Move to "Dis-Establish" the Church of England

[smac97]

Thoughts?  I could end up being on board with this.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

It seems very odd that one Church has a seat(s?) in parliament and no others do.  Are they require to present a generic religious position or is it just representing their own faith?  I could see a former position being useful, though problematic as it wouldn’t be a balanced representation, but the latter seems inappropriate when only 15% of Britain’s population claims membership.

https://bsa.natcen.ac.uk/media-centre/archived-press-releases/bsa-34-record-number-of-brits-with-no-religion.aspx#:~:text=Church of England decline continues,who said this in 2000.

Quote

More than half (53%) of the British public now describe themselves as having “no religion”, up from 48% in 2015. The proportion of non-believers has increased gradually since the survey began in 1983, when the proportion saying they had no religion stood at 31%.

Church of England decline continues

The decline in religious affiliation is hitting the Church of England particularly hard. Just 15% of people in Britain consider themselves Anglican, half the proportion who said this in 2000.

The proportion of people describing themselves as Catholic has remained relatively stable – at around 1 in 10 – over the past 30 years. Around 1 in 20 (6%) of people belong to non-Christian religions. 

 

[Calm]

I was surprised to hear the House of Lords still has as much power as it does.  And 26 seats for the Church of England…(about 3% if Alexa did her math correctly)…

Quote

The House of Lords also includes up to 26 archbishops and bishops of the Church of England, known as Lords Spiritual.[11][12] Since 2014, membership may be voluntarily relinquished or terminated upon expulsion.[11]

As the upper house of Parliament, the House of Lords has many similar functions to the House of Commons.[13] It scrutinises legislation, holds the government to account, and considers and reports upon public policy.[14] Peers may also seek to introduce legislation or propose amendments to bills.[14] While it is unable to prevent bills passing into law, except in certain limited circumstances, it may delay the enactment of bills for up to one year.[15][16] In this capacity, as a body independent from the pressures of the political process, the House of Lords is said to act as a "revising chamber" focusing on legislative detail, while occasionally asking the House of Commons to reconsider its plans.[17][18]

While peers may also serve as government ministers, they are typically only selected to serve as junior ministers.[19] The House of Lords does not control the term of the prime minister or of the government;[20] only the Commons may vote to require the prime minister to resign or call an election.[21] Unlike the House of Commons, which has a defined number of seats, the number of members in the House of Lords is not fixed. Currently, it has 785 sitting members. The House of Lords is the only upper house of any bicameral parliament in the world to be larger than its lower house,[22] and is the second-largest legislative chamber in the world, behind the National People's Congress of China.

The King's Speech is delivered in the House of Lords chamber during the State Opening of Parliament. In addition to its role as the upper house, the House of Lords, through the Law Lords, acted as the final court of appeal in the United Kingdom judicial system until the establishment of the Supreme Court in 2009.[23] The House of Lords also has a Church of England role, in that Church Measures must be tabled within the House by the Lords Spiritual.

 

Edited December 5, 2023 by Calm

[Calm]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lords_Spiritual
 

Quote

The Lords Spiritual are the bishops of the Church of England who sit in the House of Lords of the United Kingdom. Up to 26 of the 42 diocesan bishops and archbishops of the Church of England serve as Lords Spiritual (not including retired bishops who sit by right of a peerage). The Church of Scotland, which is Presbyterian, and the Anglican churches in Wales and in Northern Ireland, which are no longer established churches, are not represented. The Lords Spiritual are distinct from the Lords Temporal, their secular counterparts who also sit in the House of Lords.

Wait…what….the government more or less appoints bishops and archbishops?

Quote

Theoretically, the power to elect archbishops and bishops is vested in the diocesan cathedral's college of canons. Practically, however, the choice of the archbishop or bishop is made prior to the election. The prime minister chooses from among a set of nominees proposed by the Crown Nominations Commission, and the sovereign then instructs the college of canons to elect the nominated individual as a bishop or archbishop.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lords_Spiritual

Quote

By custom, at least one of the Bishops reads prayers in each legislative day (a role taken by the Chaplain to the Speaker in the Commons).[8] They often speak in debates; in 2004 Rowan Williams, then Archbishop of Canterbury, opened a debate into sentencing legislation.[8] Measures (proposed laws of the Church of England) must be put before the Lords, and the Lords Spiritual have a role in ensuring that this takes place.[8]

I guess turnabout is fair play, the government messes in the Church’s functions, so letting the Church mess in the government….

Quote

Other religious figures have sat in the House of Lords as Lords Temporal in recent times: Chief RabbiImmanuel Jakobovits was appointed to the House of Lords (by the Queen, who acted on the advice of Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher), as was his successor Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks.[9] In recognition of his work at reconciliation and in the peace process in Northern Ireland, Robin Eames, the Church of Ireland (Anglican) Archbishop of Armagh, was appointed to the Lords by John Major. 

Other Christian clergy appointed include the Methodist minister Donald Soper, the Anglican priest Timothy Beaumont, the Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster ministers the Rev. Ian Paisley and the Rev. William McCrea, and, to date, the only Church of Scotland cleric to have been elevated to the upper house, the Very Rev. George MacLeod.

There have been no Roman Catholic clergy appointed since the Reformation, though it was rumoured that Basil Cardinal Hume, the Archbishop of Westminster, and his successor, Cormac Cardinal Murphy O'Connor, were offered peerages by James Callaghan, Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair respectively, but declined. Cardinal Hume later accepted the Order of Merit, a personal appointment of the Queen, shortly before his death. Cardinal Murphy O'Connor said he had his maiden speech ready, but ordained Roman Catholics are prohibited by the internal canon law of the Roman Catholic Church from holding major offices connected with any government other than the Holy See.[citation needed]

Former archbishops of Canterbury and of York, who revert to the status of regular bishop, and are no longer diocesans, are customarily offered life peerages, so that they can continue to sit as Lords Temporal.

 

And I thought our electoral college made things complicated….

Edited December 5, 2023 by Calm

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Simply put, I have a few ideas on this issue. 
 

Having the Monarch as head of the Church of England, is truly ridiculous, for many reasons. 
 

1. The Church of England while in its infancy, was a formed so that King George  III, I think he was the third, who knows, I am an American. 
 

2. It was later created under the rule of Queen Elizabeth I. She then had any Bishops who opposed her, locked he up, until after vote, for the breakaway from the Catholic Church. 
 

3. After her reign, (so called) King (now a saint, as if) had the Bible, translated into English, but he was in no way a Saint, due to his sexual exploits, be it women or men, where legend!! However, 95% of the New Testament, not sure about the Old Testament, had already been translated into English, by William Tyndale. For doing this, for having translated the Bible into English, he was put to death! Not sure by what method, but it could be one of three ways, the bloodthirsty members of that day, would involve, “death my hanging, burned at the stake for being an apostate, or beheading”. My guess is “burning at the stake, a friendly reminder of the hell that everyone will experience if they do anything, that the Church did  not sanction. While imprisoned by the Catholic Church, he once made a request, to the presiding Bishop, asking him, my I have some paper and a pencil. He also mentioned, asked for a cloke, stating that his prison cell was cold and damp.” For this, he was executed, that day by the Catholic Church. 

 

4. The royal family, which was found out a few years ago, are not to be descendants of the “Royal line”, (the Queen Consort, of some King at the time, cheated on the King). Therefore, they are not by English law, “Royals at all”, so they are not the ordained leaders of the Church of England. However that aside, The Family, or The Firm, did something very wrong, when King George V, was very sick, “The Firm”, feared that the King might pass away, at the wrong time, to appear in the most respectable newspaper, so to make sure he passed away, to appear first, in the correct news cycle, he was euthanized. In our world, this would have only one name; Murder! 
 

5. In addition, despite the staggering wealth of the Royal’s have, millions, if not billions are paid to the family, every single year, as such, millions or billions of tax dollars are given because they are the “Approved Religion”, or even worse, the State Religion”. There should be no “State Religions”, in any free “Democratic Republic”, no matter where or when. 
 

6. King Charles true beliefs, are more Islamic. He speaks Arabic as well as he speaks the English language. Whenever he wishes to build communities in Great Britain, many of his ideas are very good ideas, not all but many are  good ideas. If he cannot get additional taxes from the British Government to back them the construction, he has very deep ties in the Middle East, to back him. In fact, a couple of years (if not less), it was found out that he accepted many millions of money, from the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, he was shamed into giving it back. At the time, the Prime Minister of England, told him, “if you want their money, we can just give you less”. Regardless of this, he is not a true believer, certainly not a Christian, despite the efforts of his Mother the Queen, and Prince Phillip. Both of whom tried to teach him Christianity, and to no avail, teach him to be a better husband and father. 
 

It is truly odd, is it not, the Protestant movement began so that King George could get a divorce. When the Catholic Church told him that he could not, he just killed them, on truly awful indictments; go figure? 

[Analytics]

2 hours ago, Bill “Papa” Lee said:

...Having the Monarch as head of the Church of England, is truly ridiculous, for many reasons. 
 

1. The Church of England while in its infancy, was a formed so that King George  III, I think he was the third, who knows, I am an American....

LOL.

King Henry VIII formed the Church of England in 1538, but English politics had already been entangled with religion for a thousand years before then. For example, when King Edward the Confessor died in 1066, his distant cousin in France, Duke William of Normandy (who didn't speak English and had never even been to England), claimed to be the heir of the English throne. He invaded and won the Battle of Hastings, but more importantly he bribed Pope Alexander II, who declared William was in fact the king that God wanted on the throne. It is doubtful William would have stayed in power without the pope's blessing.

Then in 1215, a group of 25 English barons coerced King John to sign the Magna Carta, which was the first legal document that implied that the king's powers were limited and planted the seed of government by the consent of the governed. After signing the Magna Carta, King John immediately regretted it. A few weeks later and at the request of King John, Pope Innocent III declared the Manga Carta was null and void. 

The basic dynamics between Church and State for most of England's history is that the Church declared that monarch was appointed by God and that to be right with God, you had to subject yourself to the king in all things. In exchange, the king gave the Church huge economic advantages, most typically in the form of tax advantages and bribes. Subsistence farmers needed to pay huge taxes to the king, but if the farmers were religious monks, they didn't have to pay taxes. Between not having to pay tax, frugal living, and the occasional donations they received, the churches became fabulously wealthy, which was only kept in check by the fact that the vikings knew that when they wanted to plunder they should go straight to the churches--that was where all the gold was.

Once you understand the power dynamics between English monarchs and the Church, it shouldn't be the least bit surprising to learn that the Church has been represented in the House of Lords for a thousands years.

Edited December 6, 2023 by Analytics

[mfbukowski]

Uh, there were reasons we had a revolution, one of which was a belief in freedom of religion

Don't think brother Joseph could have " restored Christianity" without it.... ?  Legal positions?

 

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Bill “Papa” Lee said:

royal family, which was found out a few years ago, are not to be descendants of the “Royal line”, (the Queen Consort, of some King at the time, cheated on the King).

This is debatable…

https://www.historyfiles.co.uk/FeaturesBritain/Medieval_EdwardIV_01.htm

[Analytics]

10 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Uh, there were reasons we had a revolution, one of which was a belief in freedom of religion

Don't think brother Joseph could have " restored Christianity" without it.... ?  Legal positions?

 

I'm not sure that's true. I know a lot of people immigrated to the colonies because they thought they'd have more freedom of religion here. And once they got to the colonies, they had the freedom of religion they wanted (in a way--I wouldn't exactly say the 17th century puritans in Massachusetts granted their local citizens the right to believe or not believe anything they wanted).

The Declaration of Independence lists about 27 specific grievances the colonies had with the Crown. None of them had anything to do with the Crown not allowing them to worship how they pleased.

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Bill “Papa” Lee said:

King Charles true beliefs, are more Islamic.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/king-charles-royal-coronation-to-feature-roles-for-jewish-muslim-hindu-leaders/

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, Bill “Papa” Lee said:

Simply put, I have a few ideas on this issue. 
 

Having the Monarch as head of the Church of England, is truly ridiculous, for many reasons. 
 

1. The Church of England while in its infancy, was a formed so that King George  III, I think he was the third, who knows, I am an American. 
 

2. It was later created under the rule of Queen Elizabeth I. She then had any Bishops who opposed her, locked he up, until after vote, for the breakaway from the Catholic Church. 
 

3. After her reign, (so called) King (now a saint, as if) had the Bible, translated into English, but he was in no way a Saint, due to his sexual exploits, be it women or men, where legend!! However, 95% of the New Testament, not sure about the Old Testament, had already been translated into English, by William Tyndale. For doing this, for having translated the Bible into English, he was put to death! Not sure by what method, but it could be one of three ways, the bloodthirsty members of that day, would involve, “death my hanging, burned at the stake for being an apostate, or beheading”. My guess is “burning at the stake, a friendly reminder of the hell that everyone will experience if they do anything, that the Church did  not sanction. While imprisoned by the Catholic Church, he once made a request, to the presiding Bishop, asking him, my I have some paper and a pencil. He also mentioned, asked for a cloke, stating that his prison cell was cold and damp.” For this, he was executed, that day by the Catholic Church. 

 

4. The royal family, which was found out a few years ago, are not to be descendants of the “Royal line”, (the Queen Consort, of some King at the time, cheated on the King). Therefore, they are not by English law, “Royals at all”, so they are not the ordained leaders of the Church of England. However that aside, The Family, or The Firm, did something very wrong, when King George V, was very sick, “The Firm”, feared that the King might pass away, at the wrong time, to appear in the most respectable newspaper, so to make sure he passed away, to appear first, in the correct news cycle, he was euthanized. In our world, this would have only one name; Murder! 
 

5. In addition, despite the staggering wealth of the Royal’s have, millions, if not billions are paid to the family, every single year, as such, millions or billions of tax dollars are given because they are the “Approved Religion”, or even worse, the State Religion”. There should be no “State Religions”, in any free “Democratic Republic”, no matter where or when. 
 

6. King Charles true beliefs, are more Islamic. He speaks Arabic as well as he speaks the English language. Whenever he wishes to build communities in Great Britain, many of his ideas are very good ideas, not all but many are  good ideas. If he cannot get additional taxes from the British Government to back them the construction, he has very deep ties in the Middle East, to back him. In fact, a couple of years (if not less), it was found out that he accepted many millions of money, from the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, he was shamed into giving it back. At the time, the Prime Minister of England, told him, “if you want their money, we can just give you less”. Regardless of this, he is not a true believer, certainly not a Christian, despite the efforts of his Mother the Queen, and Prince Phillip. Both of whom tried to teach him Christianity, and to no avail, teach him to be a better husband and father. 
 

It is truly odd, is it not, the Protestant movement began so that King George could get a divorce. When the Catholic Church told him that he could not, he just killed them, on truly awful indictments; go figure? 

Okay.

1. It was form by King Henry VIII, famous for having six wives. One of the causes of the church breakoff was Henry wanting a divorce and this is often given as the only reason. It definitely wasn’t. Protestant fever was already burning in Germany and was being brought in quickly. George III was the semi-crazy king that the Americans fought in the Revolutionary War two centuries later.

2. Elizabeth codified a lot of the practices of the Church of England or, more accurately, approved of the bishops doing it. After Henry Queen Mary briefly realigned with the Catholic Church and then Elizabeth took the throne and separated the church. 

3. The King James Version of the Bible was mostly Tyndale’s translation. King James was a bit wacky. He was convinced there was an international cabal of satanic witches out to get him. King James actually wrote up a fascinating dialogue he wrote up in defense of witches existing to convince skeptics that the witch threat was real.

4. This is a conspiracy theory.

5. It is more like 150 million quid a year. There is a danger in having a state religion. It is worth noting that the Nephites definitely had one though. Alma the High Priest deferred to the king.

6. Charles tried to learn Arabic but found it too difficult. He speaks English, French, German, and Welsh (the latter important for his ceremonial duties as the Prince of Wales). He is also reported to be passably fluent in Greek. Charles has a soft spot for and fascination with Islam and Eastern Orthodox Christian religions.

 

On 12/4/2023 at 7:52 PM, Calm said:

It seems very odd that one Church has a seat(s?) in parliament and no others do.  Are they require to present a generic religious position or is it just representing their own faith?  I could see a former position being useful, though problematic as it wouldn’t be a balanced representation, but the latter seems inappropriate when only 15% of Britain’s population claims membership.

The Lords Spiritual are in Parliament but in the less powerful House of Lords. The 20-some odd bishops there are also major landowners. The House of Lords is weird. They used to be able to block legislation but the King before World War I took away a lot of their power because they were blocking legislation that the King considered vital for national defense and other things surrounding the Cold War naval build up before the First World War. Note: Kaiser Wilhelm was an idiot. Even Hitler said so.

Basically they can stall legislation from taking effect (usually for a year). This can serve as a buffer to passionately desired legislation that would maybe not be desirable later. Basically they can let passions cool. They used to be almost as powerful as the House of Commons but that is not the case.

The US Senate was loosely based on the House of Lords. It was meant to represent the elite. Originally the states could pick their senators any way they wanted so were meant to represent the state legislatures most of the time. In practice though it was a mess. In many cases the state government was almost selling the office. More states moved to direct election and eventually even most of the Senators agreed and the Constitution was amended to require direct election. In a perfect world I would go back to a similar approach and make the Senate consist of all the state governors. Then just have them vote yes or no on anything the House proposes. They could have representatives in Congress to negotiate with the House on legislation but only the governors vote. This obviously wouldn’t work well before modern communication technology.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

I'm not sure that's true. I know a lot of people immigrated to the colonies because they thought they'd have more freedom of religion here. And once they got to the colonies, they had the freedom of religion they wanted (in a way--I wouldn't exactly say the 17th century puritans in Massachusetts granted their local citizens the right to believe or not believe anything they wanted).

The Declaration of Independence lists about 27 specific grievances the colonies had with the Crown. None of them had anything to do with the Crown not allowing them to worship how they pleased.

Yet the strange religion that America offered, and the immigrants accepted was that humans should have rights,and everyone was equal, unless they were black.

What could be more radical?

 

[Analytics]

20 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Yet the strange religion that America offered, and the immigrants accepted was that humans should have rights,and everyone was equal, unless they were black.

What could be more radical?

 

The philosophies of human rights, government by the consented of the governed, everyone being equal, etc., are ideas that started to emerge in the 13th century in England, and steadily grew and developed in England for 500 years until they flowered in England in the mid-18th century. The British colonists were the ones with the opportunity and audacity to fully implement them (except for the slavery thing, which wasn't economically convenient for southern plantation owners).

Edited December 6, 2023 by Analytics

[pogi]

19 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

 unless they were black.

Or Native American...or gay...or female...or Mormon 

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Sorry for calling “Henry”, a George. But, I am an American after all. 

[blackstrap]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

a buffer to passionately desired legislation

It is called " sober second thought  " , although sober may be a bit of an oxymoron .

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

The philosophies of human rights, government by the consented of the governed, everyone being equal, etc., are ideas that started to emerge in the 13th century in England, and steadily grew and developed in England for 500 years until they flowered in England in the mid-18th century. The British colonists were the ones with the opportunity and audacity to fully implement them (except for the slavery thing, which wasn't economically convenient for southern plantation owners).

Yes, that's right, but my point is, as you say, it was here that those ideas were fully implemented.

Philosophers are often seen as odd dreamers detached from reality, but then, a hundred or more years later, everyone often suddenly quoting them favorably, as you demonstrate.

 

[The Nehor]

10 hours ago, Analytics said:

The philosophies of human rights, government by the consented of the governed, everyone being equal, etc., are ideas that started to emerge in the 13th century in England, and steadily grew and developed in England for 500 years until they flowered in England in the mid-18th century. The British colonists were the ones with the opportunity and audacity to fully implement them (except for the slavery thing, which wasn't economically convenient for southern plantation owners).

The Puritans were heavy advocates of these ideas which is mostly why they had to leave England. They were radical even by today’s standards. They considered social and political hierarchies to be base and evil, called out the nobility for getting what they have by the sword, and all kinds of fun things. They weren’t doing this as much for human liberty as they were seeking a biblical ideal. They wanted the natural world to be held in common by all. In a time when “the commons” was being more and more restricted by the nobility this was a dangerous sentiment to hold to.

They tried to implement this in the United States but failed as did so many such experiments. It was many of their more secularized descendants who tied their ideals to Enlightenment ideals. Puritans aren’t just dour witch burners though they were often that too.

It is long but this is a good video about Puritan origins, their experiment in Massachusetts, and how it didn’t work but their legacy made it into the United States government.

 

[The Nehor]

9 hours ago, blackstrap said:

It is called " sober second thought  " , although sober may be a bit of an oxymoron .

Definitely, especially since they are British.

[rpn]

17 hours ago, Analytics said:

'm not sure that's true. I know a lot of people immigrated to the colonies because they thought they'd have more freedom of religion here. And once they got to the colonies, they had the freedom of religion they wanted (in a way--I wouldn't exactly say the 17th century puritans in Massachusetts granted their local citizens the right to believe or not believe anything they wanted).

I am.   In 1820, there was no place in the world that guaranteed freedom of religion officially by government except the United States.  State religions in most countries were part of the rule of law everywhere.    And most of the world's constitutions that allow some semblance of freedom of religion today used the US Constitutional language to provide it.  

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, rpn said:

I am.   In 1820, there was no place in the world that guaranteed freedom of religion officially by government except the United States.  State religions in most countries were part of the rule of law everywhere.    And most of the world's constitutions that allow some semblance of freedom of religion today used the US Constitutional language to provide it.  

India officially did. The Mughal Emperors had a long history of religious tolerance. The religion was predominantly Hindu with a substantial Muslim minority but it had served as a refuge for those fleeing religious persecution such as Jews. The situation was complicated by the East India Company’s defacto control of most of the nation. They were mostly happy with the status quo but Christian groups were agitating for the right to proselyte and convert the population.

The Netherlands had religious freedom under the short-lived United Kingdom of the Netherlands though the facts on the ground favored certain religions just like the United States did.

[Teancum]

21 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Yet the strange religion that America offered, and the immigrants accepted was that humans should have rights,and everyone was equal, unless they were black.

What could be more radical?

 

Black. Or a women.

[mfbukowski]

10 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Black. Or a women.

Yeah, well the tree had some growing to do.

[Calm]

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

They were mostly happy with the status quo but Christian groups were agitating for the right to proselyte and convert the population.

If they didn’t have the right to proselyte, which is part of many Christian faiths, was there full religious freedom?

[Analytics]

18 hours ago, Calm said:

If they didn’t have the right to proselyte, which is part of many Christian faiths, was there full religious freedom?

By this definition, does anywhere have full religious freedom? For example, religious freedom in America hasn't always granted you the right to marry as many women as you want (e.g. 19th Century Mormon polygamy). It hasn't guaranteed the right of native Americans to use peyote in their religious ceremonies. It doesn't grant soldiers in the army the right to refuse to fight on the Sabbath. In general, religious freedom doesn't mean people have the right to disregard laws the rest of us are subject to, just because their religious beliefs indicate they shouldn't have to follow those rules.

Wikipedia has a substantial article on freedom of religion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_religion).

Some quotes that put America, including the freedom of religion in the colonies into perspective:

Historically, freedom of religion has been used to refer to the tolerance of different theological systems of belief, while freedom of worship has been defined as freedom of individual action. Each of these have existed to varying degrees...

Freedom of religious worship was established in the Buddhist Maurya Empire of ancient India by Ashoka the Great in the 3rd century BC, which was encapsulated in the Edicts of Ashoka....

The Romans tolerated most religions, including Judaism, and encouraged local subjects to continue worshipping their own gods. They did not however, tolerate Christianity, because of the Christian refusal to offer honours to the official cult of the emperor, until it was legalised by the Roman emperor Galerius in 311....[Should freedom of religion give you the right not to pay taxes if paying taxes is against your religion?] 

Most Roman Catholic kingdoms kept a tight rein on religious expression throughout the Middle Ages. Jews were alternately tolerated and persecuted, the most notable examples of the latter being the expulsion of all Jews from Spain in 1492....

The Norman Kingdom of Sicily under Roger II was characterized by its multi-ethnic nature and religious tolerance. ...

The right to worship freely was a basic right given to all inhabitants of the future Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth throughout the 15th and early 16th century, however, complete freedom of religion was officially recognized in 1573 during the Warsaw Confederation....

Most of the early colonies were generally not tolerant of dissident forms of worship, with Maryland being one of the exceptions. For example, Roger Williams found it necessary to found a new colony in Rhode Island to escape persecution in the theocratically dominated colony of Massachusetts....  

 

 

Edited December 8, 2023 by Analytics