O
Ortho
Guest
Is there nude dancing as part of a team activity prior to a football game?
- Status
O
Ortho
Guest
What is freedom from religion?
What’s the problem with freedom from religion in the US?
K
katewithak
Guest
Actually my statements about Morse and Franklin are right on the mark. Samuel Morse’s book did protray a monarchy seeking Vatican for the states. My statement about Benjamin Franklin comes from a direct quote from Franklin that he uttered about drunks, thieves and or Papists when he decided to found the Philadelphia Teacher’s College. It was one of those things we had to study while working on a teaching credential. Franklin foresaw well trained teachers, schooled in the virtues of Protestantism as the only way to raise children who could defend the country from monarchies or false religions such as Catholicism. He was actually repulsed as well by the idea of Episcopalian teachers as the Church of England was an offshoot of Cahtolicism and carried too many Papist trappings. Voila- the first teachers college in the states.
Too often we play up the act and miss the motives behind it. The Protestants have been repeatedly portrayed as having totally altruistic motives in the freedom of religion amendment while Catholics have been portrayed as desiring to replace the President with the Pope. Truth hurts, people, and our American Founding Fathers are not everything the Protestants would like school children to believe. They despised Catholics, simply despised them and many of the freedoms, rights, and institutions we have today is due to that hatred and their efforts to protect the country from Catholicism, not altruism or even Christianity. The fact that their bigotry backfired on them is the world’s gain though, not a loss.
D
David_Zampino
Guest
JMJ Theresa:
Blessings,
This is correct. Although Maryland was technically an Anglican colony, it was founded as a haven for Catholics – until the Catholics became a minority. They then lost many of their civil rights.
Blessings,
D
David_Zampino
Guest
Morse was a hideous anti-Catholic. Franklin was a staunch believer in religious freedom for all – and contributed financially to the building funds of every church in Philadelphia, as well as to the Jewish synagogue.
But I do agree with your overall post.
Blessings,
D
David_Zampino
Guest
Actually, it was colonies like Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island peopled largely by members of various Radical Reformation groups, which was probably the most religiously tolerant. Although vehemently opposed to Catholicism as a concept, the Radical Reformers tended to believe in complete religious freedom – and complete seperation of church and state.
Blessings,
A
Alfie
Guest
I am white, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant and a female. What rights as a female would I have had 200 years ago? Today, for the most part I have the same rights as a male in this country. I think I am very blessed in my life so why should I look back 200 years ago and complain about the past which I can’t change? The greatest right I have as an American is to hear the word of God and practice my faith without the fear of being killed by the government.
K
katewithak
Guest
David Zampino:
Harvard 1636
William and Mary 1693
Yale 1701
Princeton 1746
Univ. Of Penn 1749
Kings College (Columbia) 1754
Brown 1764.
By 1764 Catholic schools with perhaps the exception of the Ursuline nuns in Lousiana, were shut down repeatedly, or burned down, or simply ceased to exist due to poverty and persecution. All of the above mentioned schools with founding dates were founded by Protestants with the exception of the University of Pennsylvania and remained open and supported.
Now some of what I say is simply common sense. Our government originated with the Mayflower Compact, a document written by Protestants escaping persecution by the Church of England which they viewed as a papal offshoot and Catholicism. their document was written for other Protestants. Why people such as Richard profess shock when a more accurate history is portrayed defies logic. Remember that in the colonies early, schools were usually taught by the ministers themselves and their only book was the Bible. Catholic children would be forced to attend public grammer school, the Boston Latin Grammer for instance, and taught by Protestants with Protestant interpretations while at the same time, most Catholic schools simply could not remain open for a variety of reasons. It was a great system for the Protestants but for Catholics, well, frankly, it stank. Truth is better than false portrayals of altruism. And we do need a new American History book for the schools.
Actually, true. I am the last descendant of one of the first families in Maryland. They received part of the land grant James II awarded to Lord Baltimore as thanks for their efforts in restoring the Catholic king to the throne. Things went well for a while in Maryland until James II was deposed. At that point, the Maryland colonists suffered greatly from anti Catholic sentiment. In 1634, the Jesuits came to Maryland and established the first Catholic educational facility. By 1682, they had also opened Newton Manor, not far from the Potomac. A lay Catholic, Governor Thomas Dongan, opened a school in New York in 1682. All of these places were lost with the Protestant revolution in England in 1688. What remained was Harvard.
Harvard 1636
William and Mary 1693
Yale 1701
Princeton 1746
Univ. Of Penn 1749
Kings College (Columbia) 1754
Brown 1764.
By 1764 Catholic schools with perhaps the exception of the Ursuline nuns in Lousiana, were shut down repeatedly, or burned down, or simply ceased to exist due to poverty and persecution. All of the above mentioned schools with founding dates were founded by Protestants with the exception of the University of Pennsylvania and remained open and supported.
Now some of what I say is simply common sense. Our government originated with the Mayflower Compact, a document written by Protestants escaping persecution by the Church of England which they viewed as a papal offshoot and Catholicism. their document was written for other Protestants. Why people such as Richard profess shock when a more accurate history is portrayed defies logic. Remember that in the colonies early, schools were usually taught by the ministers themselves and their only book was the Bible. Catholic children would be forced to attend public grammer school, the Boston Latin Grammer for instance, and taught by Protestants with Protestant interpretations while at the same time, most Catholic schools simply could not remain open for a variety of reasons. It was a great system for the Protestants but for Catholics, well, frankly, it stank. Truth is better than false portrayals of altruism. And we do need a new American History book for the schools.
C
Church_Militant
Guest
Faith of Our Fathers
(4th paragraph)
The Pilgrims and the Puritans who had first settled in
Massachusetts came from the dissenting wing of English
Protestantism, which was strongly Calvinist and staunchly opposed to Roman Catholicism. As a result, many colonial charters and laws contained restrictions against Catholics. A 1647 Massachusetts statute declared that every priest was an “incendiary and disturber of the publick peace and safety, and an enemy to the true Christian religion, and shall be adjudged to suffer perpetual imprisonment.” Even Maryland repealed its Religious Toleration Act in 1654 and passed another stating that “none who profess to exercise the Popish religion, commonly known by the name of Roman Catholic religion, can be protected in this province.” At the start of the eighteenth century only two of the original thirteen colonies, Rhode Island and Pennsylvania, allowed Roman Catholics any degree of religious and civil freedom.
Definitely worth a read.
Pax vobiscum,
(4th paragraph)
The Pilgrims and the Puritans who had first settled in
Massachusetts came from the dissenting wing of English
Protestantism, which was strongly Calvinist and staunchly opposed to Roman Catholicism. As a result, many colonial charters and laws contained restrictions against Catholics. A 1647 Massachusetts statute declared that every priest was an “incendiary and disturber of the publick peace and safety, and an enemy to the true Christian religion, and shall be adjudged to suffer perpetual imprisonment.” Even Maryland repealed its Religious Toleration Act in 1654 and passed another stating that “none who profess to exercise the Popish religion, commonly known by the name of Roman Catholic religion, can be protected in this province.” At the start of the eighteenth century only two of the original thirteen colonies, Rhode Island and Pennsylvania, allowed Roman Catholics any degree of religious and civil freedom.
Definitely worth a read.
Pax vobiscum,
K
katewithak
Guest
No not really. The other problem Catholics had were with the skilled or educated Catholics. Especially the Germans. When Fr. Carroll was ordained Superior of the Missions of the 13 states, he could not establish parishes or dioceses due to the resistance of other Catholics as well including the Germans. Catholic groups were in schism in all 13 colonies. They had absorbed the fear the Protestants had quite rightly exhibited toward King George and this fear spilled over to anything viewed as monarchial with the Papacy used as an example. Most priests until Father Carroll’s appointment served at the will of a wealthy benfactor or wealthy congregation. They were not used to having one superior or leader and the lay people were not used to the parish priest being the chief authority in the parish. Most Catholic parishes followed the Protestant practice of lay trusteeism- a committee of lay people who claimed the authority to employ or fire priests. When Bishop Carroll took over, the priests would not give up their right to go where they wanted and the parishes would not give up their right to control the parish. For example, in 1788, a group of Philadelphia German Catholics set up their own Church and parish without permission from the Church, and employed Father heilbron a German priest. Bishop Carroll granted permission ultimately for the Sacrament to be administered by Fr. Heilbron. However, when Fr. Heilbron misbehaved according to the parishioners, they hired Fr. Goetz. They then decided they like Fr. goetz better and fired Fr. Heilbron. When the Bishop told them they had no authority for this, they rejected the authority of Rome, the Holy Father and the Bishop. Complete schism. At that point, Bishop Carroll was forced to formally excommunicate Fr. Goetz and they were left without any priest. It was at this point that the Pope elevated Carroll from Superior to Bishop. Bishop Carroll was actually highly successful in battling all of the schismatic Catholic Churches in all 13 states. One of the biggest reasons was that his brother was the only Catholic signer of the Declaration of Independence and both brothers were born here in the U.S. in Maryland. These two facts made it possible for Carroll to appear to be less of a monarchial threat and he could calm the fears of Catholics if not Protestants.
C
Church_Militant
Guest
The U.S.S. Franklin’s Hero Priest
Pax vobiscum,
Code:
It was 6:05 a.m. on a cool morning, March 19, 1945, the Feast of St. Joseph, when Fr. Joseph Timothy O'Callahan, S.J., a Boston priest, sat down for his breakfast. He had just given general absolution over the PA system to the men who were to take off in their planes on a bombing mission to Kyushu, one of the islands of Japan. During World War II, Fr. O'Callahan was serving as chaplain aboard the aircraft carrier the U.S.S. Franklin, nicknamed "Big Ben." He had just finished visiting the pilots and asked them to join him in a prayer before they set out on their mission. He knew that their mission was very dangerous and that some of the boys with whom he was praying probably would not come back. But he did not want to scare them.
K
katewithak
Guest
Church Militant said:
Oh wonderful stuff. Thank you very much. My daughter, in seventh grade last year, was suspended twice for questioning her teachers about their interpretation of American History. Also the Irish which believe it or not were portrayed once more as ignorant catholic drunks. She is not only descended from the original Maryland Warfieds but the Irish as well in South Carolina. And the family has always been Catholic. This is beyond cradle Catholicism and I hope no one will take this wrong, but cradle catholics and founding father catholics can be more ignorant of their religion and it’s history than Protestants.
She has been in homeschool sincer her last suspension and will go to high school in September. I am trying to ground her well in the Catholic view of sciences and American History before she hits public school again. All of these type of articles help so much. Thanks. I did not know about the French Indian war connection. 
C
Church_Militant
Guest
The “Know Nothings”
KNOW-NOTHING PARTY
The American party of the 1850s derived its informal name from its members replying, when asked about their role, “I know nothing.” The party was anti-Catholic and anti-immigrant. It grew out of the Order of the Star-Spangled Banner, a secret society apparently founded in New York City in 1849. In the wake of the collapse of the Whigs and the Democratic split over the Kansas-Nebraska Act in 1854 and 1855, its supporters won several offices, including mayor of Philadelphia and control of the Massachusetts legislature. Some northern Know-Nothings also sought to cooperate with antislavery forces not yet prepared to join an official Republican party.
When the Know-Nothing party endorsed the Kansas-Nebraska Act at its presidential nominating convention in 1856, northern members bolted. Southern members nominated former president Millard Fillmore of New York for president and Andrew J. Donelson of Tennessee for vice president. Most northern Know-Nothings tenuously supported the Republican candidate, John C. Frémont. Fillmore tried to distance himself from the party’s nativist tendencies but carried only Maryland. The Know-Nothing party soon dissolved.
No one talks about these dirtbags.
Wikipedia article on them for what it’s worth.
Anti-Catholicism and the Know-Nothings gives some history that most of us don’t know.
An interesting definition:
The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition. 2002.
Know-Nothings
A party opposed to the holding of public office by immigrants or Roman Catholics. The Know-Nothings, also known as “nativists,” insisted that only true, “native” Americans should serve in the government. The party was quite successful in the 1850s but split over the slavery question. Its official name was the American party. It picked up the “Know-Nothing” tag because its members, maintaining secrecy about the party’s activities, customarily answered questions with, “I know nothing.” 1
‡ Today, the term know-nothing is usually applied to bigots.
Letter from Abraham Lincoln about them
The National Park Service
On the Know-Nothing Party (anti-immigrant party)
Letter to Joshua F. Speed
August 24, 1855
I am not a Know-Nothing. That is certain. How could I be? How can any one who abhors the oppression of negroes, be in favor of degrading classes of white people? Our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid. As a nation, we begin by declaring that “all men are created equal.” We now practically read it “all men are created equal, except negroes.” When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read “all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and catholics.” When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretence of loving liberty-to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocracy.
Pax vobiscum,
KNOW-NOTHING PARTY
The American party of the 1850s derived its informal name from its members replying, when asked about their role, “I know nothing.” The party was anti-Catholic and anti-immigrant. It grew out of the Order of the Star-Spangled Banner, a secret society apparently founded in New York City in 1849. In the wake of the collapse of the Whigs and the Democratic split over the Kansas-Nebraska Act in 1854 and 1855, its supporters won several offices, including mayor of Philadelphia and control of the Massachusetts legislature. Some northern Know-Nothings also sought to cooperate with antislavery forces not yet prepared to join an official Republican party.
When the Know-Nothing party endorsed the Kansas-Nebraska Act at its presidential nominating convention in 1856, northern members bolted. Southern members nominated former president Millard Fillmore of New York for president and Andrew J. Donelson of Tennessee for vice president. Most northern Know-Nothings tenuously supported the Republican candidate, John C. Frémont. Fillmore tried to distance himself from the party’s nativist tendencies but carried only Maryland. The Know-Nothing party soon dissolved.
No one talks about these dirtbags.
Wikipedia article on them for what it’s worth.
Anti-Catholicism and the Know-Nothings gives some history that most of us don’t know.
An interesting definition:
The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition. 2002.
Know-Nothings
A party opposed to the holding of public office by immigrants or Roman Catholics. The Know-Nothings, also known as “nativists,” insisted that only true, “native” Americans should serve in the government. The party was quite successful in the 1850s but split over the slavery question. Its official name was the American party. It picked up the “Know-Nothing” tag because its members, maintaining secrecy about the party’s activities, customarily answered questions with, “I know nothing.” 1
‡ Today, the term know-nothing is usually applied to bigots.
Letter from Abraham Lincoln about them
The National Park Service
On the Know-Nothing Party (anti-immigrant party)
Letter to Joshua F. Speed
August 24, 1855
I am not a Know-Nothing. That is certain. How could I be? How can any one who abhors the oppression of negroes, be in favor of degrading classes of white people? Our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid. As a nation, we begin by declaring that “all men are created equal.” We now practically read it “all men are created equal, except negroes.” When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read “all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and catholics.” When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretence of loving liberty-to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocracy.
Pax vobiscum,
S
St.BJLabre
Guest
I mean on the eve of the Civil War, the vast majority of Americans (who were mostly Protestant) at the very least tolerated slavery were it was. But remember in a moral war if you are neutral you have taken the side of the opposition. I’m not sure exactly where I could find statistics to prove that but I am an undergrad history major and I’m sure, since you have a masters in American history, that you know that is an undisputable fact.
C
Church_Militant
Guest
“Mad” King George’s Quebec Act of 1774, Colonial-American Freemasonry’s ‘Intolerable Act’ LINK
The Williamite Penal Laws in place against Catholics in the 14 Colony’s at the time of the American Revolution, which the Quebec Act of 1774 enacted by George III would have abrogated
Priests did not officially exist since Anglicanism was the established Church. Priests relied on their congregations for gifts of food and money for their survival, while Anglican clergy had vast estates and few parishioners. Roman Catholics had to pay tithes (one tenth of their income) to the Anglican Church, and often paid rents as well.
The Williamite Penal Laws in place against Catholics in the 14 Colony’s at the time of the American Revolution, which the Quebec Act of 1774 enacted by George III would have abrogated
Code:
* Catholics could not vote
* Catholics were excluded from all professions and public offices
* Catholics were not allowed a university education
* Catholics could not teach children
* Catholics could not be the guardian of a child
* Catholic men could not marry Protestant women. Catholic women could marry Protestant men because children were brought up in the faith of their father: any children from this sort of mixed marriage would be brought up as Protestants
* Catholics could not buy land
* Catholics could not own a horse worth more than £5
* Catholics could not be given, be sold, or be bequeathed land by Protestants
* All land owned by a Catholic had to be equally divided among his sons on his death, unless one son was a Protestant, in which case he got it all. The law of primogeniture was suspended for Catholics
* All priests had to be registered. All Bishops were exiled.
* Catholic Churches could have neither bells nor steeples
* Pilgrimages were forbidden
K
katewithak
Guest
Well, Alfie, you are an evangelical. Therefore discrimination against Catholics will not interest you as much as it does Catholics. And anti-Catholics, I’m afraid, is the last politically correct prejudice exercised in America. So the history of it is very interesting to some of us. We are not so much complaining about the past as we are trying to give our Catholic children an understanding of the roots of anti Catholicism they find when attending the local public schools. I am glad as a Protestant your rights have been seriously protected. Understand that is not the experience for Catholics. And our children do have a right to hear the truth about their American History. How could they grow up to be good American Patriots if all they have received is a pack of lies? If people can understand this concerning the Chinese, the blacks, the Mexicans, the Native American Indians, etc. why is it so hard to understand about Catholics?
C
Church_Militant
Guest
Didn’t know this about Georgia…
Colonial Georgia
A charter was granted for twenty-one years to a board of trustees for the land between the Savannah and Altamaha rivers and westward to the “South Sea”. The new country was named Georgia, from George II who had granted the charter. The liberties of Englishmen were guaranteed to the colonies, and freedom in religion to all except Catholics. The object in founding the colony was threefold: to afford an opportunity to the unfortunate poor to begin life over again, to offer a refuge to persecuted Protestants of Europe, and to erect a military barrier between the Carolinas and Spanish Florida. Oglethorpe was chosen governor and with thirty-five families he sailed from England, reaching the mouth of the Savannah in the spring of 1733, and here on a bluff overlooking the river and the sea he founded a city and called it by the name of the river.
History that no one seems to know.
Colonial Georgia
A charter was granted for twenty-one years to a board of trustees for the land between the Savannah and Altamaha rivers and westward to the “South Sea”. The new country was named Georgia, from George II who had granted the charter. The liberties of Englishmen were guaranteed to the colonies, and freedom in religion to all except Catholics. The object in founding the colony was threefold: to afford an opportunity to the unfortunate poor to begin life over again, to offer a refuge to persecuted Protestants of Europe, and to erect a military barrier between the Carolinas and Spanish Florida. Oglethorpe was chosen governor and with thirty-five families he sailed from England, reaching the mouth of the Savannah in the spring of 1733, and here on a bluff overlooking the river and the sea he founded a city and called it by the name of the river.
History that no one seems to know.
A
Anima_Christi
Guest
Yes. Christ the King, Lord of History and Christ in the Americas, both by Anne W. Carroll, are Catholic history textbooks which focus on Catholicism’s role in world history and the Americas, respectively.
A good book on Catholicism’s history in general is Triumph: The Power and Glory of the Catholic Church by H.W. Crocker.
Another good one is How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization by Thomas E. Woods Jr.
C
Church_Militant
Guest
The San Patricios; Mexico’s Fighting Irish
In 1846, thousands of immigrants, mostly Irish, joined the US army and were sent with Gen. Zachary Taylor’s army to invade Mexico in what some historians have called a war of Manifest Destiny.
Dubious about why they were fighting a Catholic country, and fed up with mistreatment from their Anglo-Protestant officers, hundreds of Irish and other immigrants deserted Taylor’s army and joined forces with Mexico. Led by Captain John Riley of County Galway, they called themselves the St. Patrick’s Battalion—in Spanish, the San Patricios.
They fought bravely in most of the campaigns of the two-year conflict, but their efforts failed to stem the yankee onslaught. Soon the US Army occupied the halls of Montezuma, and Mexico eventually surrendered, ceding nearly half its territory to the United States.
Toward the end of the conflict, at the Battle of Churubsco, 83 San Patricios were captured, and 72 were court martialed. Of this number, 50 were sentenced to be hanged and 16 were flogged and branded on their cheeks with the letter “D” for deserter.
Crisis Magazine article on them
And another Must Read
:irish1:
In 1846, thousands of immigrants, mostly Irish, joined the US army and were sent with Gen. Zachary Taylor’s army to invade Mexico in what some historians have called a war of Manifest Destiny.
Dubious about why they were fighting a Catholic country, and fed up with mistreatment from their Anglo-Protestant officers, hundreds of Irish and other immigrants deserted Taylor’s army and joined forces with Mexico. Led by Captain John Riley of County Galway, they called themselves the St. Patrick’s Battalion—in Spanish, the San Patricios.
They fought bravely in most of the campaigns of the two-year conflict, but their efforts failed to stem the yankee onslaught. Soon the US Army occupied the halls of Montezuma, and Mexico eventually surrendered, ceding nearly half its territory to the United States.
Toward the end of the conflict, at the Battle of Churubsco, 83 San Patricios were captured, and 72 were court martialed. Of this number, 50 were sentenced to be hanged and 16 were flogged and branded on their cheeks with the letter “D” for deserter.
Crisis Magazine article on them
And another Must Read
:irish1:
K
katewithak
Guest
Did your Masters in US history include Harriet Beecher Stowe and the Underground Railroad? I think that is a fine example of blacks claiming rights for themselves as well as the example of blacks who risked death trying to keep their families together. Of course, the efforts of the blacks themselves to free themselves is not prominant in American History books. It would take away too much glory from the Protestant abolitionists, I guess. When I study history, I like to see what the people themselves were saying and doing. Ben Franklins direct quotes about Catholics for instance, blacks and their speeches and so on. Biased quick interpretations by non catholics or non blacks do not speak as well.
- Status