Anabaptism and the 1st Amendment

[Bootstrap]

So how does any of this connect to Anabaptists and our expression of faith?

Basically, the First Amendment had little effect on the religious rights of Anabaptists. It was the state constitutions that mattered because the Bill of Rights did not prevent states from denying these rights to individuals. The Federal government could not establish a State Church, but a state could:

Massachusetts, the last state to disestablish its church continued to delegate state monies to aid religion and otherwise privileging religious bodies until 1833. Although it had long since disestablished the Anglican Church, Maryland continued to require a religious test oath as a condition for public office until 1961, when the Supreme Court invalidated the practice in Torcaso v. Watkins.

After the Civil War, though, the Bill of Rights applied to the state governments as well, especially from the 1920s to the 1940s, and most civil rights cases involve local and state governments, not the federal government.

[Bootstrap]

Roger Williams was also influential in the first amendment. He spent time in Holland and was deeply impacted by the Anabaptists and their insistence on freedom of conscience.

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

Roger Williams (c. 21 December 1603 – between 27 January and 15 March 1683) was a Puritan minister, theologian, and author who founded Providence Plantations, which became the Colony of Rhode Island. He was a staunch advocate for religious freedom, separation of church and state, and fair dealings with American Indians, and he was one of the first abolitionists.

The Wikipedia article mentions neither the First Amendment, Mennonites, nor Anabaptists. I have read a bunch of articles that do say Williams was influenced by Mennonites / Anabaptists. Anyone have good information on this using primary sources? I haven't looked into this deeply.

But the tradition of religious freedom probably was influenced by Williams.

[Robert]

Basically, the First Amendment had little effect on the religious rights of Anabaptists.

After the Civil War, though, the Bill of Rights applied to the state governments as well

These are contradictory. The first amendment is used by Anabaptists. I did not state how did we use it before the civil war. How have we used it through history. Where we a part of its creation, or are we just in harmony with it? I would suspect the latter.

I can think of several examples of how we express it.
Private Schools.
Private camps.
Private educational tools.
Literature produced by many Anabaptist conferences.
Amish not participating in SS.
Anabaptists, after a hard fight, can declare CO status. To be able to claim CO status, we did have to use the court system. This would fall under petition grievances, I would think. I am not a lawyer, so not positive about if that would be covered by 1st or another legal framework given by the constitution or amendments. This is what made me think about this. The discussion about CO status.

I agree with OJ that the concept of separation of church and state was a core part of Anabaptism. There were other groups before us that held to this. Waldenses were one. I would suspect any religious group who were persecuted by the state religion would hold that belief.

I also thought about the case the Amish took all the way to the Supreme Court that allowed them to educate their children separate from the public schools. I am going totally by memory here because we are about to head out and I have no time to read up on it.

While we have historically been the "quiet in the land." we do so in the US while exercising many of the rights given by the 1st amendment. I feel we do this in harmony with the 1st amendment. If we did not have these rights, would we stay in the US or migrate to other places? Did our forefathers come because the right to freely exercise our faith was in effect in many of the places we settled?

As Bootstrap pointed out, Massachusetts was not one of those places. I suspect that is why the first Anabaptists did not flush there and moved elsewhere. I would suspect they knew the struggles of this and would move to places where we could more freely express our faith.

[Bootstrap]

Basically, the First Amendment had little effect on the religious rights of Anabaptists.

After the Civil War, though, the Bill of Rights applied to the state governments as well

These are contradictory. The first amendment is used by Anabaptists. I did not state how did we use it before the civil war. How have we used it through history.

Sure. My main point is that the First Amendment was really made effective for individuals by the Fourteenth Amendment, which said despite the Tenth Amendment, the Federal government can tell states that they have to observe the right spelled out in the Bill of Rights.

So all of the rights in the Bill of Rights need to be understood through the lens of the Fourteenth Amendment, and also the Thirteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. The South was vehemently against these amendments, and so was the Democratic party, because they gave the central Federal government power over the individual states - a dramatic change to what the Tenth Amendment spelled out. Back then, the Republicans were the ones arguing for Federal power over the States.

[Bootstrap]

While we have historically been the "quiet in the land." we do so in the US while exercising many of the rights given by the 1st amendment. I feel we do this in harmony with the 1st amendment. If we did not have these rights, would we stay in the US or migrate to other places? Did our forefathers come because the right to freely exercise our faith was in effect in many of the places we settled?

As Bootstrap pointed out, Massachusetts was not one of those places. I suspect that is why the first Anabaptists did not flush there and moved elsewhere. I would suspect they knew the struggles of this and would move to places where we could more freely express our faith.

I suspect you're right about this. I don't know the history of Mennonites in early America very well, GAMEO has a table that lists the early Mennonite immigrations:

Although comprehensive immigration statistics were not kept and can be only roughly reconstituted from the available records, the following table of the successive waves of Mennonite immigration to America is approximately correct.

Code: Select all

1	Lower Rhine to Germantown	1683-1702	200
2	Swiss and Palatine Mennonites to Eastern Pennsylvania	1707-1756	4,000
3	Swiss and Palatine Amish to Eastern Pennsylvania	1738-1756	200
4	Alsace-Lorraine, Hessian and Bavarian Amish to Western Pennsylvania, Ohio, Illinois, Iowa	1815-1860	2,700
5	Swiss Mennonites to Ohio and Indiana	1817-1860	500
6	Palatine Mennonites to Ohio, Illinois, and Iowa	1825-1860	200

!!! SNIP !!!

By internal migration the eastern Pennsylvania Mennonites spread west to Ontario, Ohio, and Indiana, and southward to Maryland and Virginia in the first half of the 19th century.

The number on the right is the number of immigrants in each case. Why did each of these groups choose to come to America? Why to these specific places? How much of that was due to rights granted in the State constitutions, and how much was due to other factors?

It's striking that Pennsylvania shows up in so many of these migrations.

[MaxPC]

These are contradictory. The first amendment is used by Anabaptists. I did not state how did we use it before the civil war. How have we used it through history. Where we a part of its creation, or are we just in harmony with it? I would suspect the latter.

I can think of several examples of how we express it.
Private Schools.
Private camps.
Private educational tools.
Literature produced by many Anabaptist conferences.
Amish not participating in SS.
Anabaptists, after a hard fight, can declare CO status. To be able to claim CO status, we did have to use the court system. This would fall under petition grievances, I would think. I am not a lawyer, so not positive about if that would be covered by 1st or another legal framework given by the constitution or amendments. This is what made me think about this. The discussion about CO status.

I agree with OJ that the concept of separation of church and state was a core part of Anabaptism. There were other groups before us that held to this. Waldenses were one. I would suspect any religious group who were persecuted by the state religion would hold that belief.

I also thought about the case the Amish took all the way to the Supreme Court that allowed them to educate their children separate from the public schools. I am going totally by memory here because we are about to head out and I have no time to read up on it.

While we have historically been the "quiet in the land." we do so in the US while exercising many of the rights given by the 1st amendment. I feel we do this in harmony with the 1st amendment. If we did not have these rights, would we stay in the US or migrate to other places? Did our forefathers come because the right to freely exercise our faith was in effect in many of the places we settled?

That certainly is food for thought. Would there be any other place where Christians have these rights? Those who do not relocate, they seem to remain in places of terrible persecution: the Middle East and China being two such examples.
Addendum: In these places of persecution there is no separation of church and state. China runs state churches and the theocracy prevalent in certain regions where Islam predominates precludes freedom of religion.

[Bootstrap]

Would there be any other place where Christians have these rights? Those who do not relocate, they seem to remain in places of terrible persecution: the Middle East and China being two such examples.

The Pew Forum has regular reports that compare countries according to (1) government restrictions on religion, and (2) social hostility related to religion. Here is the latest: A Closer Look at How Religious Restrictions Have Risen Around the World

These graphs give a good overview. I think the United States was one of the innovators in religious freedom, but there are other countries that have at least as much as we do. And many that are, of course, much much worse.

Social hostility can be a huge problem even where there are few government restrictions.

[ohio jones]

The number on the right is the number of immigrants in each case. Why did each of these groups choose to come to America? Why to these specific places? How much of that was due to rights granted in the State constitutions, and how much was due to other factors?

It's striking that Pennsylvania shows up in so many of these migrations.

No surprise, really. Here's the short history of the first half: William Penn had proposed a "holy experiment" where Quakers and other religious minorities could live in peace and experience the "free exercise" that later became enshrined in the Amendment. Switzerland was trying desperately to get rid of us in the early 1700s, the Palatinate and surrounding territories were slightly more tolerant but imposed restrictions, and Pennsylvania was actively inviting us to settle there. So around 4400 did.

By the 1750s Pennsylvania was also being populated by other religious groups who were less tolerant, the Quakers were losing control of the colonial government, the French and Indian War was underway and the seeds of the revolution were being planted. Most of those receptive to moving had done so by then, so immigration tapered off.

[Robert]

That certainly is food for thought. Would there be any other place where Christians have these rights? Those who do not relocate, they seem to remain in places of terrible persecution: the Middle East and China being two such examples.
Addendum: In these places of persecution there is no separation of church and state. China runs state churches and the theocracy prevalent in certain regions where Islam predominates precludes freedom of religion.

SInce Anabaptists, historically, would not fight for their place, they often migrated to places they felt would not challenge and accept them. Russia and the US gave them these places. I think we see no migration to China or the Middle East by us in the past because places of least resistance to our way were sought out by the leaders of that time.

I thin OJ brings up a really good historical fact as to why many did migrate to PA. It was because they were invited and offered a place to freely practice. Russia did the same. The Russian Czar gave an invitation to Mennonites to come and farm with the promise of state protection.

[Robert]

The Pew Forum has regular reports that compare countries according to (1) government restrictions on religion, and (2) social hostility related to religion. Here is the latest: A Closer Look at How Religious Restrictions Have Risen Around the World

As per the title of the thread, I am really trying to look at Anabaptist relationship to the 1st amendment. While these facts are interesting, they are not directly connecting to us as Anabaptists. I would appreciate you keeping comments connected to that.