Breidenbach's fertile research raises questions about history of religious liberty

Breidenbach's fertile research raises questions about history of religious liberty 

In most of New England, the Anglican Church was too Catholic for my Puritan ancestors. They considered it an impure faith (hence the name). Free exercise and establishment were the work of Jefferson, a Diest, who purified the Gospel to remove miracles from it, oddly making it a good facsimile for the Q Gospel. 

The loyalties of the Carroll family had nothing to do with the First Amendment. The question was whether to keep Maryland in the United States or persecute its Catholics.  Not admitting it as a state was not an option, nor was persecution, given the Deism of Madison and Jefferson.

This is not to say that suspicion of Rome was not justified. It was acting more like a government than a Church and stood firmly against both democracy and freemasonry (my generation is the first ever not to be part of a lodge), largely because of Italian politics. If there was a common civic religion at the founding, it was the universal brotherhood of the Lodge. (which is in no way sinful).

By justified I mean that it was reasonable to conclude that Rome was an overseas enemy, not that persecution was a good thing. Think about this concept when making justice an attribute of God. Justice is about reasons, not Truth.

As the recent controversy over Communion demonstrates, a belief in individual rights (especially for women), is not a core value in the hierarchy - despite the fact that Dignitatis Humanae made it doctrine.

Unless these themes are included in the nation's religious liberty, Breidenbach's research is incomplete at best and conservative propaganda at worst.