Do you support Black Lives Matter?

[Yehren]

Prior to the 60s and 70s, school-led prayer and Bible reading were common in public (i.e. government) schools....

Prior to the 60s and 70s, it was common for black citizens to be denied the right to vote or to go to public schools with other children. That we have sometimes violated the Constitution, is not justification to continue it.

 

[Grailhunter]

The declaration isn't law. When the founders wrote the laws that govern us, they inserted both freedom from religion and freedom of religion, depending on the wall of separation noted by Madison and Jefferson, who wrote that Amendment.

Again, most people are not historians. If you knew history, you would know that the founding fathers or anyone close to them were not thinking of atheism. If you follow the time period there is no one there that classified anything outside of Christianity as a religion. Catholicism was barely considered a religion in their thoughts at the time. Certainly Islam, Voodoo, Hinduism were not considered religions. Separation of Church and state is referring to the state showing preferences between Christian religions. You can walk through history if you wish and show us how the constitutional statement has been used in the past to separate the United States from its Christian roots. Let's hear it. People have a tendency to re-interpret things and lately anything goes! Man-boy love... Voodoo... and a host of other religions....but as far as the thoughts of our founding fathers and most of American history, not a chance.

And you will have to show me the document that specifically says, "freedom from religion" from the founding fathers.

 

[Brakelite]

Again, most people are not historians. If you knew history, you would know that the founding fathers or anyone close to them were not thinking of atheism. If you follow the time period there is no one there that classified anything outside of Christianity as a religion. Catholicism was barely considered a religion in their thoughts at the time. Certainly Islam, Voodoo, Hinduism were not considered religions. Separation of Church and state is referring to the state showing preferences between Christian religions. You can walk through history if you wish and show us how the constitutional statement has been used in the past to separate the United States from its Christian roots. Let's hear it. People have a tendency to re-interpret things and lately anything goes! Man-boy love... Voodoo... and a host of other religions....but as far as the thoughts of our founding fathers and most of American history, not a chance.

And you will have to show me the document that specifically says, "freedom from religion" from the founding fathers.

See, I'm somewhat confused by your enthusiastic support for separation, considering the Catholic Church historical ambivalence and at times outright hostility toward the constitution. Freedom of religion has long been the furthest principle from the minds of those in the curia and Halls of power in the Vatican when formulating dogma and writing encyclicals to the faithful. I don't believe for a moment that Vatican II substantially altered the very fabric of papal intolerance toward other faiths unless the two swords have been buried.

 

[Brakelite]

Sorry @Grailhunter I wasnt intending to quote your post, I was replying to @Yehren and asking him initially what his thoughts were toward Catholic attitudes toward the constitution and freedom of religion. But seeing your here lol...

Catholicism was barely considered a religion in their thoughts at the time.

May I ask your to expand on this please?

 

[Grailhunter]

Sorry @Grailhunter I wasnt intending to quote your post, I was replying to @Yehren and asking him initially what his thoughts were toward Catholic attitudes toward the constitution and freedom of religion. But seeing your here lol...

May I ask your to expand on this please?

Remember Plymouth Rock? Puritans?
Initially the Thirteen Colonies were a Protestant adventure.
Still they did not get along.
Providence Rhode Island with Roger Williams and his attempt to establish religious tolerance as well as separation of church and state.
The short of it is that eventually the colonists warmed up to the Catholics.
American Catholics have their own views as the one Church and that has only changed so much.

 

[Grailhunter]

Prior to the 60s and 70s, it was common for black citizens to be denied the right to vote or to go to public schools with other children. That we have sometimes violated the Constitution, is not justification to continue it.

You might as well put history in a blender and hit puree because you got everything mixed up there. The Constitution did not address women or slaves specifically. When they set the slaves free, it made some of the white men feel good, but except for being free, they did nothing for the slaves, so they became a sub society. The Civil Rights thing again made some whites feel better, and made some changes for the blacks....but still they were not welcomed into society. We are struggling with a hundred and fifty year old problem that was seriously mishandled from the git-go.

You could say that Christ and Paul were hateful slavery supporters, or you could say that as far back as we know, several thousand years, slavery was the norm until around the mid 1800's. The realization that slavery was wrong, is a story in itself and had nothing to do with character. Still the change needed a lot more than just setting them free. Setting the blacks free! Made some white guys feel good....but without a plan...just setting them free, a lot of the times made their lives worse.

 

[Yehren]

Prior to the 60s and 70s, it was common for black citizens to be denied the right to vote or to go to public schools with other children. That we have sometimes violated the Constitution, is not justification to continue it.

You might as well put history in a blender and hit puree because you got everything mixed up there.

You're a little confused. The Equal Protection clause outlaws segregation and the suspension of voting rights for any citizen.

The Constitution did not address women or slaves specifically.

Actually, it did, twice. See what you miss by sleeping in class?

When they set the slaves free, it made some of the white men feel good, but except for being free, they did nothing for the slaves, so they became a sub society. The Civil Rights thing again made some whites feel better, and made some changes for the blacks....but still they were not welcomed into society.

Setting the blacks free! Made some white guys feel good....but without a plan...just setting them free, a lot of the times made their lives worse.

In the south today, there are many, many black public officials. There were almost none before the civil rights acts forced some states to comply with the law. Today we see more and more blacks taking postions of responsibility in academia, industry, and goverment. Civil rights laws are mostly responsible. Is racism dead? No, but it's dying. The overwhelming support of Americans for BLM is evidence that most of us are unwilling to tolerate systemic racism.

And the thing is, when it ceases to be safe or profitable to be racist, fewer people are racist.

The notion that blacks were better off as slaves is occasionally mentioned by republicans or other conservatives, but I notice that very few, if any blacks think so. There's probably a good reason for that in America; most of us, if we had to choose, would prefer to be free rather than secure. At least most liberal and moderate Americans would. Maybe that's why it's always conservatives who think people are better off as slaves. It would explain a lot of the things they do and say.

 

[Yehren]

Again, most people are not historians. If you knew history, you would know that the founding fathers or anyone close to them were not thinking of atheism. If you follow the time period there is no one there that classified anything outside of Christianity as a religion.

The author of the first religious freedom laws in the US had some thoughts on that:

"The bill for establishing religious freedom, the principles of which had, to a certain degree, been enacted before, I had drawn in all the latitude of reason and right. It still met with opposition; but, with some mutilations in the preamble, it was finally passed; and a singular proposition proved that its protection of opinion was meant to be universal. Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed, by inserting the word "Jesus Christ," so that it should read, "a departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo, and Infidel of every denomination."
Thomas Jefferson, Autobiograpy

Catholicism was barely considered a religion in their thoughts at the time. Certainly Islam, Voodoo, Hinduism were not considered religions. Separation of Church and state is referring to the state showing preferences between Christian religions.

Not according to the Founders, who intended it to cover all religions, and even none at all.

You can walk through history if you wish and show us how the constitutional statement has been used in the past to separate the United States from its Christian roots. Let's hear it. People have a tendency to re-interpret things and lately anything goes! Man-boy love... Voodoo... and a host of other religions....but as far as the thoughts of our founding fathers and most of American history, not a chance.

I suppose the Founders were less open about sexual freedom than we are, and I'm really sure that exploiting children was something they'd criminalize. But they clearly wanted freedom for any and all religious ideas; they explicitly said so.

And you will have to show me the document that specifically says, "freedom from religion" from the founding fathers.

The religious freedom clause has two parts.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. (my highlighting of the relevant clause)

The first prohibits government-imposed religion, and the second prohibits any restriction on religion by government. It doesn't say "freedom of religion", either. But the first part means we are free from imposed religion, and the second part means we are free of government interference in religion.

That's why Jefferson and Madison wanted both freedoms in the First Amendment.

The 14th Amendment required states to also observe our Constitutional rights. After that, no government could abuse our freedoms. In practice, most states, like Virginia, had constitutions that observed our rights, but not all of them did.

 

[Yehren]

I don't believe for a moment that Vatican II substantially altered the very fabric of papal intolerance toward other faiths unless the two swords have been buried.

Lumen Gentium made very clear that the Church regards Christians outside the Roman Catholic Church, as brothers in Christ.

The Church recognizes that in many ways she is linked with those who, being baptized, are honored with the name of Christian, though they do not profess the faith in its entirety or do not preserve unity of communion with the successor of Peter. (14*) For there are many who honor Sacred Scripture, taking it as a norm of belief and a pattern of life, and who show a sincere zeal. They lovingly believe in God the Father Almighty and in Christ, the Son of God and Saviour. (15*) They are consecrated by baptism, in which they are united with Christ. They also recognize and accept other sacraments within their own Churches or ecclesiastical communities. Many of them rejoice in the episcopate, celebrate the Holy Eucharist and cultivate devotion toward the Virgin Mother of God.(16*) They also share with us in prayer and other spiritual benefits. Likewise we can say that in some real way they are joined with us in the Holy Spirit, for to them too He gives His gifts and graces whereby He is operative among them with His sanctifying power. Some indeed He has strengthened to the extent of the shedding of their blood.
DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON THE CHURCH
LUMEN GENTIUM
SOLEMNLY PROMULGATED BY HIS HOLINESS
POPE PAUL VI
ON NOVEMBER 21, 1964

This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits.
DECLARATION ON RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
DIGNITATIS HUMANAE
ON THE RIGHT OF THE PERSON AND OF COMMUNITIES
TO SOCIAL AND CIVIL FREEDOM IN MATTERS RELIGIOUS
PROMULGATED BY HIS HOLINESS
POPE PAUL VI
ON DECEMBER 7, 1965

"Due limits" has to do with imposing one's own religious beliefs on others. Human sacrifice, for example, would be outside the "due limits." So would religiously-sanctioned theft of property, and so on.

The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions. She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men. Indeed, she proclaims, and ever must proclaim Christ "the way, the truth, and the life" (John 14:6), in whom men may find the fullness of religious life, in whom God has reconciled all things to Himself.
DECLARATION ON
THE RELATION OF THE CHURCH TO NON-CHRISTIAN RELIGIONS
NOSTRA AETATE
PROCLAIMED BY HIS HOLINESS
POPE PAUL VI
ON OCTOBER 28, 1965

 

[Prayer Warrior]

Prior to the 60s and 70s, it was common for black citizens to be denied the right to vote or to go to public schools with other children. That we have sometimes violated the Constitution, is not justification to continue it.

Two wrongs don’t make a right, as the saying goes. To prohibit a 200+-year old custom of school-led prayer and Bible reading AND to prohibit blacks from voting are equally wrong. We didn’t need to swap one right thing for the other.

 

[Joseph77]

Oh my, has Yehr's family in the past been part of those who were denied the so-called "right to vote" and were not permitted to go to some public school with other children ?

 

[Yehren]

Prior to the 60s and 70s, it was common for black citizens to be denied the right to vote or to go to public schools with other children. That we have sometimes violated the Constitution, is not justification to continue it.

Two wrongs don’t make a right, as the saying goes. To prohibit a 200+-year old custom of school-led prayer and Bible reading AND to prohibit blacks from voting are equally wrong.

Sorry, both violations of the Constitution are illegal and the Law of the Land is what it is. Slavery was a custom in America, too. Doesn't matter. Only the law matters. Both wrongs needed to be corrected.

The state has no business whatever imposing prayer on public school kids. And I say that as the parent of a kid who was an officer in the Fellowship of Christian Athletes who prayed with her friends in school on a regular basis.

 

[Yehren]

Oh my, has Yehr's family in the past been part of those who were denied the so-called "right to vote" and were not permitted to go to some public school with other children ?

It's a common conservative belief that one shouldn't mind if other people's rights are violated. But that's not what America is about. I get what you're thinking, but it's not the way we do things in America.

 

[Prayer Warrior]

Prior to the 60s and 70s, it was common for black citizens to be denied the right to vote or to go to public schools with other children. That we have sometimes violated the Constitution, is not justification to continue it.



Sorry, both violations of the Constitution are illegal and the Law of the Land is what it is. Slavery was a custom in America, too. Doesn't matter. Only the law matters. Both wrongs needed to be corrected.

The state has no business whatever imposing prayer on public school kids. And I say that as the parent of a kid who was an officer in the Fellowship of Christian Athletes who prayed with her friends in school on a regular basis.

The fact is that something WILL be "imposed," and is being imposed, on the public school children of America. Some basis for morals will be taught. If not Christian, then what?? When God was kicked out of the public schools by the Supreme Court's ill-advised rulings, something took His place because there is no neutral. I repeat, NEUTRALITY IS A MYTH! New Age curricula. Would you like to know more about this? I can tell you plenty. Humanistic psychology. I can tell you a lot about this. I have a college degree in it! And now, religions such as Islam are taking the place of the ONE AND ONLY belief system that can save mankind as children are given lessons from the Koran instead of the Bible, which has been prohibited.... Satan has filled the vacuum with LIES because he is the father of it!
.

 

[Grailhunter]

Prior to the 60s and 70s, it was common for black citizens to be denied the right to vote or to go to public schools with other children. That we have sometimes violated the Constitution, is not justification to continue it.
You're a little confused. The Equal Protection clause outlaws segregation and the suspension of voting rights for any citizen. Actually, it did, twice. See what you miss by sleeping in class?

In the south today, there are many, many black public officials. There were almost none before the civil rights acts forced some states to comply with the law. Today we see more and more blacks taking postions of responsibility in academia, industry, and goverment. Civil rights laws are mostly responsible. Is racism dead? No, but it's dying. The overwhelming support of Americans for BLM is evidence that most of us are unwilling to tolerate systemic racism.

And the thing is, when it ceases to be safe or profitable to be racist, fewer people are racist.

The notion that blacks were better off as slaves is occasionally mentioned by republicans or other conservatives, but I notice that very few, if any blacks think so. There's probably a good reason for that in America; most of us, if we had to choose, would prefer to be free rather than secure. At least most liberal and moderate Americans would. Maybe that's why it's always conservatives who think people are better off as slaves. It would explain a lot of the things they do and say.

You're a little confused. The Equal Protection clause outlaws segregation and the suspension of voting rights for any citizen.

Slaves were not citizens, even after they were freed. You are refering to the 14th and 15th amendment are you going to start talking about the ERA period next. The discussions is about the founding father and the writing of the Constitution not the amendments….and so, here we are.... find the reference to women and blacks in the original constitution.

In the south today, there are many, many black public officials. There were almost none before the civil rights acts forced some states to comply with the law.

What has the conditions of the south today, to do with when the blacks were freed after the Civil War or the writing of Constitution. Free the blacks on Tuesday and elect them to congress on Thursday….no it would take some time. Try to keep your mind focused and on track.

Today we see more and more blacks taking positions of responsibility in academia, industry, and government. Civil rights laws are mostly responsible. Is racism dead? No, but it's dying. The overwhelming support of Americans for BLM is evidence that most of us are unwilling to tolerate systemic racism.

No need for a history lesson of Today. The discussion is about the constitution and the period when they were freed.

And the thing is, when it ceases to be safe or profitable to be racist, fewer people are racist.

You are wrong on that too!

The notion that blacks were better off as slaves is occasionally mentioned by republicans or other conservatives, but I notice that very few, if any blacks think so.

Well you would have to be an idiot to think they were better off as slaves but just setting them free was also hateful.

There's probably a good reason for that in America; most of us, if we had to choose, would prefer to be free rather than secure. At least most liberal and moderate Americans would. Maybe that's why it's always conservatives who think people are better off as slaves. It would explain a lot of the things they do and say.

You are kind going off the deep end here….who do you know that thinks anyone is better off as slaves….
There are groups that are raciest and whatever other their crazy going on in their mind.
We have bands of crazy, violent people running around destroying property, burning, looting, assaulting, murdering, and raping....and they are crazy enough not to know that is a bad thing.

I am hoping you can produce something that is a little more on the topic....what are we going to talk about next....world events?

 

[Grailhunter]

The author of the first religious freedom laws in the US had some thoughts on that:

"The bill for establishing religious freedom, the principles of which had, to a certain degree, been enacted before, I had drawn in all the latitude of reason and right. It still met with opposition; but, with some mutilations in the preamble, it was finally passed; and a singular proposition proved that its protection of opinion was meant to be universal. Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed, by inserting the word "Jesus Christ," so that it should read, "a departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo, and Infidel of every denomination."
Thomas Jefferson, Autobiograpy



Not according to the Founders, who intended it to cover all religions, and even none at all.



I suppose the Founders were less open about sexual freedom than we are, and I'm really sure that exploiting children was something they'd criminalize. But they clearly wanted freedom for any and all religious ideas; they explicitly said so.



The religious freedom clause has two parts.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. (my highlighting of the relevant clause)

The first prohibits government-imposed religion, and the second prohibits any restriction on religion by government. It doesn't say "freedom of religion", either. But the first part means we are free from imposed religion, and the second part means we are free of government interference in religion.

That's why Jefferson and Madison wanted both freedoms in the First Amendment.

The 14th Amendment required states to also observe our Constitutional rights. After that, no government could abuse our freedoms. In practice, most states, like Virginia, had constitutions that observed our rights, but not all of them did.

Again, most people are not historians. If you knew history, you would know that the founding fathers or anyone close to them were not thinking of atheism. If you follow the time period there is no one there that classified anything outside of Christianity as a religion. The author of the first religious freedom laws in the US had some thoughts on that:

"The bill for establishing religious freedom, the principles of which had, to a certain degree, been enacted before, I had drawn in all the latitude of reason and right. It still met with opposition; but, with some mutilations in the preamble, it was finally passed; and a singular proposition proved that its protection of opinion was meant to be universal. Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed, by inserting the word "Jesus Christ," so that it should read, "a departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo, and Infidel of every denomination."
Thomas Jefferson, Autobiograpy\


I keep telling people that you cannot read the Bible like it is the most recent edition of the local Sunday Paper. The same is true of history…you kinda got to figure out what is going on in their heads….Some of the people that came over from Europe were fleeing religious persecutions and the humorous side of that is that some of them were not tolerant of other religions. Then the Founding Father were looking at it from a different angle. They knew the history of Europe which was full of religious wars by governments that were controlled by religious factions. Although the writing (Constitution) looks like they were down playing God somewhat and it looks like they are concerned with keeping God out of government, actually it is not that and could not be further from the truth. They are not concerned with the government warming up to Christian religions, they are concerned with one Christian religion taking over the government….as in Europe. But even at that, as it relates to most of the founding fathers Christian religion permeated most of their actions in thoughts, governing, and their family life..their wives their children....

Catholicism was barely considered a religion in their thoughts at the time. Certainly Islam, Voodoo, Hinduism were not considered religions. Separation of Church and state is referring to the state showing preferences between Christian religions.

Not according to the Founders, who intended it to cover all religions, and even none at all.

Lol….again you have to consider what they are thinking. Straining to be fair but the Catholics were responsible for most of the terror and wars in Europe, and the founding fathers did not want that in America, nor the civil unrest between the Catholics and the Protestants. A lot of the Protestants and Catholics did not like each other….look on the forum here.,

And you are wrong to the extreme about an intent to cover all religions….lol known and unknown.

You can walk through history if you wish and show us how the constitutional statements have been used in the past to separate the United States from its Christian roots. Let's hear it. People have a tendency to re-interpret things and lately anything goes! Man-boy love... Voodoo... and a host of other religions....but as far as the thoughts of our founding fathers and most of American history, not a chance.

I suppose the Founders were less open about sexual freedom than we are, and I'm really sure that exploiting children was something they'd criminalize. But they clearly wanted freedom for any and all religious ideas; they explicitly said so.

Again wrong. And what is the point of sexual freedom? The only religion on the founding father’s minds were Christian religions. Produce a document that came from Congress where the founding fathers are discussing Voodoo...Islam.....Hinduism....or any religion that is not Christians.

And you will have to show me the document that specifically says, "freedom from religion" from the founding fathers.

The religious freedom clause has two parts.

Amendment I ****The topic is not about amendments*** Not concerned with Amendments.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. (my highlighting of the relevant clause)

The first prohibits government-imposed religion, and the second prohibits any restriction on religion by government. It doesn't say "freedom of religion", either. But the first part means we are free from imposed religion, and the second part means we are free of government interference in religion.

That's why Jefferson and Madison wanted both freedoms in the First Amendment.

The 14th Amendment required states to also observe our Constitutional rights. After that, no government could abuse our freedoms. In practice, most states, like Virginia, had constitutions that observed our rights, but not all of them did.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Again, most people are not historians. If you knew history, you would know that the founding fathers or anyone close to them were not thinking of atheism. If you follow the time period there is no one there that classified anything outside of Christianity as a religion. Catholicism was barely considered a religion in their thoughts at the time. Certainly Islam, Voodoo, Hinduism were not considered religions. Separation of Church and state is referring to the state showing preferences between Christian religions. You can walk through history if you wish and show us how the constitutional statement has been used in the past to separate the United States from its Christian roots. Let's hear it. People have a tendency to re-interpret things and lately anything goes! Man-boy love... Voodoo... and a host of other religions....but as far as the thoughts of our founding fathers and most of American history, not a chance.

And you will have to show me the document that specifically says, "freedom from religion" from the founding fathers.

Sorry, dude - but this is an ignorant comment.

Catholicism is not some "obscure" religion outside of Christianity - any ore that Lutheranism or Presbyterianism are.

It might interest you to know that THREE of the Founding Fathers - Charles Carroll and Daniel Carroll of Maryland and Thomas Fitzsimmons of Pennsylvania were Catholics.

As the Early Church Father Pacian was quoted as saying: "My name is Christian, my surname is Catholic."

 

[Grailhunter]

Sorry, dude - but this is an ignorant comment.

Catholicism is not some "obscure" religion outside of Christianity - any ore that Lutheranism or Presbyterianism are.

It might interest you to know that THREE of the Founding Fathers - Charles Carroll and Daniel Carroll of Maryland and Thomas Fitzsimmons of Pennsylvania were Catholics.

As the Early Church Father Pacian was quoted as saying: "My name is Christian, my surname is Catholic."

lol Catholicism is not some obscure religion outside of Christianity. Totally agree. All denominations were in America.

Charles Carroll (September 19, 1737 – November 14, 1832), known as Charles Carroll of Carrollton or Charles Carroll I

Pro-Administration. Occupation. statesman, merchant, soldier. Thomas Fitzsimons (1741–1811) was an American merchant and statesman of Philadelphia. He represented Pennsylvania in the Continental Congress, the Constitutional Convention, and the U.S. Congress.

In my short statements I am not breaking down every period. The people that arrived in america...
Plymouth rock lol 1620 were protestants....not many Catholics for quite awhile.

Roger Williams 1650 Providence Rhode Island separation of church and state and religious tolerance is still not having to deal with the Catholic tolerance. He was just trying to get the Protestant to get along...and there were a couple infinitives to this effect.

Most of the early colonists were trying to escape the Church of England and the Catholic Church, so it is not to surprising that initially the Catholics were not welcome.

The situation of the Catholic Church in the Thirteen Colonies was characterized by an extensive religious persecution originating from Protestant sects, which would barely allow religious toleration to Catholics living on American territory. As time went on things got better, and there is an historical timeline to all of this.

 

[Joseph77]

"things got better" with the influx into the usa of massive idolatrous and abominable practices , 'hidden' so to speak , few warning about that ?
more souls destroyed daily, as worldwide has been for many centuries ....
and "things got better" ? !

When Jesus Returns, yes, then things will be better.

Until then, nope. (except individually , in spirit and in truth, for those who the Father in heaven finds serving Him in Spirit and in Truth) ..... none of the leaven of the religious teachers thank you....

 

[BreadOfLife]

lol Catholicism is not some obscure religion outside of Christianity. Totally agree. All denominations were in America.

Charles Carroll (September 19, 1737 – November 14, 1832), known as Charles Carroll of Carrollton or Charles Carroll I

Pro-Administration. Occupation. statesman, merchant, soldier. Thomas Fitzsimons (1741–1811) was an American merchant and statesman of Philadelphia. He represented Pennsylvania in the Continental Congress, the Constitutional Convention, and the U.S. Congress.

In my short statements I am not breaking down every period. The people that arrived in america...
Plymouth rock lol 1620 were protestants....not many Catholics for quite awhile.

Roger Williams 1650 Providence Rhode Island separation of church and state and religious tolerance is still not having to deal with the Catholic tolerance. He was just trying to get the Protestant to get along...and there were a couple infinitives to this effect.

Most of the early colonists were trying to escape the Church of England and the Catholic Church, so it is not to surprising that initially the Catholics were not welcome.

The situation of the Catholic Church in the Thirteen Colonies was characterized by an extensive religious persecution originating from Protestant sects, which would barely allow religious toleration to Catholics living on American territory. As time went on things got better, and there is an historical timeline to all of this.

Let's not forget that one of the original Thirteen Colonies - Maryland, was envisioned as a haven for Catholics who were persecuted in England.