I listened twice to this broadcast, and still found myself very confused by the second conversation -- I'm going to have to do some homework. I think the thing I found most confusing was the section about how (if I understood it correctly) the established churches in New England were in favor of the concept of the separation of church and state because it offered them some grounds for persecuting Catholics.
This is so far from what that idea means to me that I couldn't follow that section of the conversation very well. Hamburger explained that (I think) the established churches interpreted the separation of church and state in such a way that it allowed them to prevent agents of Rome, as they appeared to envision Catholics, from gaining a place in the public sphere. What actual legislation or court rulings did they hope to use to justify preventing individuals who happened to be Catholic from teaching in public schools?
The interpretation of the evangelicals at Princeton seems more familiar to me -- they were in favor of the separation of church and state because it would allow them, as a minority religion, more freedom. But why would the same thinking not apply to Catholics?
Perhaps a lot of useful definitions and examples were edited out, and I might find them in the unedited conversation. Could that be true? Because nobody ever said exactly what they meant by the separation of the church and state, or what legislation they wanted to see, and maybe it meant different things to the various groups and individuals discussed.
Still scratching my head,Debby
More information about text formats