On October 12, 1492, Christopher Columbus thrust the banner of the Catholic monarchs Ferdinand and Isabella into the sands of the island he named San Salvador, or "Holy Savior," claiming the territory for Spain and announcing that henceforth its people would be Spanish subjects. Observing the native inhabitants, Columbus wrote: "I think they can easily be made Christians."
Thus began the tangled embrace between religion and politics in the New World, a story of conquest and conversion, faith and power, repentance and renewal that has continued for more than 500 years. The dynamic intersection of religion and political life in America is the subject of the forthcoming six-hour series God in America that premiers on Columbus Day, October 11 at 9:00 PM on PBS stations across the country. Night One of the series explores how religion imprinted America with a distinctive Protestant stamp and how religious liberty proved noble in principle but messy in practice.
In the New World, Spain coupled religious orthodoxy with political conquest. Pushing into the American Southwest, Franciscan friars, militant in their piety and zealous in their faith, accompanied settlers eager for land and conquistadors searching for gold. In present-day New Mexico, the friars encountered an indigenous people they called Pueblos. The religion of these native people was deeply embedded in their culture and their way of life. For them, all living things possessed a spiritual dimension. As the Spanish set about establishing a network of missions, two ways of the sacred, two cultures, collided. Pueblo educator and historian Joseph Suina observes, "The Catholic Church was saying, 'One true God and no others.'" The Pueblos were baptized by the thousands but continued to observe their native rituals.
In 1680, simmering tensions erupted in the Pueblo revolt. Led by a man named Po'pay, the Pueblos killed settlers and friars, smashed crucifixes and sent the Spanish fleeing down the Rio Grande. The Pueblos returned to their ancient ways. Old World orthodoxy had proved fatal. But it was persistent.
Protestants had their own version of orthodoxy. On the coast of New England, Protestant reformers known as Puritans imagined themselves as a people chosen by God to build a model Christian commonwealth. Destiny demanded conformity. But Anne Hutchinson -- daughter of a minister, fiercely intelligent, and schooled in scripture -- challenged the religious and political authorities of the colony. White-hot in her righteousness, she attacked ministers, polarized the community and nearly tore it apart. Brought to trial, she was banished and excommunicated. The establishment won. Orthodoxy held. Then came George Whitefield.
An Anglican priest, Whitefield ignored parish boundaries, denominational lines and local customs. Preaching in town commons and rural fields and farms, he called upon people to open themselves up to spiritual rebirth, to make their own immediate connection to God. Whitefield challenged the authority of established ministers, snug in their social status and accustomed to due deference. But under Whitefield's influence, ordinary people -- housewives, butchers, bakers and candlestick makers -- felt empowered to make their own religious choices, to claim their own religious experience. Established ministers were horrified. But, as historian Harry Stout has observed, "Whitefield smelled the disintegration of the old aristocratic order." As farmers put down plows and picked up guns, the sense of individual empowerment set loose by religious revival spilled into the political sphere, fueling the rebellion against Great Britain and endowing it with divine purpose.
The rebels won. Tattered but victorious, the fledgling nation forged its political and religious identity side by side. Religion was becoming more and more diversified -- Anglicans, Catholics, Mennonites and Quakers all vied for followers, while the numbers of Baptists and Methodists surged past traditional denominations. The Second Great Awakening drew tens of thousands of Americans into the evangelical fold and spurred a movement for social reform. The guarantee of religious liberty enshrined in the First Amendment encouraged competition in the religious marketplace. By the 1830s, America had built a solidly Protestant identity -- a New Eden -- proud of its traditions of opportunity and religious liberty.
In the 1830s, the Protestant establishment in New York City was challenged by Catholic immigrants from Ireland. Virulent anti-Catholicism had festered since colonial times. As Professor John McGreevy has observed, "Many Americans associated Protestantism not just with liberty but with progress, part of the progress of the modern world." Catholics seemed to threaten progress. Professor Steve Marini adds that it seemed that "Satan himself had invaded the Garden of Eden." Riots broke out in Philadelphia and New York. In Boston, factory workers burned a convent.
Into the fray stepped John Hughes, a self-educated Irish immigrant who rose through the ranks to become Archbishop of New York City. Like the parents of Irish schoolchildren, Hughes thought Protestantism pervaded the public schools: many teachers were former ministers; textbooks contained virulently anti-Catholic claims and the Bible read at the start of the school day was the King James Version -- a Protestant Bible. Catholics had their own Bible, one approved by the Vatican and richly annotated. The radical notion at the heart of Protestantism, that any person could read and interpret the Bible for himself, was anathema.
Hughes vowed, "I was bound to see that the religious rights of my flock should not be filched away from them, under the pretext of education." He took the fight over public schools into the hurly-burly arena of New York politics. In the end, New York voted to end religious instruction in its public schools. Hughes went on to build a system of parochial schools where Catholics could be educated according to the tenets of their faith.
The story of Hughes and the conflict over the public schools is one story in a continuing narrative about religious liberty in America and the ongoing struggle to define it. In the past, religious minorities -- Baptists, Jehovah's Witnesses, Jews and Atheists -- fought for their rights. Today the conflict over the establishment of an Islamic center near Ground Zero is part of this historical pattern. It is also a vivid reminder that liberty does not operate in a vacuum but in a cultural context. As legal scholar Sarah Barringer Gordon has observed, around the question swirl memory, fidelity, sacrifice and patriotism.
WATCH the trailer for God in America below:
Marilyn Mellowes: 'God in America:' A House Divided Twice (VIDEO)
God In America - Coming October 11, 12, & 13, 2010 | PBS
God in America, PBS: US TV review - Telegraph
God in America Trailer | FRONTLINE | PBS Video
PBS ANNOUNCES THREE NEW PROGRAMS EXPLORING MANY PATHS TO FAITH ...
God in America PBS (GodInAmericaPBS) on Twitter
Nothing about Church or State, but allot about freeing oneself from materialism so you could be enlightened. Not unlike Buddha, Krishna, or Mohammad.
We call the rising of oneself to Christ Consciousness the process of Self Realization or second coming of Christ.
Most freedom Churches expounds has more to do with persecution as your article speaks. Unfortunately it is hard to distinguish this struggle from any other group be it Lobbyist, Think Tank, Financial Institution or Rich person. Hence the separation of church which should be extended to any individual or group that uses the power or money to destroy America from equal, fair and justic not unlike the WORD itself.
http://wsimpson.wordpress.com/2010/05/26/abandoned-by-god/
Show me your faith without works, and I will show you my faith by my works, thus all did. They were not found, nor called religious? But all were found to be -Faithful- first to God in all things, thus all God judged and were found to be -Righteous Men of God-.
I've been asked twice by MrNCN why I did that:
"Odd, I found this article through the RELIGION section. Why would you even bother clicking on it if you think that there is "Too much attention to religion and gods"? Why aren't you out living your life instead of trolling here in the RELIGION section?"
My answer is:
(1) Natural place to put my comment "Too much attention to religions and gods" is here, after reading this article. Would be odd to put it in "Entertainment" or "Tech" or "Food".
(2) While I am not interested in celebs and entertainment, I indeed almost never go there. But I click sometimes to articles in "Religion". Why?: I am quite interested in how different people view the world etc. And this site does not have a section "Philosophy" (which would be some step forward), not to mention that it does not have sections "Science" or "Universe" or "Atheism", -- so I come by here.
(3) Religion does not belong to believers. This is a human phenomenon.
(4) My statement was that there is too much attention to religions. This does not mean that I am personally not interested in varied religions. I like swimming, but if swimming would be discussed all the time, considered as great virtue and required for running for any office, then I'd say "too much attention to swimming."
I am weary of God and Jesus and Christianity and church and scripture being used in the service of or as an excuse for or a justification for: death, war, murder, destruction, violence, oppression, condemnation, retribution, vengeance, hate, fear, slavery, systemic injustice, oppression, condemnation, retribution, exclusion, segregation, discrimination, sectarianism and censorship. I reject these actions. These actions are evil, are not of God or from God, are no part of the Good News message, are not how life is lived in the Kingdom of God.
On Sunday, October 31, 2010 at dmergent.org, the Second Reformation will begin. On the 493rd anniversary of the first reformation, God and Jesus and worship and the Good News message and Christian theology will be reclaimed. On that day, it will be proclaimed that a parochial and civic and nationalistic God of judgment and conditional acceptance has been replaced by the one true God of unqualified grace and unrestrained love. This is a not progressive theology revolution. This is a reclaiming of the original Christian fundamentalism.
For insight into the theology of the Second Reformation, click on this link to read the article “RECLAIMING FORGIVENESS – it’s personal”
http://dmergent.org/2010/08/19/reclaiming-forgiveness-its-personal/
At the bottom of that article, there are links to six (6) other relevant articles.
Until October 31…
Peace,
Douglas C. Sloan
http://www.talk2action.org/
In that, it's interesting, ...as a history of 'religion in America,' well, one, maybe.
You've got ten minutes of Native Americans even being mentioned, the thesis there being some Catholics came into New Mexico and there was a 'misunderstanding,' seeming to be the main conclusion. After which, poof. Not a Native American in sight through a whole bloody history of religious oppression against them. And not a thing about what the Native Americans actually believed, save the point was made that to a lot of cultures, 'hearing what you have to say' or even welcoming new God-figures in is a different matter from rejecting one's own. (This taken uncritically: like they never converted 'heathens' before. Yah.)
...But be that as it may, that's the most we hear of anyone but Evangelical protestants, or proto-evangelical ones.
There's a lot of people standing or walking around presumably having revelations, with nobody else in sight, which would be about the view of history this show gives.
Ignoring everyone else. Till 'Catholics arrive.' (to play the foil?)
Which may be fine if one already knows a lot of history, but otherwise is out of any context but claiming the country and nation for Protestantism and Evangelicalism in the first place. (Often without going into the differences between various Protestant sects to begin with.)
Sort like Ken Burns Baseball should of been called, "The Yankees and a Few Stories About Some Other Teams."
Christians are taught whatever they do to the least of their brethren, they do to Christ (Matthew: 25:40). Yet, as Republicans, they continually rail against any social justice, welfare or social safety net as communism or socialism, or worse.
Christ aligned himself with the poor, not the rich as Republicans do. The GOP are against minimum wage laws, regulation of industry which works to protect workers, public education among many others.
Christ spent his life giving a voice to women and minorities or the oppressed of his time, in direct opposition to Republican mantras;
Yes, the GOP aligns itself with the strictest areas of Christianity (pro-life, anti-g@y, etc.) but the basic tenets of what it means to be Christian has little or nothing to do with the Repulbican party.
Note: While I was raised Baptist and converted to Catholicism upon marriage, I am recovering. I have long, long ago given up on organized religion. I do not think of myself as a non-believer, but I believe I (or anyone) can get closer to God at home on Sunday than in a church, where it's more a fashion competition or political rally than anything else. God is in the details, and some of the worst people I have ever met wore their religion on their sleeves, not in their hearts....
"Tony Blair. Militant liberal, George W. Bush. compassionate conservative...I don't know what that is but it sounds like a Volvo with a gun rack! " - Robin Williams
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factions_in_the_Republican_Party_%28United_States%29
Have you read George Lakoff's Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think? I found it extremely enlightening. He thinks the politics of conservatives and liberals comes out of their moral worldviews. So, you have the "strict father" model of family morality (conservatives) pitted against the "nurturant parent" model (liberals).
But I completely agree with you, the Christianity pushed by conservatives does not seem to have much resonance with the teachings of Jesus.
-- Sinclair Lewis