Religion is a staple part of United States’ culture, but with religious diversity comes clashes. Religious persecution continues to persist on since this nation consisted of merely colonies, as seen in Stephen Jaffe’s, “Chapter 1: Let Us Stay: The Struggle of Religious Freedom in Dutch New Netherland.” The movement of Quakers into Dutch New Netherland, now known as New York, gives readers a strong background of the origins of religious persecution and how its effects evolve this city into a safe haven for individuals of different beliefs to settle.
Acceptance of Quakers in the New England colonies is highly controversial in 17th century America. Religious uniformity is favored by governor, Peter Stuyvasent, but the desire to grow the colony causes issues over how to deal with foreign religious practices. At that time, the government specifically supports the Dutch Reformed Church, declaring it the official “public” church. However, the idea of a “liberty of conscience” is gaining popularity. The Dutch enjoy the notion of practicing as they please in private without the fear of religious persecution. Many petitions against his rulings are made, notably the Flushing Remonstrance, and temporarily work, but Stuyvasent’s law continues to prevail. It is not until John Bowne persuades the directors of the Dutch West India Company that Stuyvasent is forced to make New Netherland’s toleration policy in line with Amsterdam’s.
As Jaffe notes, “the Dutch idea of freedom of conscience played a role in creating a climate of toleration that persisted even after New Netherland became New York in 1664.” Not only does this statement foreshadow New York City becoming the most diverse settlement in the country in terms of religion, etc., but also marks the beginning of the struggles to come in order to gain complete religious freedom in the United States. This idea that arises in the early 17th century allows people to question and fight for their beliefs for many years to come and to this day.
Fast forwarding to the signing of the Constitution and the addition of the Bill of Rights, the government addresses religious freedom. The first three lines of the First Amendment states, “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.” This sounds ideal, but what meaning do these words actually hold? The United States Courts gives a quick and thorough explanation of the meaning and origins of this amendment, allowing individuals to better understand what rights it provides. Furthermore, both sites provide the straight forward claim that people have the right to establish and exercise their own faith.
It is essential to grasp the two major parts of the first amendment concerning religion — the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause. Firstly, “the Establishment Clause prohibits the government from “establishing” a religion.” Noticing the quotation marks around establishing, the reader can assume that there is some ambiguity in the term. Basically, its meaning changes over time. Back then, “establishing” referred to the creation of state-sponsored churches. The government was not allowed to declare or financially support a national religion. However, now, it goes beyond that. Its definition is mainly based off of the rulings from the U.S. Supreme Court case, Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971), which allows the government to assist religion under certain conditions. As long the purpose is secular, neither prohibiting nor inhibiting religion, and is not interfering between church and state, it is valid.
Pertaining to this topic is the debate over school-sponsored prayer. In the case of Engel v. Vitale (1962), the court rules this to violate the Establishment Clause. Although highly argued, the decision allows students of all distinct backgrounds to attend public school and worship as they please. Baruch College is a great example of a government-funded university that is extremely diverse in faiths, yet all are embraced and have a place to practice. This carries into the second division of the first amendment, which is the Free Exercise Clause.
While some may claim this to be contradictory of the Establishment Clause, the Free Exercise Clause “protects citizens’ right to practice their religion as they please, so long as the practice does not run afoul of a “public morals” or a “compelling” governmental interest.” Essentially, American citizens have the right to accept any religious belief and engage in religious rituals. However, it gets tricky because the clause does allow for violation of general laws due to religious reasons, which technically means the government is giving special recognition to certain religions, but nevertheless, this law is fair. As seen in Prince v. Massachusetts (1944), the Supreme Court does prioritize health and safety over religious beliefs by ruling children must receive necessary vaccinations, regardless of faith.
Keeping with the discussion about activism in New York, both the origins of religious persecuation/toleration and the First Amendment prove how far people will go to stand with their beliefs. Analyzing these two texts allows readers to to dig deeper into times before religious freedom and understand the struggles and feats that are made and continued to be. From the Quakers to Supreme Court cases, religious freedom shows to be significant in our country, especially New York City, which is considered a melting pot of theologies.
