It included ardent protestants as well as those that liked what Jesus said, but questioned the miracles....at least a few of the founding fathers were probably closer to agnostic than Protestantism. A portion of colonialists followed no specific religion at all

None of this was lost on the founding fathers. Neither was the fact that the colonies were first settled by people fleeing religious persecution. They understood that, for them to succeed, every group needed to be united under the cause.

[–] • 1 pt

So Protestant just meant "not catholic"? Interesting.

Still seems like it would have been prudent to make an exception for subversive religions like Adams says. Maybe they couldn't imagine something like Islam and figured nothing that crazy would ever happen. Or that Americans would have the common sense to keep that stuff out

[–] • 0 pt

>So Protestant just meant "not catholic"? Interesting.

It also means "not eastern orthodox". Another argument would be to say It's a term for anything that came after The Reformation, including all the Baptists and Quakers present at that time.

>Still seems like it would have been prudent to make an exception for subversive religions like Adams says.

There's a lot of all or nothing in the Constitution. We either have complete free speech or we don't. We either have a right to bare arms, or we don't. We either have a state favored religion or we don't.

> Maybe they couldn't imagine something like Islam and figured nothing that crazy would ever happen.

They definitely would have known about Islam...a few probably had a Quran in their library. But maybe they didn't figure out what it looked liked in practice till the Barbary Wars, after the constitution was already written.

>Or that Americans would have the common sense to keep that stuff out

I'd argue that this was their hope. That every negative that could happen, would be thwarted by an educated, voting public.