1/27/2019 The Flushing Remonstrance: The Ultimate Explanation For The Need TO FIGHT For Religious Freedom.Read NowThe Flushing Remonstrance: The Ultimate Explanation For The Need To Fight For Religious Freedom. by Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D. In the last installment of "Sunday Thoughts," we visited the events leading to the declaration of the Flushing Remonstrance; North America's first signed attestation of religious freedom. And although the story behind the Remonstrance is gripping and compelling, its greater power lies in its words. Yes, a handful of documents served to advance the needle of religious freedom and personal liberties in immeasurable ways. Chief amongst these are the Magna Carta, the Mayflower Compact, the Declaration of Independence, Virginia's Statute for Religious Freedom, the Baltimore Toleration Act, the Virginia Bill of Rights, Madison's Remonstrance on Religious Freedom, the Northwest Ordinance, the Constitution of the United States, and the Bill of Rights. But none explains the reasons for the necessity of the defense of one's religious freedoms like the Flushing Remonstrance. What's remarkable is that the explanation provided in this act was not penned by a group of philosophers or professors of higher learning, but by a group of common individuals who were being pressured into going against their religious beliefs by an oppressive and tyrannical regime. Let us recall the circumstances afflicting the inhabitants of Flushing. Peter Stuyvesant, the new director for the colony of New Amsterdam was ordering the colonists to apprehend and deliver anyone who they knew to be a Quaker. The colonists, some of whom were married to Quakers could not bring themselves to do so, and they couldn't do it not because of some allegiance to a conflicting worldly power, but because of their greater allegiance to the Laws of Jesus Christ. Thus, when they assembled to pen their letter of defiance, they knew their position was indefensible in the eyes of the laws of man, so they set out to explain their defiance, not through a secular legal argument, but through an explanation of their allegiance to an authority greater than any from this world. On December 27, 1657, they wrote Stuyvesant that "we are unable condemn [the Quakers] in this case, neither can we stretch out our hands against them, to punish, banish or persucute(sic) them, for out of Christ god is a consuming fire, and it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God." They recognized it was not up to them to them judge lest they themselves be judged, nor condemn lest they themselves be condemned. They were therefore "bounde by the Law to doe good unto all men, especially to those of the household of faith." "Therefore," they said, "God shall persuade our consciences. And in this we are true subjects both of Church and State, for we are bounde by the law of God and man to doe good unto all men and evil to noe man." As the inhabitants of Flushing recognized, the laws of man will someday amount to nothing, but the laws of God shall reign supreme and eternal, and as they mentioned in their second paragraph, there will come a time when they will come to advocate before the Lord for their souls. And just what effect will their compliance with man's unjust laws have then? Truly, the inhabitants of Flushing properly placed their priorities when they voiced their objections to the absolute ruler of their jurisdiction. But regardless, they recognized they were much better off defying the unjust laws of man than disobeying those of God. THE FLUSHING REMONSTRANCE. December 27, 1657 Right Honorable, You have been pleased to send up unto us a certain prohibition or command that we should not receive or entertain any of those people called Quakers because they are supposed to be by some, seducers of the people. For our part we cannot condemn them in this case, neither can we stretch out our hands against them, to punish, banish or persucute them, for out of Christ god is a consuming fire, and it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. We desire therefore in this case not to judge least we be judged, neither to condemn least we be condemned, but rather let every man stand and fall to his own Master. Wee are bounde by the Law to doe good unto all men, especially to those of the household of faith. And though for the present we seem to be unsensible of the law and the Law giver, yet when death and the Law assault us, if wee have our advocate to seeke, who shall plead for us in this case of conscience betwixt god and our own souls; the power of this world can neither attack us, neither excuse us, for if God justifye who can condemn and if God condemn there is none can justifye. And for those jealousies and suspicions which some have of them, that they are destructive unto Magistracy and Ministerye, that can not bee, for the magistrate hath the sword in his hand and the minister hath the sword in his hand, as witnesse those two great examples which all magistrates and ministers are to follow, Moses and Christ, whom god raised up maintained and defended against all the enemies both of flesh and spirit; and therefore that which is of God will stand, and that which is of man will come to nothing. And as the Lord hath taught Moses or the civil power to give an outward liberty in the state by the law written in his heart designed for the good of all, and can truly judge who is good, who is civil, who is true and who is false, and can pass definitive sentence of life or death against that man which rises up against the fundamental law of the States General; soe he hath made his ministers a savor of life unto life, and a savor of death unto death. The law of love, peace and liberty in the states extending to Jews, Turks, and Egyptians, as they are considered the sonnes of Adam, which is the glory of the outward state of Holland, soe love, peace and liberty, extending to all in Christ Jesus, condemns hatred, war and bondage. And because our Saviour saith it is impossible but that offenses will come, but woe unto him by whom they cometh, our desire is not to offend one of his little ones, in whatsoever form, name or title hee appears in, whether Presbyterian, Independent, Baptist or Quaker, but shall be glad to see anything of God in any of them, desiring to doe unto all men as wee desire all men should doe unto us, which is the true law both of Church and State; for our Saviour saith this is the law and the prophets. Therefore if any of these said persons come in love unto us, we cannot in conscience lay violent hands upon them, but give them free egresse and regresse unto our Town, and houses, as God shall persuade our consciences. And in this we are true subjects both of Church and State, for we are bounde by the law of God and man to doe good unto all men and evil to noe man. And this is according to the patent and charter of our Towne, given unto us in the name of the States General, which we are not willing to infringe, and violate, but shall houlde to our patent and shall remaine, your humble servants, the inhabitants of Vlishing. Written this 27th day of December, in the year 1657, by mee EDWARD HART, Clericus Tobias Feake Nathaniel Tue The Mark of William Noble Nicholas Blackford The Mark of Micah Tue William Thorne, seignor The Mark of William Thorne, junior The Mark of Philipp Ud Edward Tarne Robert Field, senior John Store Robert Field, junior Nathaniel Hefferd Nick Colas Parsell Benjamin Hubbard Michael Milner The Mark of Henry Townsend William Pigion George Wright The Mark of John Foard George Clere Henry Semtel Elias Doughtie Edward Hart Antonie Feild John Mastine Richard Stockton John Townesend Edward Griffine Edward Farrington Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopaedic surgeon and lawyer living in Venice, Florida. He is the author of The Federalist Pagesand served in the Florida House of Representatives. He can be reached through www.thefederalistpages.com to arrange a lecture or book signing.
1 Comment
1/13/2019 Flushing, Long Island: Home Of The First Written, Religious Freedom Assertion In North America.Read Nowby Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D. Flushing was a relatively tolerant place in 1645 as far as the seventeenth century goes. It was under Dutch rule and as such, under the leadership of William Kieft, New Amsterdam's Director General. The Dutch had made significant advances toward respecting freedom of conscience, and its relative tolerance in the Old World followed it into the new. It was for this reason, among others that New Amsterdam, what we know today as New York, became such a magnet for commerce. Yes, there was fur, and boats, and harbors, and Indians willing to engage in trade, but above all, there was religious tolerance. At a time where belonging to the wrong flavor of Christianity, worst yet, not subscribing to it, could literally mean your head, New Amsterdam was a welcomed respite. Despite the fact that so many had fled Europe because of religious persecution, such tolerance was not universal amongst the colonies. Many who left England in response to religious intolerance set up shop in the New World only to turn the tables on the others. Such was the case for Deborah Moody, a wealthy widow living in Massachusetts. Moody was born in Wiltshire County, England in 1586, the granddaughter of the Bishop of Durham. Originally Deborah Dunch, Moody married First Baronet Sir Henry Moody and a member of the House of Commons. Following Sir Moody's death in 1629, Deborah Moody left England to settle in Lynn, Massachusetts. While there, Moody, an independent thinker and Noncomformist, became attracted to Anabaptism, a religious sect opposed to the baptism of infants due to the concern of their religion being chosen for them. Anabaptism did not bode well amongst the entrenched and oppressive Puritan majority, forcing Moore to seek a better life. Attracted by the greater degree of religious tolerance afforded in New Amsterdam and despite having been granted 400 acres of land in Massachusetts, Moody and a group of settlers ended up traveling to Gravesend in what is presently known as Brooklyn and inclusive of Coney Island. Gravesend, of course, was under Dutch rule, and their greater degree of tolerance served as an attraction for Moody. On December 19, 1645, Kieft issued a patent to Moody in Gravesend, an area that included Coney Island, the first patent in the history of colonial North America that included a woman. The patent included the authority to ". . . to haue & enioy the ffree libertie of Conscience according to the Custom and manner of Holland, without molestation or disturbance from any magistrate, or magistrates, or any other ecclesiasticall minister that may pretend iurisdictie ouer them. . . " Other such patents were not uncommon in the area. For example, on October 10, 1645, Kieft signed a patent for a tract of land in nearby Flushing that included similar, religious tolerance language. But the relative peace afforded to religious noncomformists in places like Flushing and Gravesend was not to last. In 1647, Kieft was replaced by Petrus Stuyvesant largely in response to a number of ill-advised, violent confrontations Kieft had undertaken with local tribes. A strict disciplinarian, Stuyvesant insisted upon the supremacy of the Dutch Reformed Church and employed a stance of absolute intolerance against Quakers in New Amsterdam. His views were so intolerant that when the Woodhouse, a trading vessel carrying Quakers, arrived in New Amsterdam, Stuyvesant refused the ship entry and hunted down some of the passengers that had managed to escape and remain behind.[i] In his zeal for persecuting Quakers, Stuyvesant arrested anyone who housed a Quaker, confiscated ships carrying Quakers, and even tortured Quakers captured in New Amsterdam. As word spread of the harsh treatment of religious noncomformists in New Amsterdam, a group of inhabitants of Flushing, including the sheriff, some of its founders, and the town clerk gathered on December 27, 1657, to fashion a response. They drafted and signed a remarkable document written by Edward Hart, one of Flushing's inhabitants, that would serve as the first written assertion of religious liberty in North America.[ii] It's language is fascinating and well beyond its years. It is reproduced below in its entirety:
Stuyvesant was so impressed with the magnificence of this document that he promptly arrested those responsible for its execution including the sheriff of Flushing and Edward Hart, its author.
Despite the overt oppression, the colonists, particularly those of Flushing, continued to be sympathetic to the Quakers, hiding them when necessary and allowing them to hold meetings in the homes of non-Quakers. In one noteworthy case, John Bowne, the husband of a Quaker, was arrested in 1662 for allowing Quakers to congregate in his home. He was tried and fined. But Bowne refused to capitulate. In an attempt to have Bowne banished, Stuyvesant placed him on a ship to Ireland along with a letter of explanation bound for Holland. Arriving in Ireland, Bowne proceeded to Holland and presented the letter and his case to the Dutch West India Company, which responded with an order for Stuyvesant to moderate his crackdown on religious liberty stating, "The consciences of men ought ever to remain free and unshackled."[iii] In short, the Dutch West India Company told the Stuyvesant to "allow everyone to have their own beliefs."[iv] By 1648, New Amsterdam would be handed to the British ending any authority the Dutch West India Company letter may have, but its effects upon religious liberty and the free exercise of religion would be more permanent. The renamed New York was a place tolerant of men's consciences, and the willingness of its people to stand up for their right to worship would be indelibly etched upon the colony's character. New York, like New Amsterdam before it, would be a sanctuary for many of North America's religiously oppressed, including Quakers and Jews. The actions and written words of the settlers in Flushing would serve as foundational steps that would eventually lead to the monumental pursuit of religious freedom within the Declaration of Independence, the Revolutionary War, and the First Amendment to the Constitution. Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopaedic surgeon and lawyer living in Venice, Florida. He is the author of The Federalist Pagesand served in the Florida House of Representatives. He can be reached through www.thefederalistpages.com to arrange a lecture or book signing. [i]Willem Kieft, "The Charter, October 10, 1645" in The Flushing Remonstrance, draft edition, accessed Jul. 29, 2015, http://schools.nycenet.edu/offices/teachlearn/ela/Flushing_Remon.pdf. pg. 6. [ii]Ibid. [iii]A History of Flushing, accessed Jul. 31, 2015, http://www.nyym.org/flushing/history.html. [iv]Kenneth Jackson, "A Colony with a Conscience," The New York Times, Dec. 27, 2007, accessed on July 31, 2015, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/27/opinion/27jackson.html. 1/6/2019 The Constitution's Affirmation Option Was Not Designed To Accommodate Secularists.Read Nowby Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D. It's one of the most often utilized arguments by secularists when making the case that the Constitution is a secular document and that the nation's Founders, in thirteen short years, went from affirming the central role of the Creator in informing the relations of man and government to a complete abandonment of God. As the argument goes, so dismissive were the Framers of religion's role in governance that the even the Oath was given an elective role in the swearing of a public servant's allegiance to the United States and the Constitution; a role that was equal in standing to the godless affirmation. In point of fact, nothing could be further from the truth. There are two major reasons for the Constitution's apparently secular tone. First, it was a working document designed to serve as a blueprint for government. Unlike the Declaration of Independence, it did not have an aspirational or declaratory purpose, nor did it need to explain itself "to a candid world." Second, the Constitution had to specifically avoid, as much as it could, any references to religion because, as discussed by countless sources of the time and memorialized in the subsequent First Amendment to the Constitution, religion was to remain within the purview of the states, not under the auspices of the new national government. This is also why the Framers prohibited any religious test from being employed to determine the qualifications of any of its members. Even so, deference to God is still encountered within the Constitution of the United States in at least two locations. First, the Constitution specifically references God in acknowledging that the date of attestation took place "in the year of our Lord." Second, the Constitution skips Sunday in the number of days allowed for the President to return a bill passed by Congress. There is no coincidence that this day was skipped because it was one of rest and worship amongst Christians. Secularists foolishly argue that notwithstanding those two references, the placement of the affirmation as an alternative to an oath clearly demonstrates the Framers' secularist intent and their secularist design for their new nation. That assertion is wrong. In Article II, the Framers required an incoming President to take an "Oath or Affirmation." Additionally, in Article VI, the Framers wrote, "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution." The importance of this requirement is striking when one considers that an "oath" is often defined as "a solemn promise"[i]with the words "calling on God" as witness included in many definitions.[ii] It is viewed as an appeal to God to witness the veracity or solemnity of the words or actions about to be taken.[iii] No greater act of contrition, or of subservience to God, can be required of one about to undertake an action than to require the person to make the statement under the direct appeal to God. The oath requirement within the Constitution of the United States is a preeminent acknowledgment of the existence of God and of the subservience of every American elected official to Him. However, what about the affirmation? In point of fact, the affirmation was designed to accommodate those with an ostensibly greater subservience to God; not to secularists. According to Professor Steve Sheppard, a law professor at the University of Arkansas, in including the affirmation as an option, the Framers were attempting to appease the faith requirements of Quakers and those like them, whose fears of God was so great that they were prohibited from undertaking an oath.[iv] Consequently, the affirmation inscribed within the Constitution was far from Godless, as some would like to argue today. It was merely an option to be exercised by those whose fear and respect for God was so great that they could not bring themselves to invoke His name in an oath, but would nevertheless place themselves under the threat of perjury when making their declaration. It stands as indisputable that the Constitution is a document divinely inspired. Man could not arrive at such a solemn document, albeit with its many imperfections, without some guidance from God. However that modern-day secularists should use a capitulation made in honor of the most pious as an affirmation of the document's secularity, is as ironic as it is false. Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopaedic surgeon and lawyer living in Venice, Florida. He is the author of The Federalist Pagesand served in the Florida House of Representatives. He can be reached through www.thefederalistpages.com to arrange a lecture or book signing. [i] American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Ed. (Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company). [ii] Ibid. [iii] West's Encyclopedia of American Law, 2nd ed.. (The Gale Group, Inc.: 2008), [iv] Steve Sheppard, "What Oaths Meant to the Framers' Generation: A Preliminary Sketch," Cardozo Law Review, de Novo 27, (2009): 279. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
April 2021
Categories |