Research On Religion » colonial America

Anthony Gill on the Political Origins of Religious Liberty (Encore Presentation)

tonygill — Mon, 25 Sep 2017 14:45:26 +0000

Due to a series of technical difficulties with our studio line, we are rebroadcasting an interview that friend and colleague Steven Pfaff (UW Sociology) did with me nearly 5 years ago. Given that I am teaching a course on religion and politics this term, I am floating this one up to the top of the feed as an encore presentation for the students and for you. Please enjoy, and once we get the phone lines reconnected we will bring you some crescent fresh episodes.

Religious liberty has not been the normal state of affairs in world history. Indeed, religious activity has been tightly controlled by rulers across space and time. So why would political leaders ever choose to “deregulate a religion market”? This week, Anthony Gill (University of Washington, political science), the host of Research on Religion (Facebook page and Twitter), becomes the guest as Prof. Steven Pfaff (University of Washington, sociology) takes the reins of inquisitor and peppers Tony with questions about his book The Political Origins of Religious Liberty. We begin our conversation with a definition of religious liberty. Tony points out that it is important to think about religious liberty in terms of costs and benefits. Any government policy that imposes a greater cost on an individual or group’s ability to worship needs to be viewed as a decrease in freedom, whereas anything reducing such costs enhances liberty. We then talk about previous theories of why religious liberty has arisen in the modern world, noting that most scholars rely upon ideational reasons for its appearance — namely that policymakers were convinced by philosophers that religious freedom was a good idea in-and-of-itself. But Tony notes that even through religious liberty might be a good idea per se, it is not an idea that is always shared by everyone in the policymaking arena. Numerous policy ideas exist at any given moment and it is important to consider the political and economic interests of rule-makers when accounting for the appearance of tolerance and freedom in places like The Netherlands, Great Britain, and the United States. Secular leaders are most interested in their political survival, generating tax revenue, and growing the economy. These interests will be taken into consideration when deciding whether or not to allow greater religious freedoms. We also note that religious leaders are not neutral in this process. the clergy of dominant religions will generally favor restrictions on religious minorities, whereas religious minorities will advocate for greater religious freedoms. The gradual development of religious pluralism changes the political landscape in a way that favors the emergence of tolerance and liberty in the long-run (though there is likely to be conflict in the short-run). Our discussion relies upon examples from colonial British America, but Steve Pfaff adds to the conversation other illustrations from Russia, Germany, the Netherlands, and even Spain. We close with Steve challenging Tony on some different configurations of religious liberty and whether or not a government that seeks to be “neutral” is privileging secularism over all other confessions. Tony chimes in on this topic as well. Recorded: December 18, 2012.

Evan Haefeli on the Dutch Origins of Religious Tolerance

tonygill — Sun, 23 Mar 2014 08:00:26 +0000

The story of rise of religious liberty in the United States generally revolves around the influence of English persons and events (e.g., Roger Williams, the Act of Toleration). However, a lesser known piece of the puzzle is the role that the Dutch played in promoting religious toleration back in The Netherlands, as well as their colonial possessions for a significant portion of the 17th century. Dr. Evan Haefeli, an associate professor of history of Columbia University, explains the critical and nuanced role that the good folks from the Low Countries played in shaping the political-religious landscape that emerged in 18th century America.

Our conversation begins with Tony’s general ignorance (as usual) of what “The Netherlands” are. Understanding the historical emergence of this disparate territory, and the important role that the long-standing revolt against Spanish Habspurg rule played, is critical to the emergence of religious toleration. Evan notes that The Netherlands are a mixture of different ethnicities and religious groups that are largely unified against a common adversary. It is important to realize that it was not only Protestants, namely Reformed Calvinists and Lutherans, that were revolting from Spanish hegemony, but a number of Catholics were instrumental in Dutch independence.

Prof. Haefeli then lays out the interesting tension that characterizes Dutch religious tolerance. Rather than being full bore religious liberty encoded in law, he uses the term “connivance” to describe the de facto system of “looking the other way” when it comes to religious differences. The term “connivance,” while signifying something malevolent in the English language, has a much different connotation in the Low Countries, where it is viewed as “looking through one’s fingers and ignoring some messy details.” The Reformed (Calvinist) Church in Holland and a few other territories of the Low Countries wanted to assert itself as the “public church” that everyone should belong to, but so long as non-Calvinists practied their faith in a non-public and “out of sight” manner, those groups would largely be left alone. Although there was religious tension that did manifest itself in violence at times, Catholics, Jews, and other Protestants were largely left to their own means so long as they were not a nuisance. Evan does note that some of the more aggressive harassment came against Lutherans, who the Calvinists thought should have been Reformed since they were so theologically close. This indicates that religious tension may not always be between two distinct theologies, but rather ones that only have minor differences.

We then cross the Atlantic and examine the Dutch foothold in the Americas during the 17th century. To Tony’s surprise, the territory held by the Netherlands was much more vast than what is usually discussed, namely the island of Manhattan; it extened up the Hudson River into the lower portions of New England. However, unlike the English who were primarily interested in settlement, the Dutch were more concerned with trade and, as such, their physical presence was much more sparse and centered around some key trading outposts. The disparate nature of Dutch colonialism (which also included significant portions of modern day Brazil and Africa) led to overextension and their eventual ousting by the English (after a bit of territorial give-and-take). Evan discusses how the notion of a “public church” combined with “connivance” (i.e., looking the other way) that was typical of the homeland was transferred over to the colonies. We also cover a short-lived attempt at radical tolerance in the colonial outpost of New Amstel, which was cut short by the British ousting the Dutch from the territory.

We conclude our discussion with a few observations about what this all means for our contemporary notions of religious liberty in the United States. Evan makes the claim that had the Dutch not been ousted from America in the late 1600s, our religious liberty regime might look significantly different with a greater role for a “public church” and with liberty taking on the guise of toleration rather than a solid set of rights. He also discusses some of his general take-aways for our contemporary understanding of religious liberty. Recorded: March 14, 2014.

Anthony Gill on the Political Origins of Religious Liberty

tonygill — Mon, 07 Jan 2013 09:00:50 +0000

Religious liberty has not been the normal state of affairs in world history. Indeed, religious activity has been tightly controlled by rulers across space and time. So why would political leaders ever choose to “deregulate a religious market”? In a turnabout way, the host of Research on Religion, Anthony Gill, becomes the guest with Prof. Steve Pfaff (UW Sociology) filling in as the interviewer as they discuss Tony’s most recent book, The Political Origins of Religious Liberty. You’ve known Tony as the suave voice that comes over your iPod headphones for the past 136 weeks, but did you also know that his is a professor of political science at the University of Washington and Distinguished Senior Fellow at Baylor’s Institute for Studies of Religion? He is, and now is the chance to find out what he thinks about the important philosophical issues of the time. We begin our conversation discussion with a definition of religious liberty. Tony points out that it is important to think about religious liberty in terms of costs and benefits. Any government policy that imposes a greater cost on an individual or group’s ability to worship needs to be viewed as a decrease in freedom, whereas anything reducing such costs is a movement towards liberty. We then talk about previous theories of why religious liberty has arisen in the modern world, noting that most scholars rely upon ideological reasons for its appearance — namely that policymakers were convinced by philosophers that religious freedom was a good idea. But Tony notes that even though religious liberty might be a good idea, it is not an idea that is always shared by everyone in the policymaking arena. Numerous policy ideas exist at any given moment and it is important to consider the political and economic interests of rulemakers when accounting for the appearance of tolerance and freedom in places like The Netherlands, Great Britain, and the United States. Secular leaders are most interested in their political survival, generating tax revenue, and growing the economy. These interests will be taken into consideration when deciding whether or not to allow greater religious freedoms. We also note that religious leaders are not neutral in this process. The clergy of dominant religious will generally favor restrictions on religious minorities, whereas religious minorities will push for greater freedom. The gradual development of religious pluralism changes the political landscape in a way that favors the emergence of tolerance and liberty in the long-run (though there is likely to be conflict in the short-run). Our discussion relies mostly upon examples from colonial British America, but Steve Pfaff peppers the conversation with other illustrations from Russia, Germany, the Netherlands and even Spain. We close with Steve challenging Tony on some different configuations of religious liberty and whether or not a government that seeks to be “neutral” is privileging secularism over all other confessions. Tony shares his thoughts on this subject. Recorded: December 18, 2012.