Category: Freedom Of Religion

September 8, 1264 – The Statute of Kalisz, guaranteeing Jews safety and personal liberties and giving battei din jurisdiction over Jewish matters, is promulgated by Bolesław the Pious, Duke of Greater Poland.

9/8/2021

Bolesław the Pious

The General Charter of Jewish Liberties known as the Statute of Kalisz, and as the Kalisz Privilege, was issued by the Duke of Greater Poland Bolesław the Pious on September 8, 1264 in Kalisz. The statute granted Jews unprecedented legal rights in Europe, including exclusive jurisdiction over Jewish matters to Jewish courts, and established a separate tribunal for other criminal matters involving Christians and Jews. The statute also defined rules under which Jews were allowed to engage in lending and trade, as well as norms related to their relations with Christians. It even provided for penalties for desecration of a Jewish cemetery or a synagogue. It also contained provisions concerning blood libel directed against Jews. The statute was ratified by subsequent Polish Kings: Casimir III in 1334, Casimir IV in 1453, and Sigismund I in 1539.

In the 20th century, some scholars supported the view that both the original Statute of Kalisz and its authenticated copies could not be found and that the text was a 15th-century forgery done for political purposes. Nonetheless, the statute served as a basis for Jewish privileges in Poland until 1795.

The text of the statute:

In the Name of the Lord. Amen. The deeds of humankind are fleeting, unless revived through the testimonies of witnesses, or by the testimony of documents. Therefore We, Bolesław, by the grace of God the Duke of Wielkopolska [Greater Poland], hereby make it known to both those of the present and of the future, to whose notice this present writ shall come, that to our Jews living all across the lands of our Dominion, We have resolved to declare word-for-word the statutes and privileges that they have obtained from Us, as contained in the following series of articles.

1. Firstly, we hereby ordain that with respect to any case involving money, or any property whether mobile or immobile, or in a criminal case that affects the person or property of a Jew, no Christian be admitted as a witness against a Jew, unless a Jew be together with such Christian.

2. Likewise, if a Christian implicates a Jew by stating that the Jew mortgaged what he had pawned, and the Jew disavows this, whereupon the Christian is nonetheless unwilling to believe in the honesty of the Jew’s words, then the Jew shall under oath prove his intention to return the equivalent received by him and shall then go forth, absolved.

3. If a Christian has pawned something with a Jew, and then states that he pawned it for a lesser amount of money than the Jew acknowledges, the Jew shall swear an oath with respect to what was pawned to him, and what has been evidenced under oath, the Christian shall not to decline to pay out to him.

4. Likewise, if a Jew tells a Christian, without calling on witnesses, that he [=the Christian] has borrowed [from the former] on the basis of something pawned, and he [=the Christian] denies it, the Christian may exonerate himself by his own oath alone.

5. A Jew shall be permitted to receive, by way of goods pawned, everything that may be given over to him, whatever its name be, without making investigation into the same, except for vestments stained or soaked with blood, and except sacral ones, which he shall by no means accept, whatsoever.

6. Similarly, if a Christian implicates a Jew by stating that something pawned to the Jew had been robbed from him by secret plotting or by violence, the Jew shall pledge an oath with respect to the pawned good that with the receipt of the same, he was ignorant of it having been stolen or seized; and in this oath of his he shall indicate what price was charged for the good thus pawned, and when he has thereby cleansed himself, the Christian shall reimburse to him the principal and the interest that has meanwhile accrued.

7. If, furthermore, by fire or theft or by force a Jew has lost his property together with goods he had accepted in pawn, and this has become certain, and notwithstanding this the Christian who has pawned the same implicates him, the Jew shall absolve himself by means of his own oath.

8. Similarly, if Jews have indeed excited discord amidst themselves, or a struggle, the judge of our city may claim no right for himself with respect to them, as We exclusively shall exercise judgement, or our Palatine [Voivode], or else his judge. If, however, the accusation is leveled at a person [for having harmed someone], then such a case shall be reserved exclusively for Us to be adjudged.

9. Also, if a Christian has harmed a Jew in whatever manner, the guilty party shall have to pay the fine to Us and to our Palatine. Having delivered it to our treasury, he may come upon our grace. Moreover, he shall recompense the injured party in view of healing his wounds, and of the expenses, as required and demanded by the laws of the realm.

10. Similarly, if a Christian has killed a Jew, he shall be punished with the appropriate adjudication, and all his possessions whether mobile or immobile shall be transferred to our authority.

11. Also, if a Christian has beaten a Jew in the way, nonetheless, that no blood is shed, he ought to be pursued by the Palatine, according to the custom of our land; and, having stricken or afflicted a Jew, he shall offer reparation therefor, in the manner as is customary in our land; should he indeed be not able to provide the money, then he shall be punished in fashion fitting for what he has done.

12. Wherever a Jew should transverse our Dominion, no-one shall offer any impediment to him whatsoever, nor cause or inspire any annoyance, burden, or trouble; but if he [=such a Jew] transports any merchandise or such things with him, customs shall arise therefrom at all the customs-posts, and this same Jew shall likewise pay only such duty or toll as is payable by any citizen of the city wherein the Jew abides at that time.

13. In the event that Jews, according to their custom, transport anyone of their dead either from one city to another city, or from one province to another, or from one land to another, it is our will that our customs-officers extort nothing from them. Should, however, a customs-officer extort something, it is our will that he be punished as a grave-robber.

14. Likewise, if a Christian has in any manner devastated, or invaded, a cemetery of theirs, it is our will that, in accordance with the custom and laws of our land, he be gravely punished, and all the properties of his, by whatever name these be called, be passed to our treasury.

15. If anyone imprudently throws [something/stones] at schools [i.e., synagogues] of the Jews, it is our will that he pay two talents of pepper to our Palatine.

16. Likewise, if a Jew be condemned by his Judge to a pecuniary penalty, which is called vandil, the perpetrator, if he be found guilty, shall pay to the same the penalty of a talent of pepper, as since times ancient.

17. If a Jew is summoned to court by command of his judge, and does not appear for the first nor for the second time, he must pay the judge for both of the times, in place thereof, the penalty that is customary since times ancient. If he comes neither at the third command, he shall pay to the aforementioned Judge the penalty that follows thereafter.

18. Likewise, if a Jew has wounded a Jew, he may not refuse to pay to his Judge the penalty according to the custom of our land.

19. We hereby ordain that no Jew shall swear an oath upon a Rodal Torah of theirs, unless it be for a substantial cause that extends up to fifty marcas (grzywna) of silver, or unless called to our presence; for minor matters, he indeed ought to pledge before the schools [i.e., synagogues], at the entrance-door to the said schools.

20. In the event that a Jew has secretly been killed, and the murderer’s guilt may not be proved, and if after an investigation the Jews have captured a suspect, We shall administer to the Jews the protection of justice against the suspected killer of the Jew, by means of the law regarding such a matter.

21. Also, if Christians lay a violent hand against a Jew, they shall be punished according to what the law of our land requires.

22. Likewise, the judge of the Jews shall bring no case that has emerged amongst Jews to court, unless he be invited because of a complaint. Also the Jews ought to be judged near their schools or wherever they may elect.

23. Similarly, if a Christian has redeemed from a Jew what he pawned, but has not paid the interest, the interest shall become compounded if not provided within a month.

24. Likewise, we hereby ordain that no-one seek quarters in a Jewish house.

25. If a Jew has lent money upon pawned possessions or a [hypothecation] letter for goods immobile, and he to whom the things belong offers proof of whose things those are, We ordain that the Jew be deprived of the money and the pledge of the letter.

26. Likewise, if anybody, a male or a female, has abducted a Jewish boy, we order that he be prosecuted as a thief.

27. Also, if a Jew has received pawned goods from a Christian and held the same in his possession for a year, and if the value of the goods is not in excess of the money that has been lent, the Jew shall show the goods to his Judge; and if the pawned goods are insignificant, he shall show the same to our Palatine or his own Judge, or shall have the liberty to vend it, if the same demonstrates the pawned goods to his Judge prior to the passing of a year. If indeed such goods have remained with a Jew for a year and a day, he shall thenceforth be responsible therefor before no-one.

28. It is our will that no-one dare to coerce a Jew with respect to recouping pawned goods during his celebration of a holiday, whatsoever.

29. Similarly, if any Christian would forcefully remove his pawned good(s) from a Jew, or would exercise violence in the Jew’s house, he shall be gravely punished as a plunderer of our treasury.

30. Likewise, a Jew shall not be proceeded against in judgment, except in the schools or where all the Jews are adjudicated; saving Us and our Palatine, who may summon them to our presence.

31. According to the ordinances of the Pope, in the name of our Holy Father, we strictly prohibit that, henceforth, no Jew in our Dominion should be accused that they would make use of human blood, because according to the precept of their law, Jews in their entirety absolutely refrain from blood. Yet, if any Jew be blamed for having killed a Christian boy, he ought to be convicted by three Christians and as many Jews, and afterwards proved guilty. Accordingly, this same Jew ought to be punished with the penalty appropriate for the crime committed. If however the aforesaid witnesses and his innocence exculpate him, the Christian [accuser] shall suffer because of his calumny the penalty which the Jew would have had to suffer.

32. We furthermore ordain that whatever a Jew has lent, be it gold or denarii, or silver, the same thing ought to be repaid or returned to him, together with the required interest that has accrued.

33. It is our will that Jews receive in pawn whatever horses, in general, openly and in the light of the day. If however any stolen horse has been discovered by a Christian at a Jew’s, the Jew shall exonerate himself by means of his own oath, stating that he took that same horse openly and in the day so that he could have it as a pledge pawned for a certain amount of money and did not suspect it to be stolen.

34. Similarly, we forbid lest minters established in our Dominion dare detain or seize, in whatever way, Jews with false denarii or other things, except exclusively upon our writ or that of our Palatine, or else that of respectable citizens.

35. We hereby ordain that if any Jew compelled by a dire necessity shouts aloud in the time of night and if the neighbouring Christians undertake not to offer him succour, and arrive not at the clamour, every of his neighbouring Christians shall be obligated to pay thirty soldos.

36. We moreover order that Jews may liberally vend and purchase everything, and touch bread, similarly as Christians do. Those who would prohibit them to do so shall indeed be liable to pay a penalty to our Palatine.

And so that all of the foregoing may obtain the strength of perpetual validity, we have given them this present instrument, with the signatures of the witnesses, for security, also fortifying it by the protection of the seal of ours; the witnesses of this matter verily are: Comes Arbeldus [resp. Archambold], Palatine of Kalisz; Comes Szymon, Castellan of Gniezno; Comes Jan of Kalisz; Comes Maciej, Castellan of Ląd; Comes Cz[ec]hosław, Butler of Kalisz; Comes Dersław, Courser of Ląd; with the other numerous Barons of our Land. Done at the city of Kalisz, on the day following the day of the Assumption of the B[lessed] V[irgin] M[ary], in the Year of our Lord one-thousand two-hundred and sixty-four, on this sixteenth day of August.

0 Comments

August 22, 1654 – Jacob Barsimson arrives in New Amsterdam. He is the first known Jewish immigrant to America.

8/22/2021

0 Comments

Governor Peter Stuyvesant of New Amsterdam opposed the settlement of Jews in the colony, but was overruled by his superiors in Holland

Jacob Barsimson was one of the earliest Jewish settlers at New Amsterdam (New York City), and the earliest identified Jewish settler within the present limits of the state of New York and probably the first permanent Jewish settler in what would become the United States. Barsimson had been sent out by the Jewish leaders of Amsterdam, Dutch Republic to determine the possibilities of an extensive Jewish immigration to New Amsterdam. With the fall of Dutch Brazil, it was imperative for Jews planning to leave Europe to find other new homes. He arrived at that port on the ship Pear Tree on August 22, 1654, having left the Netherlands on July 8. Barsimson was succeeded by a party of 23 Jews, who arrived at New Amsterdam in September, from Recife, Brazil, and established the first Jewish settlement in what would become the United States.

Shortly after his arrival, a party of 23 Jews arrived in New Amsterdam aboard a Portuguese vessel that had been diverted from its planned return to Europe by a pirate attack. Unlike Barsimon, who had a passport from the Dutch West India Company, these arrivals were not welcomed by the local officials, who viewed them as a corrupting influence in the Christian colony. Nonetheless, Jews came from the West Indies, heavily dominated by Catholic Spain, and Brazil, where the former Dutch colony had been lost to the Portuguese, because they were disillusioned with the religious and political situations that existed there. The Jews settling in New Amsterdam were seeking the equality of free men in a land of liberty where they could freely worship and have equal opportunities and obligations alongside the Christian citizens.

In 1655, Barsimson and another early Jewish settler, Asser Levy, joined in a petition to Governor Peter Stuyvesant and council of New Netherland to be permitted to stand guard like the other burghers, or to be relieved from the special tax imposed upon their nation in lieu thereof by resolution of governor and council, but their request was curtly refused with the remark that they might go elsewhere if they liked. Instead of following the latter advice, Barsimson and other early American Jews succeeded before long in obtaining instructions to Governor Stuyvesant from his superiors, the Dutch West India Company, condemning such unjustified and illiberal discriminations.

Despite this victory, Barsimon and the other members of the Jewish community continued to suffer prejudice at the hands of the local authorities, obtaining relief only when Jewish leaders in the Netherlands applied pressure to the governors of the Dutch West India Company, who were heavily dependent on Jewish bankers and investors to finance their operations, to permit the New Amsterdam Jews to have certain rights including the ability to purchase their own burial plot.

In 1658, Barsimson succeeded in securing from the Dutch municipal court in New Amsterdam a ruling which is surprising even in the light of latter-day principles of religious liberty. He was summoned to court as defendant on a Saturday, but the court decided, in the terse language of the record that "though defendant is absent, yet no default is entered against him, as he was summoned on his Sabbath."

0 Comments

August 17, 1836 – British parliament accepts registration of births, marriages and deaths.

8/17/2021

0 Comments

Henry Phillpotts, the Anglican Bishop of Exeter was one of the most vocal opponents of the Marriage Act of 1836 which extended religious freedom in the United Kingdom by recognizing marriages performed in non-Anglican churches

In the modern world, the idea that the government is responsible for maintaining "vital records" is a given. But it was not always so. The recordation births, deaths, and especially marriages, was either the province of religious authorities or depended on family records, or in lieu of a written record, family memory. Prior to 1753 in England and Wales, the principal source of vital record was the parish church registry -- and this meant the registry of the Church of England, with some limited recognition of the record of Jewish Synagogues.

Historically, the law of marriage developed differently in Scotland to other jurisdictions in the United Kingdom as a consequence of the differences in Scots law and role of the separate established Church of Scotland. These differences led to a tradition of couples from England and Wales eloping to Scotland, most famously to marry at border towns such as Gretna Green.

The Clandestine Marriages Act 1753, long title "An Act for the Better Preventing of Clandestine Marriage", popularly known as Lord Hardwicke's Marriage Act (citation 26 Geo. II. c. 33), was the first statutory legislation in England and Wales to require a formal ceremony of marriage. It came into force on 25 March 1754. The Act was precipitated by a dispute about the validity of a Scottish marriage, although pressure to address the problem of clandestine marriage had been growing for some time.

The difficulty with the Clandestine Marriages Act was that it formalized as law the practice recognizing only marriages performed in Church of England parishes, Jewish Temples, and, in recognition of the growing influence of the Society of Friends, "Quaker marriage," it also rendered marriages in Catholic and dissenter (i.e. Protestant) churches and those of all other non-Christian ceremonies as not legally recognized. It also did not end the practice of Scottish marriage because it's effect was to legitimize marriages performed in Scotland in accord with Scot's law.

Another aspect of the law that was unpopular was that it imposed punishments on the clergyman who performed a marriage that did not comport with the law. A similar act in the Isle of Man (an independent state also ruled by the English monarch) punished clergy from abroad, who were convicted of conducting marriages in breach of the Manx Marriage Act's requirements to be pilloried and have their ears cropped, before being imprisoned, fined and deported.

The result was that in order to have a "legal" marriage - a new concept at the time - required many couples, especially Catholics, to marry twice, once in their own faith ceremony, and again in a perfunctory ceremony performed by a Church of England clergyman. When asked why the Catholic Church was recommending that its parishioners marry in an Anglican church, one priest "declared gloomily that almost every day the wife of an Irish laborer was deserted by her husband and could get no redress" through the courts because the marriage was not legal.
The Marriage Act 1836, adopted on August 17, 1836, allowed marriages to be legally registered in buildings belonging to other religious groups. Religious groups could apply for registration for their buildings with the Registrar General and subsequently could conduct weddings if a Registrar and two witnesses were present.

The Act was not without its critics, however. One of the most vocal opponents of the bill was Henry Phillpotts, the Anglican Bishop of Exeter. The Times of 13 October 1836 reports that he denounced the bill as being "a disgrace to British legislation. [It] is pretended to be called for to prevent clandestine marriages, but I think it will greatly facilitate such proceedings. Not solemnized by the church of England, may be celebrated without entering into a consecrated building, may be contracted by anybody, and will be equally valid, whether it takes place in the house of God, or in the house of a registering clerk, one of the lowest functionaries of the state. The parties may take one another for better and for worse, without calling God to witness their plighted troth. No blessing sought; no solemn vows of mutual fidelity; no religious solemnity whatever."

0 Comments

July 10, 1925 – Scopes Trial: In Dayton, Tennessee, the so-called "Monkey Trial" begins of John T. Scopes, a young high school science teacher accused of teaching evolution in violation of the Butler Act.

7/10/2021

3 Comments

John T. Scopes

The Scopes Trial, formally known as The State of Tennessee v. John Thomas Scopes and commonly referred to as the Scopes Monkey Trial, was an American legal case in July 1925 in which a high school teacher, John T. Scopes, was accused of violating Tennessee's Butler Act, which had made it unlawful to teach human evolution in any state-funded school. The trial was deliberately staged in order to attract publicity to the small town of Dayton, Tennessee, where it was held. Scopes was unsure whether he had ever actually taught evolution, but he incriminated himself deliberately so the case could have a defendant.

Scopes was found guilty and fined $100 (equivalent to $1,500 in 2020), but the verdict was overturned on a technicality. The trial served its purpose of drawing intense national publicity, as national reporters flocked to Dayton to cover the big-name lawyers who had agreed to represent each side. William Jennings Bryan, three-time presidential candidate and former Secretary of State, argued for the prosecution, while Clarence Darrow served as the defense attorney for Scopes. The trial publicized the Fundamentalist–Modernist controversy, which set Modernists, who said evolution was not inconsistent with religion, against Fundamentalists, who said the Word of God as revealed in the Bible took priority over all human knowledge. The case was thus seen both as a theological contest and as a trial on whether modern science should be taught in schools.

State Representative John Washington Butler, a Tennessee farmer and head of the World Christian Fundamentals Association, lobbied state legislatures to pass anti-evolution laws. He succeeded when the Butler Act was passed in Tennessee, on March 25, 1925. Butler later stated, "I didn't know anything about evolution ... I'd read in the papers that boys and girls were coming home from school and telling their fathers and mothers that the Bible was all nonsense." Tennessee governor Austin Peay signed the law to gain support among rural legislators, but believed the law would neither be enforced nor interfere with education in Tennessee schools. William Jennings Bryan thanked Peay enthusiastically for the bill: "The Christian parents of the state owe you a debt of gratitude for saving their children from the poisonous influence of an unproven hypothesis."

In response, the American Civil Liberties Union financed a test case in which John Scopes, a Tennessee high school science teacher, agreed to be tried for violating the Act. Scopes, who had substituted for the regular biology teacher, was charged on May 5, 1925, with teaching evolution from a chapter in George William Hunter's textbook, Civic Biology: Presented in Problems (1914), which described the theory of evolution, race, and eugenics. The two sides brought in the biggest legal names in the nation, William Jennings Bryan for the prosecution and Clarence Darrow for the defense, and the trial was followed on radio transmissions throughout the United States.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) offered to defend anyone accused of teaching the theory of evolution in defiance of the Butler Act. On April 5, 1925, George Rappleyea, local manager for the Cumberland Coal and Iron Company, arranged a meeting with county superintendent of schools Walter White and local attorney Sue K. Hicks at Robinson's Drug Store, convincing them that the controversy of such a trial would give Dayton much needed publicity. According to Robinson, Rappleyea said, "As it is, the law is not enforced. If you win, it will be enforced. If I win, the law will be repealed. We're game, aren't we?" The men then summoned 24-year-old John T. Scopes, a Dayton high school science and math teacher. The group asked Scopes to admit to teaching the theory of evolution.

Rappleyea pointed out that, while the Butler Act prohibited the teaching of the theory of evolution, the state required teachers to use a textbook that explicitly described and endorsed the theory of evolution, and that teachers were, therefore, effectively required to break the law. Scopes mentioned that while he couldn't remember whether he had actually taught evolution in class, he had, however, gone through the evolution chart and chapter with the class. Scopes added to the group: "If you can prove that I've taught evolution and that I can qualify as a defendant, then I'll be willing to stand trial."

Scopes urged students to testify against him and coached them in their answers. He was indicted on May 25, after three students testified against him at the grand jury; one student afterwards told reporters, "I believe in part of evolution, but I don't believe in the monkey business." Judge John T. Raulston accelerated the convening of the grand jury and "... all but instructed the grand jury to indict Scopes, despite the meager evidence against him and the widely reported stories questioning whether the willing defendant had ever taught evolution in the classroom".[16] Scopes was charged with having taught from the chapter on evolution to a high-school class in violation of the Butler Act and nominally arrested, though he was never actually detained. Paul Patterson, owner of The Baltimore Sun, put up $500 in bail for Scopes.

The original prosecutors were Herbert E. and Sue K. Hicks, two brothers who were local attorneys and friends of Scopes, but the prosecution was ultimately led by Tom Stewart, a graduate of Cumberland School of Law, who later became a U.S. Senator. Stewart was aided by Dayton attorney Gordon McKenzie, who supported the anti-evolution bill on religious grounds, and described evolution as "detrimental to our morality" and an assault on "the very citadel of our Christian religion".

Baptist pastor William Bell Riley, the founder and president of the World Christian Fundamentals Association, was instrumental in calling lawyer and three-time Democratic presidential nominee, former United States Secretary of State, and lifelong Presbyterian William Jennings Bryan to act as that organization's counsel. Bryan had originally been invited by Sue Hicks to become an associate of the prosecution and Bryan had readily accepted, despite the fact he had not tried a case in thirty-six years. As Scopes pointed out to James Presley in the book Center of the Storm, on which the two collaborated: "After [Bryan] was accepted by the state as a special prosecutor in the case, there was never any hope of containing the controversy within the bounds of constitutionality."

In response, the defense sought out Clarence Darrow, an agnostic. Darrow originally declined, fearing his presence would create a circus atmosphere, but eventually realized that the trial would be a circus with or without him, and agreed to lend his services to the defense, later saying he "realized there was no limit to the mischief that might be accomplished unless the country was aroused to the evil at hand". After many changes back and forth, the defense team consisted of Darrow, ACLU attorney Arthur Garfield Hays, Dudley Field Malone, an international divorce lawyer who had worked at the State Department, W.O. Thompson, who was Darrow's law partner, and F.B. McElwee. The defense was also assisted by librarian and Biblical authority Charles Francis Potter, who was a Modernist Unitarian preacher.

The prosecution team was led by Tom Stewart, district attorney for the 18th Circuit (and future United States Senator), and included, in addition to Herbert and Sue Hicks, Ben B. McKenzie and William Jennings Bryan.

The trial was covered by journalists from the South and around the world, including H. L. Mencken for The Baltimore Sun, which was also paying part of the defense's expenses. It was Mencken who provided the trial with its most colorful labels such as the "Monkey Trial" of "the infidel Scopes". It was also the first United States trial to be broadcast on national radio.

The ACLU had originally intended to oppose the Butler Act on the grounds that it violated the teacher's individual rights and academic freedom, and was therefore unconstitutional. Principally because of Clarence Darrow, this strategy changed as the trial progressed. The earliest argument proposed by the defense once the trial had begun was that there was actually no conflict between evolution and the creation account in the Bible; later, this viewpoint would be called theistic evolution. In support of this claim, they brought in eight experts on evolution. But other than Dr. Maynard Metcalf, a zoologist from Johns Hopkins University, the judge would not allow these experts to testify in person. Instead, they were allowed to submit written statements so their evidence could be used at the appeal. In response to this decision, Darrow made a sarcastic comment to Judge Raulston (as he often did throughout the trial) on how he had been agreeable only on the prosecution's suggestions. Darrow apologized the next day, keeping himself from being found in contempt of court.

The presiding judge, John T. Raulston, was accused of being biased towards the prosecution and frequently clashed with Darrow. At the outset of the trial, Raulston quoted Genesis and the Butler Act. He also warned the jury not to judge the merit of the law (which would become the focus of the trial) but on the violation of the Act, which he called a 'high misdemeanor'. The jury foreman himself was unconvinced of the merit of the Act but he acted, as did most of the jury, on the instructions of the judge.

Bryan chastised evolution for teaching children that humans were but one of 35,000 types of mammals and bemoaned the notion that human beings were descended "Not even from American monkeys, but from old world monkeys".

Darrow responded for the defense in a speech that was universally considered the oratorical climax of the trial.[29] Arousing fears of "inquisitions", Darrow argued that the Bible should be preserved in the realm of theology and morality and not put into a course of science. In his conclusion, Darrow declared that Bryan's "duel to the death" against evolution should not be made one-sided by a court ruling that took away the chief witnesses for the defense. Darrow promised there would be no duel because "there is never a duel with the truth." The courtroom went wild when Darrow finished; Scopes declared Darrow’s speech to be the dramatic high point of the entire trial and insisted that part of the reason Bryan wanted to go on the stand was to regain some of his tarnished glory.

On the sixth day of the trial, the defense ran out of witnesses. The judge declared that all the defense testimony on the Bible was irrelevant and should not be presented to the jury (which had been excluded during the defense). On the seventh day of the trial, the defense asked the judge to call Bryan as a witness to question him on the Bible, as their own experts had been rendered irrelevant; Darrow had planned this the day before and called Bryan a "Bible expert". This move surprised those present in the court, as Bryan was a counsel for the prosecution and Bryan himself (according to a journalist reporting the trial) never made a claim of being an expert, although he did tout his knowledge of the Bible. This testimony revolved around several questions regarding Biblical stories and Bryan's beliefs (as shown below); this testimony culminated in Bryan declaring that Darrow was using the court to "slur the Bible" while Darrow replied that Bryan's statements on the Bible were "foolish".

On the seventh day of the trial, Clarence Darrow took the unorthodox step of calling William Jennings Bryan, counsel for the prosecution, to the stand as a witness in an effort to demonstrate that belief in the historicity of the Bible and its many accounts of miracles was unreasonable. Bryan accepted, on the understanding that Darrow would in turn submit to questioning by Bryan. Although Hays would claim in his autobiography that the examination of Bryan was unplanned, Darrow spent the night before in preparation. The scientists the defense had brought to Dayton—and Charles Francis Potter, a modernist minister who had engaged in a series of public debates on evolution with the fundamentalist preacher John Roach Straton—prepared topics and questions for Darrow to address to Bryan on the witness stand. Kirtley Mather, chairman of the geology department at Harvard and also a devout Baptist, played Bryan and answered questions as he believed Bryan would. Raulston had adjourned court to the stand on the courthouse lawn, ostensibly because he was "afraid of the building" with so many spectators crammed into the courtroom, but probably because of the stifling heat.

An area of questioning involved the book of Genesis, including questions about whether Eve was actually created from Adam's rib, where Cain got his wife, and how many people lived in Ancient Egypt. Darrow used these examples to suggest that the stories of the Bible could not be scientific and should not be used in teaching science with Darrow telling Bryan, "You insult every man of science and learning in the world because he does not believe in your fool religion." Bryan's declaration in response was, "The reason I am answering is not for the benefit of the superior court. It is to keep these gentlemen from saying I was afraid to meet them and let them question me, and I want the Christian world to know that any atheist, agnostic, unbeliever, can question me anytime as to my belief in God, and I will answer him."

Stewart objected for the prosecution, demanding to know the legal purpose of Darrow's questioning. Bryan, gauging the effect the session was having, snapped that its purpose was "to cast ridicule on everybody who believes in the Bible". Darrow, with equal vehemence, retorted, "We have the purpose of preventing bigots and ignoramuses from controlling the education of the United States."

A few more questions followed in the charged open-air courtroom. Darrow asked where Cain got his wife; Bryan answered that he would "leave the agnostics to hunt for her". When Darrow addressed the issue of the temptation of Eve by the serpent, Bryan insisted that the Bible be quoted verbatim rather than allowing Darrow to paraphrase it in his own terms. However, after another angry exchange, Judge Raulston banged his gavel, adjourning the court.

The confrontation between Bryan and Darrow lasted approximately two hours on the afternoon of the seventh day of the trial. It is likely that it would have continued the following morning but for Judge Raulston's announcement that he considered the whole examination irrelevant to the case and his decision that it should be "expunged" from the record. Thus Bryan was denied the chance to cross-examine the defense lawyers in return, although after the trial Bryan would distribute nine questions to the press to bring out Darrow's "religious attitude". The questions and Darrow's short answers were published in newspapers the day after the trial ended, with The New York Times characterizing Darrow as answering Bryan's questions "with his agnostic's creed, 'I don't know,' except where he could deny them with his belief in natural, immutable law".

Scopes never testified since there was never a factual issue as to whether he had taught evolution. Scopes later admitted that, in reality, he was unsure of whether he had taught evolution (another reason the defense did not want him to testify), but the point was not contested at the trial.

After eight days of trial, it took the jury only nine minutes to deliberate. Scopes was found guilty on July 21 and ordered by Raulston to pay a $100 fine (equivalent to $1,500 in 2020). Raulston imposed the fine before Scopes was given an opportunity to say anything about why the court should not impose punishment upon him and after Neal brought the error to the judge's attention the defendant spoke for the first and only time in court: Your honor, I feel that I have been convicted of violating an unjust statute. I will continue in the future, as I have in the past, to oppose this law in any way I can. Any other action would be in violation of my ideal of academic freedom—that is, to teach the truth as guaranteed in our constitution, of personal and religious freedom. I think the fine is unjust.

Although the Tennessee Supreme Court upheld the statute as constitutional, it reversed Scopes conviction on technical grounds because the judge, not the jury, imposed the fine. At that time, only a jury could impose a fine of greater than $50. Because Scopes was not longer employed by the state, the Supreme Court simply dismissed the case rather than remand it back for a new sentencing proceeding.

In 1968, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in Epperson v. Arkansas 393 U.S. 97 (1968) that such bans contravene the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment because their primary purpose is religious. Tennessee had repealed the Butler Act the previous year.

Bryan died suddenly five days after the trial's conclusion. The connection between the trial and his death is still debated by historians.

3 Comments

June 27, 1556 – The thirteen Stratford Martyrs are burned at the stake near London for their Protestant beliefs.

6/27/2021

0 Comments

The Stratford Martyrs were eleven men and two women who were burned at the stake together for their Protestant beliefs near London (the exact location is disputed), on 27 June 1556 during the Marian persecutions. A detailed description of the event is in John Foxe's book, The Acts and Monuments. Foxe lists those executed: Henry Adlington, a sawyer of Grinstead, Laurence Pernam, a smith of Hoddesdon, Henry Wye, a brewer of Stanford-le-Hope, William Halliwel, a smith of Waltham Holy Cross, Thomas Bowyer, a weaver of Great Dunmow, George Searles, a tailor of White Notley, Edmund Hurst, a labourer of Colchester, Lyon Cawch, a Flemish merchant of the City of London, Ralph Jackson, a servant of Chipping Ongar, John Derifall, a labourer of Rettendon, John Routh, a labourer of Wix, Elizabeth Pepper of Colchester who was pregnant, and Agnes George of West Bergholt. A further three men, Thomas Freeman, William Stannard, and William Adams, were given a dispensation by Cardinal Pole, the Archbishop of Canterbury, because they had recanted although Foxe is dubious about that. The 16 accused had been brought to Newgate in London from various parts of Essex and Hertfordshire. Beginning on 6 June 1556, at an ecclesiastical tribunal under the direction of Thomas Darbyshire, the chancellor of Edmund Bonner the Bishop of London, they were charged with nine counts of heresy, to which they all either assented or remained silent. All of them were condemned to death and later published a letter detailing their beliefs in rebuttal of a sermon that had been preached against them by John Feckenham, the Dean of St Paul's. On 27 June 1556, the remaining 13 were brought from London to Stratford, where the party was divided into two and held "in several chambers". Here, the sheriff unsuccessfully attempted to persuade each group to recant, by telling them falsely that the other group had already done so.

The executions were said to have been attended by a crowd of 20,000. The exact place of the execution is unknown; the most likely site is thought to have been Fair Field in Bow (then known as Stratford-le-Bow), north of the present day Bow Church DLR station. An alternative suggested location is Stratford Green, much of which is now occupied by the University of East London Stratford Campus. This theory seems to date only from the erection of a monument to the martyrs in the nearby churchyard of the Parish Church of St John the Evangelist in 1879. According to Foxe, "eleven men were tied to three stakes, and the two women loose in the midst without any stake; and so they were all burnt in one fire".

0 Comments

June 22, 1633 – The Holy Office in Rome forces Galileo Galilei to recant his view that the Sun, not the Earth, is the center of the Universe in the form he presented it in, after heated controversy.

6/22/2021

0 Comments

Galileo before the Holy Office, a 19th-century painting by Joseph-Nicolas Robert-Fleury

The Galileo affair began around 1610 and culminated with the trial and condemnation of Galileo Galilei by the Roman Catholic Inquisition in 1633. Galileo was prosecuted for his support of heliocentrism, the astronomical model in which the Earth and planets revolve around the Sun at the center of the Solar System (which, at the time, was also considered the center of the universe).

In 1610, Galileo published his Sidereus Nuncius (Starry Messenger), describing the surprising observations that he had made with the new telescope, among them, the Galilean moons of Jupiter. With these observations and additional observations that followed, such as the phases of Venus, he promoted the heliocentric theory of Nicolaus Copernicus published in De revolutionibus orbium coelestium in 1543. Galileo's discoveries were met with opposition within the Catholic Church, and in 1616 the Inquisition declared heliocentrism to be "formally heretical." Heliocentric books were banned and Galileo was ordered to abstain from holding, teaching or defending heliocentric ideas.

Galileo went on to propose a theory of tides in 1616, and of comets in 1619; he argued that the tides were evidence for the motion of the Earth. In 1632 Galileo published his Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, which implicitly defended heliocentrism, and was immensely popular. Responding to mounting controversy over theology, astronomy and philosophy, the Roman Inquisition tried Galileo in 1633 and found him "vehemently suspect of heresy", sentencing him to indefinite imprisonment. Galileo was kept under house arrest until his death in 1642.

In 1758 the Catholic Church dropped the general prohibition of books advocating heliocentrism from the Index of Forbidden Books. It did not, however, explicitly rescind the decisions issued by the Inquisition in its judgement of 1633 against Galileo, or lift the prohibition of uncensored versions of Copernicus's De Revolutionibus or Galileo's Dialogue. The issue finally came to a head in 1820 when the Master of the Sacred Palace (the Church's chief censor), Filippo Anfossi, refused to license a book by a Catholic canon, Giuseppe Settele, because it openly treated heliocentrism as a physical fact. Settele appealed to pope Pius VII. After the matter had been reconsidered by the Congregation of the Index and the Holy Office, Anfossi's decision was overturned. Copernicus's De Revolutionibus and Galileo's Dialogue were then subsequently omitted from the next edition of the Index when it appeared in 1835.

Despite this apparent acquiescence of the Church, however, the controversy has never been officially put to rest. Although Pope John Paul II expressed a desire to see the matter concluded favorably to Galileo and created a Pontifical Interdisciplinary Study Commission in 1981 to study the case, the Commission was not able to reach any definitive result because of the continuing insistence of conservative theologians that Galileo, despite being scientifically accurate, was nonetheless guilty of heresy for challenge the Church's established law.

As recently as 2008, Pope Benedict XVI was forced to cancel a planned visit to La Sapienza University because a majority of the faculty and students protested against Benedict's statement, prior to his election as Pope, that "[t]he Church at the time of Galileo kept much more closely to reason than did Galileo himself, and she took into consideration the ethical and social consequences of Galileo's teaching too. Her verdict against Galileo was rational and just, and the revision of this verdict can be justified only on the grounds of what is politically opportune." The official letter of protest stated that they views of the Pope and others in the Church "offend and humiliate us as scientists who are loyal to reason and as teachers who have dedicated our lives to the advance and dissemination of knowledge."

0 Comments

June 17, 1963 – The United States Supreme Court rules 8–1 in Abington School District v. Schempp against requiring the reciting of Bible verses and the Lord's Prayer in public schools.

6/17/2021

0 Comments

Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court decided 8–1 in favor of the respondent, Edward Schempp on behalf of his son Ellery Schempp, and declared that school-sponsored Bible reading in public schools in the United States was unconstitutional. The Abington case began when Edward Schempp, a Unitarian Universalist and a resident of Abington Township, Pennsylvania, filed suit against the Abington School District in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to prohibit the enforcement of a Pennsylvania state law that required his children, specifically Ellery Schempp, to hear and sometimes read portions of the Bible as part of their public school education. That law (24 Pa. Stat. 15-1516, as amended, Pub. Law 1928) required that "[a]t least ten verses from the Holy Bible [be] read, without comment, at the opening of each public school on each school day." Schempp specifically contended that the statute violated his and his family's rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

Pennsylvania law, like that of four other states, included a statute compelling school districts to perform Bible readings in the mornings before classes. Twenty-five states had laws allowing "optional" Bible reading, with the remainder of the states having no laws supporting or rejecting Bible reading. In eleven of those states with laws supportive of Bible reading or state-sponsored prayer, the state courts had declared the laws to be unconstitutional.

A related case was that brought by Madalyn Murray O'Hair, mother of plaintiff William J. Murray III (b. 1946), who filed suit against the local school system in Murray v. Curlett to prohibit compulsory prayer and Bible reading in public schools. In 1963, she founded the group American Atheists (originally known as the Society of Separationists). The Murray case was consolidated with Schempp's case on appeal to the Supreme Court.

During the first trial in federal district court, Edward Schempp and his children testified as to specific religious doctrines purveyed by a literal reading of the Bible "which were contrary to the religious beliefs which they held and to their familial teaching" (177 F. Supp. 398, 400). The children testified that all of the doctrines to which they referred were read to them at various times as part of the exercises. Edward Schempp testified at the second trial that he had considered having his children excused from attendance at the exercises but decided against it for several reasons, including his belief that the children's relationships with their teachers and classmates would be adversely affected.

The district court ruled in Schempp's favor, and struck down the Pennsylvania statute. The school district appealed the ruling. While that appeal was pending, the Pennsylvania legislature amended the statute to allow children to be excused from the exercises upon the written request of their parents. This change did not satisfy Schempp, however, and he continued his action against the school district, charging that the amendment of the law did not change its nature as an unconstitutional establishment of religion. Because of the change in the law, the Supreme Court had responded to the school district's appeal by vacating the first ruling and remanding the case to the district court. The district court again found for Schempp.

The Supreme Court upheld the District Court's decision and found the Pennsylvania prayer statute unconstitutional by virtue of the facts in the case, as well as the clear line of precedent established by the Supreme Court. In writing the opinion of the Court, Justice Tom C. Clark stated, "This Court has decisively settled that the First Amendment's mandate [in the Establishment Clause] has been made wholly applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment."

What was unexpected, however, were the ideas expressed in the second portion of Justice Clark's opinion written for the majority. The Court's recognition of religious ideals as valuable to the culture of the United States in that opinion are generally not cited much by either side of the church-state debate when discussing the case and the effect it had on the United States. Clark said that the Court was of the feeling that no matter the religious nature of the citizenry, the government at all levels, as required by the Constitution, must remain neutral in matters of religion "while protecting all, prefer[ring] none, and disparag[ing] none." The Court had clearly rejected "the contention by many that the Establishment Clause forbade only governmental preference of one faith over another." Justice Clark added, "We repeat and again reaffirm that neither a State nor the Federal Government can constitutionally force a person 'to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion.' Neither can it constitutionally pass laws or impose requirements which aid all religions as against non-believers, and neither can it aid those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs." Such prohibited behavior was self-evident in the Pennsylvania law requiring Bible reading (and allowing recitation of the Lord's Prayer) in its public schools. The Court recognized the value of such ideal neutrality from lessons of history when government and religion were either fully fused or cooperative with one another and religious liberty was nonexistent or seriously curtailed.

0 Comments

June 13, 313 – The decisions of the Edict of Milan, signed by Constantine the Great and co-emperor Valerius Licinius, granting religious freedom throughout the Roman Empire, are published in Nicomedia.

6/13/2021

0 Comments

The Edict of Milan was long believed to be the February AD 313 agreement to treat Christians benevolently within the Roman Empire. Western Roman Emperor Constantine I and Emperor Licinius, who controlled the Balkans, met in Mediolanum (modern-day Milan) and, among other things, agreed to change policies towards Christians following the Edict of Toleration issued by Emperor Galerius two years earlier in Serdica. The Edict of Milan gave Christianity legal status and a reprieve from persecution but did not make it the state church of the Roman Empire. That occurred in AD 380 with the Edict of Thessalonica.

The Edict is popularly thought to concern only Christianity. In fact the Edict expressly grants religious liberty not only to Christians, who had been the object of special persecution, but to all religions

The document is found in Lactantius' De Mortibus Persecutorum and in Eusebius of Caesarea's History of the Church with marked divergences between the two. Whether or not there was a formal 'Edict of Milan' is no longer really debated among scholars who generally reject the story as it has come down in church history.

The version found in Lactantius is not in the form of an edict. It is a letter from Licinius to the governors of the provinces in the Eastern Empire he had just conquered by defeating Maximinus later in the same year and issued in Nicomedia on June 13, 313.

Since the fall of the Severan dynasty in AD 235, rivals for the imperial throne had bid for support by either favoring or persecuting Christians. The previous Edict of Toleration by Galerius had been recently issued by the emperor Galerius from Serdica and was posted at Nicomedia on 30 April 311. By its provisions, the Christians, who had "followed such a caprice and had fallen into such a folly that they would not obey the institutes of antiquity," were granted an indulgence. Their confiscated property, however, was not restored until 313, when instructions were given for the Christians' meeting places and other properties to be returned and compensation paid by the state to the current owners.

0 Comments

September 8, 1264 – The Statute of Kalisz, guaranteeing Jews safety and personal liberties and giving battei din jurisdiction over Jewish matters, is promulgated by Bolesław the Pious, Duke of Greater Poland.

August 22, 1654 – Jacob Barsimson arrives in New Amsterdam. He is the first known Jewish immigrant to America.

August 17, 1836 – British parliament accepts registration of births, marriages and deaths.

July 10, 1925 – Scopes Trial: In Dayton, Tennessee, the so-called "Monkey Trial" begins of John T. Scopes, a young high school science teacher accused of teaching evolution in violation of the Butler Act.

June 27, 1556 – The thirteen Stratford Martyrs are burned at the stake near London for their Protestant beliefs.

June 22, 1633 – The Holy Office in Rome forces Galileo Galilei to recant his view that the Sun, not the Earth, is the center of the Universe in the form he presented it in, after heated controversy.

June 17, 1963 – The United States Supreme Court rules 8–1 in Abington School District v. Schempp against requiring the reciting of Bible verses and the Lord's Prayer in public schools.

June 13, 313 – The decisions of the Edict of Milan, signed by Constantine the Great and co-emperor Valerius Licinius, granting religious freedom throughout the Roman Empire, are published in Nicomedia.

CTROL Blog

Categories

About

Offerings

Contact and Support CTROL