Amid the numerous political texts shaping the United States’ image in its early development stage, the Maryland Toleration Act is the one deserving specific attention. Being passed in 1649, it became among the first regulatory acts seriously considering the issue of religious freedoms. Although nowadays most of its provisions would seem discriminating and relatively cruel, it was a step in the right direction, the first glimpse of American liberties. The aspects covered in the Act remain relevant and manifest themselves in today’s world.
The Maryland Toleration Act was adopted during the historical period when the church’s authority was still unquestionable. That led to a significant amount of prosecutions related to faith and personal beliefs. Maryland authorities realized the critical need to stop such practices for ensuring the prosperous life of the diverse Christian settlers. Otherwise, the conflicts among them would aggravate, slowly destroying the Province from the inside and impairing its economy. The new Act provided all Christians with the long-awaited freedom of worship, making any actions against them illegal. It is also worth mentioning that the Act equally covered both Maryland citizens and those temporarily residing in it or visiting it for business or personal needs. So, the document was addressed to the general public without restricting its application to any specific group. Therefore, it became a reliable source of a new policy associated with religious issues, which later formed the foundation for the rights declared in the First Amendment.
Although the document contained some relevant provisions and was quite a progressive text for its era, my first impression while reading it was a shock. That was due to the cruel nature of the punishments stipulated in it for the behavior considered typical today. Would anyone expect to face anything stricter than public condemnation for blaspheming Jesus or the Holy Trinity? The Toleration Act provided for the death penalty for such crimes without even considering the idea that an individual is free to believe in God or not. The concept of prohibiting work on Sundays is also unthinkable for most of us. All this shows the low value of life during those times and the widespread indifference to people’s freedoms. It is appalling to realize that these concepts were regular practice just a few centuries ago.
However, thinking further about the concept of the value of life and attitude towards death, I have to admit that this issue remains a significant one. While the authorities certainly do not sentence people to death for religious offenses anymore, the United Stated remains among the few countries that are still applying capital punishment. Unfortunately, even a thorough investigation and trial procedure is not a guarantee that the right person is sentenced. History has numerous grief examples of the opposite, and the offender rehabilitation after the sentence is enforced turns into a mere formality. This emphasizes that even having achieved a lot in ensuring individual freedoms and appreciating everyone’s life, we are still on the road to making our society more humane and compassionate.
Another striking aspect of the source is its attitude towards diversity. Although the authors intended to provide people with some religious freedoms, the dominant position of the Catholic Church manifested itself. There was even no mentioning that people are entitled not to believe in God or follow predefined traditions. Other religions, including the ones that could be practiced by the local population, were explicitly outlawed. Thus, only the diversity that was considered desirable by the prevalent authority was supported, while the real variety of opinions and beliefs was severely punished.
As the Maryland Toleration Act demonstrated, diversity was the topic that did not receive proper consideration during those times, although the United States had always been a country with a mix of nations and religions. However, the question of how far we have gone forward in this regard remains open. The recent events concerning the Black community revealed numerous stories which many of us would be more prepared to see a century ago rather than nowadays. Unfair treatment by the police and local authorities, discrimination at workplaces and schools, inaccessible medical care, and similar examples show that inequality is still a concern. Moreover, the terrorist acts committed some years ago quickly led to viewing all Muslims as potential criminals and even banning entry of people from entire countries. Doesn’t it remind us of the prejudiced attitudes and religious prosecutions common for the seventeenth century? The issues of tolerance towards other nations and bearers of different beliefs stay among the important ones for modern American society.
In conclusion, I would like to emphasize the significance of the Maryland Toleration Act and the deep impression I got after reading it. As a symbolic element of its historical period, it helped me to create an image of that epoch with all its cruelty and ambiguity of the decisions being made. I could also see the first signs of hope, the commencing attempts to document principal freedoms, which would later turn into the foundations of our nation. Looking back at those times also helped me perceive the hazards and drawbacks of the current American social and political life. Therefore, the Maryland Toleration Act is a source deserving of particular consideration for understanding historical events and interpreting the latest social and political trends.