freigeister

I didn't say that the Edict was rigorously honoured by Constantine or by anyone else. I'm just saying that it was on the books long before any similar legislation existed anywhere else. It was indeed almost immediately disregarded. But where is it not, even today? I mean, look at what happened to David Koresh, for goodness' sake!

Toto

This seems to give rights to Christians (and maybe others?):

And thus by this wholesome counsel and most upright provision we thought to arrange that no one whatsoever should be denied the opportunity to give his heart to the observance of the Christian religion, of that religion which he should think best for himself, so that the Supreme Deity, to whose worship we freely yield our hearts) may show in all things His usual favor and benevolence. Therefore, your Worship should know that it has pleased us to remove all conditions whatsoever, which were in the rescripts formerly given to you officially, concerning the Christians and now any one of these who wishes to observe Christian religion may do so freely and openly, without molestation.

Constantine established 3 religions as the official religions of the Roman Empire - the worship of Sol Invictus (the sun), Mithraism (favored by his soldiers) and Christianity. He actively tried to combine them, and you can see remnants of those other religions in Christian tradition.

We need to distinguish between religious freedom and separation of church and state. Separation requires both religious freedom of conscience and a lack of government support (or oppression) of religion. Many regimes allowed at least some amount of freedom of conscience, because it is really hard to police people's thoughts, but then also have an official religion that received governmental support. This governmental support can be as problematic as government oppression, since it tends to distort the religious doctrines to the service of the state.

In that sense, the US is probably the originator of "Church - State Separation".

freigeister

You have a funny way of quoting. Here is the part of the Edict that explicitly recognizes religions other than Christianity:


we have also conceded to other religions the right of open and free observance of their worship for the sake of the peace of our times, that each one may have the free opportunity to worship as he pleases; this regulation is made we that we may not seem to detract from any dignity or any religion.





Source?

There is no statement in the Edict regarding an official religion. Indeed, the notion of religion as distinct from the state really only begins with this Edict, making it the starting point of the separation of church and state. Of course, I needn't belabor the point that there continued to be much to-ing and fro-ing on the question, some of which we still have.

never been there

I figure the Dutch invented secular humanism, which is the political theory behind church/state separation, as soon as they won their independence. They found, like any bunch of Protestants, that they couldn't agree on doctrine. So they left it out of government. Sure, they assumed everyone was Christian, but they didn't pry. They took in Jewish refugees from Spain, but mainly to spite the Spanish.

There were restrictions on Catholics' political rights, but this was because the RC Church would not give up the doctrine of its inherent right to tell governments what to do.

So they had an officially Protestant monarchy, but declared or not, the State worked at arm's length from churches.

freigeister

And the son of one of those Jewish refugees became the world's greatest spokesman for liberty: Spinoza.

Buffman

You might find the information available at the following URLs helpful in any claims about the religious faith affiliations of America's founders. (I suspect that you are implying facts that are not in evidence. Of the 56 signers of the DoI. at least 54 were Christians and four could be called Deists. They all believed in God.)

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/qtable.htm

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/qtabnote.htm

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/studygd0.htm

I am not sure why you included Abigail Adams in your statement. I think you will find that a Unitarian congregation of 1753 differed from the Unitarian congregation of today.

http://www.uua.org/uuhs/duub/articles/abigailadams.html

(Extract)
John and Abigail Adams were active members of the First Parish Church in Quincy, which was already unitarian in doctrine by 1753. Although she did not sign the membership book (John did), she attended the church, supported it, and showed active concern and care for its ministry. She is a celebrated figure in her congregation's tradition. Abigail's theology is clearly stated in her correspondence. Writing to her son, John Quincy Adams, on May 5, 1816, she said, "I acknowledge myself a unitarian�*Believing that the Father alone, is the supreme God, and that Jesus Christ derived his Being, and all his powers and honors from the Father." "There is not any reasoning which can convince me, contrary to my senses, that three is one, and one three." On January 3, 1818, writing to her daughter-in-law, Louisa, Abigail wondered "when will Mankind be convinced that true Religion is from the Heart, between Man and his creator, and not the imposition of Man or creeds and tests?" Like many early Unitarians she discounted sectarian claims and was "assured that those who fear God and work righteousness shall be accepted of him, and that I presume of what ever sect or persuasion."
(End extract)

Buffman

Some addition information.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04295c.htm

(Extracts)
Proceeding to Milan (end of 312, or beginning of 313) he met his colleague the Augustus Licinius, married his sister to him, secured his protection for the Christians in the East, and promised him support against Maximinus Daia. The last, a bigoted pagan and a cruel tyrant, who persecuted the Christians even after Galerius' death, was now defeated by Licinius, whose soldiers, by his orders, had invoked the God of the Christians on the battle-field (30 April, 313). Maximinus, in his turn, implored the God of the Christians, but died of a painful disease in the following autumn.

Constantine can rightfully claim the title of Great, for he turned the history of the world into a new course and made Christianity, which until then had suffered bloody persecution, the religion of the State.
(End extracts)

Here is another Catholic interpretation about the Edict of Milan.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/16066a.htm

(Extract)
Without detracting from the credit of Constantine, the important social and political changes implied in this act must be looked on as a triumph of Christian principles over pagan narrowness. The absolute independence of religion from state interference, which formed the keynote of this famous document, produced a new concept of society, and may be looked on as the first official expression of what afterwards came to be the medieval idea of the State. It was in Western Europe the first declaration on the part of any one vested with civil authority that the State should not interfere with the rights of conscience and religion. In addition to removing the ban from the Christians Constantine ordered that the property of which they had been deprived during the persecutions by seizure or confiscation should be returned to them at the expense of the State.
(End extract)

(Personally, I find that last extract to be more like propaganda than accurate history. The Edict of Milan established the Christian faith belief as an equal "state" partner for geo-political purposes, not for the rights of individual conscience. However, it was the first official statement advocting equal treatment of religious beliefs by the "state." To imply that it separated the government from religion would appear to be a vested interest, creative, interpretation.)

freigeister

There is nothing in the Edict itself that establishes Christianity as an equal partner of the state. Subsequent to the Edict, of course, the relationship between the church and the state went through many permutations. And bear in mind that the Edict explicitly enacts toleration for all religions, which is the main point here.

Ebonmuse

The only relevant text in that declaration I see is this:

"No one shall be disquieted on account of his opinions, including his religious views, provided their manifestation does not disturb the public order established by law."

This seems like a far cry from separation of church and state to me. It grants people (limited) freedom to state their religious views, true, but it noticeably does not say that the state itself may not adopt an official religion, or that it may not pass laws favoring religion.

Again, this grants people a degree of freedom to practice their own beliefs, but does not put limits on what the state can do. If anything, Asoka made Buddhism the official state religion of his kingdom.

Buffman

Like so much of the recorded history that we have been led to believe is accurate, original source documentation is severely lacking. Thus we are left only with those items selected by vested interests from which to formuate a knowledge base.

As many of the long time members in this forum already know, I honestly don't care how the accurate historical facts support or disparage a particular religious faith belief view. All I seek are the most accurate, original source reference, historical facts I can locate. With that caveat, I offer the following information for consideration:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edict_of_Milan

(Extract)
The "Edict of Milan" (AD 313) declared that the Roman Empire would be neutral with regard to religious worship, officially ending all government-sanctioned persecution especially of Christianity. The Edict was issued in the names of the Western tetrarch Constantine the Great, and Licinius, the Eastern tetrarch.

A previous edict of toleration had been recently issued from Nicomedia by the Emperor Galerius in 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.
(End extract)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantinian_shift

(Extract)
In 313 the Edict of Milan legitimized Christianity alongside other religions practiced in the Roman Empire. In 325, the First Council of Nicaea signalled consolidation of Christianity under an orthodoxy endorsed by Constantine. However, despite Constantine's favoritism towards Christianity, it did not become the Empire's sole official religion until 394 under Emperor Theodosius I.

Critics of the merger of church and state point to this shift of the beginning of the era of Constantinianism when Christianity and the will of God gradually came to be identified with the will of the ruling elite. This phenomenon is known as Caesaropapism. In its extreme form, Christianity became little more than a religious justification for the exercise of power and a tool in the expansion and maintenance of empire.
(End extract)

Please bear in mind that there is no physical example that Edict of Milan actually exists. Everything currently being quoted concerning it finds an original reference from only one written, translated, source.
http://gbgm-umc.org/umw/bible/milan.stm

(Extract)
From Lactantius, De Mort. Pers., ch. 48. opera, ed. 0. F. Fritzsche, II, p 288 sq. (Bibl Patr. Ecc. Lat. XI).

Translated in University of Pennsylvania. Dept. of History: Translations and Reprints from the Original Sources of European history, (Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania Press [1897?-1907?]), Vol 4:, 1, pp. 28-30. This text is in the public domain.
(End extract)

http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committe...on/Relch_3.htm

(Extract)
3.30 Lactantius, an African Christian apologist in about 300 AD, expanded on Tertullian's statement in response to the Emperor Diocletian's persecution of the Christians towards the end of his reign. He argued that religion was not something that could be imposed, that persecution was a violation of human and divine law and that it was a contradiction to do evil in the name of religion.26
it is only in religion that liberty has chosen to dwell. For nothing is so much a matter of free will as religion, and no one can be required to worship what he does not will to worship. He can perhaps pretend but he cannot will.27

3.31 The Emperor Constantine passed the Edict of Milan in 313 AD which contained references to religious toleration. This policy was partially revoked in a later edict of 324 AD. The Edict of Milan was a proclamation by which Christianity was given legal status, equal to paganism if not a little superior to it. Persecution in any form from 313 AD was supposed to stop.
we have given to those Christians free and unrestricted opportunity of religious worship. When you see that this has been granted to them by us, your Worship will know that we have also conceded to other religions the right of open and free observance of their worship for the sake of the peace of our times, that each one may have the free opportunity to worship as he pleases; this regulation is made that we may not seem to detract from any dignity or any religion.28
(End extract)

Thus, it would seem that in referencing the Edict of Milan as an original source document rests entirely on the writings of one African Christian apologist. Why do you suppose that would be the case when such an important an Edict was issued, and about which so much is currently being tauted about it, from certain quarters, as the origins of Church-State separation...as well as religious liberty? Unfortunately for those alive today, the supernatural believers of the past initiated very successful, and often brutal, censorship pogroms for very vested interest reasons.

I have not researched the accuracy of the following, but felt it could be a useful starting point...should anyone be interested in further research.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08736a.htm