Few will recall the test acts imposed in England, and it would seem irrelevant to most reasonable folk. However, the process by which the English achieved freedom and the peculiar benefits this provided were carried throughout the world, especially within the English speaking world.
The subtle and covert method of undermining true freedom now comes at the hands of employers and their code of conducts. It also has infiltrated educational establishments and public institutions by handing power to commissioners or organisational heads to issue “codes,” which when issued supersede the acts that enabled them when the code contradicts the legislation. (see New Zealand Privacy Act 1993 section 53). This progressiveness is in fact rather regressive, and is taking us back to circa 1500 AD in terms of freedoms not only to those who are religious, but to all citizens.
In 1572 approximately seventy thousand Huguenots were slaughtered in France. These folk did not adhere to the scriptural interpretation of the French Catholic Church. This event lead to one of the key foundations of religious freedom in England, the freedom to interpret scripture without interference from the state, and this was established in English Law in 1559, and Scotland in 1592. Under the provisions of this law the church could not encourage treason, and the state could not interfere in the church or how it interpreted scripture.
Prior to this William Tyndale, who was burned at the stake for translating the Bible into English, and John Wickliffe advanced the idea that all men should be free to read their Bible. This was made legal by a royal decree in 1537. This decree made it not only legal to read from the English Bible but also to do so in public. This was then reaffirmed by another royal decree in 1547.
In 1689 the Toleration Act allowed non-conformists to worship, but the Conventicle Act forbade non-Anglicans from meeting together in groups of more than 5. However, this did established the right to freedom of worship. (which is quite different to Freedom of Religion)
Additionally this act provided the freedom to change ones religion, faith and/or beliefs.
In 1812 the “Five Mile Act” was repealed. This act prohibited non-conformists to preach within five miles of a town which had a sitting MP. In doing so the right to preach and try to convince others of the truth of your beliefs was established.
The Conventicle Act was repealed in 1812. This allowed freedom to build places of worship including churches, synagogues, mosques etc. Non-conformists now have full freedom of worship, wherever they decided to meet, and how ever many of them there were.
Finally, over subsequent changes from 1719 to 1888, various test acts were repealed. Test acts required people to publicly affirm particular beliefs to be able to serve as a school teacher (1719), army officer (1778), lawyer (1791), mayor (1828), student at Oxford or Cambridge universities (1854,1856), or hold an academic post at these universities (1871). The repeal of the Oaths act in 1888 saw the establishment of full freedom of religion allowing atheists to become MPs.
From these victories we have achieved full freedom of speech for all. This includes:
- Freedom of speech – the freedom to criticise other people’s ideas and beliefs.
- Freedom of the press – the freedom to publish any critical comments providing they are not libellous.
- Academic freedom – the freedom for anyone of appropriate ability to study at university regardless of their beliefs and the freedom to engage in academic criticism of any ideology or belief system.
The speed at which these freedoms are being eroded is truly disturbing. More disturbing is the removal of the media’s perspective on these issues. Obviously there are a number of “codes” in play behind the scenes, and scant backbone left in the fourth estate’s offices.
If any idea is prohibited from discussion and debate, we become poorer for it. Those who promulgate this nonsense will reap the rewards of their own folly in due time, they have achieved their own freedom because of these events. But for now…
They came for a rugby player – I was not a rugby player so I did not object
They came for a netball player – I was not a netball player so I did not object
They came for the infirm – I was not infirm of mind or body so I did not object
They came for the poor – I was not poor so I did not object
They came for the rich – I was not rich so I did not object
They came for the religious – I was not religious so I did not object
They came for the free thinkers – I am not a free thinker, it’s not allowed
They came for me - that must be ok, they said so, there is no one left to object anyway
credit: we thank the Barnabas Fund and http://ourreligiousfreedom.org/
