Religious toleration only came about when religion ceased to be a threat to the state.
|
|||||
|
We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people. Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house] Authors
Arts, Tech & CultureCivil LibertiesCommentary
Economics |
Samizdata thought for the dayFebruary 4th, 2025 |
 7 comments to Samizdata thought for the dayLeave a Reply |
Who Are We?The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling. We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe. CategoriesArchivesFeed This PageLink Icons   |
|||
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||
Elizabeth I started the road to religious toleration when she stated she didn’t care if someone was Catholic or Protestant, only that they be a good Englishman, at a time when her very life was at risk by order of the Pope and Spain was threatening the Armada of 1588. She was the State.
When Constantine made Christianity a state religion in the latter days of the Roman Empire, and ceased to have an adversarial relationship to religion, I don’t recall reading that it was a force for toleration of different viewpoints. In fact there is an argument to be had that in its early incarnations, Christianity was pretty nasty.
In fact, Constantine was probably an early exemplar of what one might call Christian Imperialism, and fused the church to the instruments of power. I guess that there was an element of toleration provided people did not piss off the ruling class, paid their dues and so on.
The point of the OP does seem correct, though. Consider even secular belief systems, if they are not seen as a threat, are tolerated. The whole Green mania seems to be tolerated – for the moment – because it is not a direct threat to the power of government, and in fact it may strengthen it, in fact.
Elizabeth wasn’t that tolerant. I believe she had a priest executed at one point simply for being a priest.
Also, the Gunpowder Plot of 1605 (Elizabeth died in 1603). AIUI, the conspirators were angry that the new king had failed to abolish Elizabeth’s anti-Catholic laws.
My understanding is that the various anti-Catholic laws – being barred from Parliament and the legal profession – did not end until the era of Daniel O’Connell in the 1820s.
It may have been rather worse than I thought.
https://www.elizabethi.org/contents/elizabethanchurch/catholics.html
The State is on a collision course with Islam in that case.
Only kinda sorta… some folks want Islam to be the state.
Only kinda sorta… some folks want Islam to be the state.
I agree, but therein lies the problem.