My educated guess is that this statute was only intended to
apply to Indians who lived in, or visited, the colonists'
settlements. If so, it was probably not much more severe (though
probably less defensible) than the restrictions the colonists placed
on themselves.
I'm even more fascinated, though, by one tidbit in the
statute: the reference to banning only "outward worship." This
confirms the degree to which the Puritans had, at least in their
relations with the Indians, internalized the relatively new ideology
that defended religious coercion, not as a means to assure individual
salvation, but simply as a tool for guaranteeing social order,
political cohesion, protection of others from temptation, etc.
Some have argued that this focus on the state's interest in
"outward worship" rather than individual salvation contained, if
ironically, the seeds of modern conceptions of religious
liberty. Consider, in this connection, Elizabeth I's famous
statement that she had "no desire to make windows into men's
souls." For Elizabeth herself, this statement was entirely
consistent with her oppression of the "outward" practice of Catholic
worship. Historically, though, it began the slow process of
detaching religious commitment from the jurisdiction of the
state. (It also began the more normatively complicated process of
treating religious faith as merely "private.") I've also found
really interesting here Janet Halley, Equivocation and the Legal
Conflict Over Religious Identity In Early Modern England, 3 Yale J.L.
& Human. 33 (1991), which discusses, among other things, the "Church
Papists" of Elizabeth England: Catholics who complied with the law
requiring attendance at Anglican services, and understood such
attendance as a (practical or even possibly commendable) act of
"outward" social duty rather than a violation of their Catholic principles.
Another query: How would the Indians have understood the
import and implications of this statute (assuming it was actually
enforced), particularly given the fact, emphasized by historians of
the period, that very few New England Indians, at least in the 17th
century, actually converted to Christianity. (Indeed, the evidence
suggests that in the early years of the New England colonies,
significantly more whites assimilated into native culture and
society, than the other way around. That, in fact, might confirm
that the statute had more to do with controlling whites than
controlling Indians.)
Doug Laycock wrote:
> Just ran across a 1633 statute that made it a criminal offense for
> Indians to worship "their False Gods." I haven't tracked it to an
> original source, but James Bradley Thayer has it in a footnote
> (attached), so I assume it's reliable.
>
>The statute applied "in any part of our jurisdiction;" I don't know
>if that meant all the territory claimed by Massachusetts Bay colony,
>or only white towns and farms. It seems likely that practical
>enforcement capacity was limited to areas of white settlement, so
>maybe this is not quite as stunningly outrageous as it appeared on
>first reading. Still, it's pretty remarkable. Maybe they were no
>longer dependent on the Indians to feed them by this time.
*******************************************************
Perry Dane
Professor of Law
Rutgers University
School of Law -- Camden
217 North Fifth Street
Camden, NJ 08102
d...@crab.rutgers.edu
Bio: www.camlaw.rutgers.edu/bio/925/
SSRN Author page: www.ssrn.com/author=48596
Work: (856) 225-6004
Fax: (856) 969-7924
Home: (610) 896-5702
*******************************************************
*******************************************************
Perry Dane
Professor of Law
Rutgers University
School of Law -- Camden
217 North Fifth Street
Camden, NJ 08102
d...@crab.rutgers.edu
Bio: www.camlaw.rutgers.edu/bio/925/
SSRN Author page: www.ssrn.com/author=48596
Work: (856) 225-6004
Fax: (856) 969-7924
Home: (610) 896-5702
*******************************************************
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the
messages to others.
