The origins of the language of the act are obscure, although there were a number of precedents including the "Act Against Swearing and Cursing" that the British Parliament passed during the reign of King James I (21 Jacobi I. c. 20), three acts passed during the reign of his son and grantor of Maryland's charter, Charles I (1 Caroli I. c. 1, c. 4, and 3 Caroli I. c. 1), which regulated behavior in the taverns and on Sunday, and the 'draconian Blasphemy Ordinance of 1648.'  The penalty for a conviction for blasphemy under the common and statute law of England had long been death. Some years later, Parliament itself would try one notorious blasphemer, James Naylor, deciding in the end not to hang him, but to brand his forehead "B" with a red hot iron and set him to ride through the streets of Bristol backwards on a donkey for the sin of claiming he was the resurrected Christ.

No one knows for certain who originally drafted An Act Concerning Religion, or the degree to which it was altered by the Maryland Legislature. There is some evidence that Father Andrew White may have been available to help Lord Baltimore compose the draft he sent in 1648, and the letter transmitting the laws passed in 1649 back to Lord Baltimore for his consideration implies that the Legislature enacted Lord Baltimore's version unaltered. Recent research suggests that the intent of the law would have been in keeping with White's efforts to reconcile the Jesuits and English Catholics with Cromwell during the final stages of the English civil war. But what is most important to remember, however, is that the law as a whole outlined a policy of punishment and fines for intolerant behavior that had no precedent elsewhere, and which sought to convince 

...whatsoever person or persons shall from henceforth upon any occasion of offence otherwise in a reproachfull manner or way declare care call or denominate any person or persons whatsoever inhabiting, residing, traficking, trading or comercing within this province or within any ports, harbours, creeks or havens to the same belonging, an Heretick, Schismatick, Idolator, Puritan, Independent Presbyterian, Antenomian, Barrowist, Roundhead, Seperatist, Popish Priest, Jesuit, Jesuited Papist, Lutheran, Calvenist, Anabaptist, Brownist or any other name or term in a reproachful manner relating to matters of Religion shall for every such offence forfeit and lose the sum of ten shillings Sterling or the value there of to be levied on the goods and chattels of every such offender and offenders

and if they could not pay, they were to be "publickly whipt and imprisoned without bail" until "he, she, or they shall satisfy the party so offended or grieved by such reproachful language, ... ." 

If only the people in and surrounding Kosovo, the people of Ireland, of India, of countless other troubled places on this earth, had the vision to adopt the best elements of such a law and had the stamina, self discipline, and drive to abide by its provisions of not criticizing others for their religious views, perhaps the unconscionable bloodshed that we read about every morning and see every evening on the news could be avoided. 

The Maryland Act Concerning Religion also attempted to separate church and state, a constitutional principle that would have to wait another 150 years before it became accepted 

As Baltimore Evening Sun editor Gerald Johnson pointed out on the 300th anniversary of the Act Concerning Religion, the version first officially recorded on April 21, 1649 concludes with the simple, but profoundly important words "The Freemen have assented."  When it was repealed in
1689 and its principles forced to lay dormant until
the American Revolution, it was an act of Parliment and the decrees of the crown that were the main culprits.  Lord Baltimore, back in England in an unsuccessful attempt to retain his political power in Maryland, even had the Act Concerning Religion printed in full as evidence of toleration in his colony.  At that point, however, neither he nor the colonists who supported him, were sufficiently strong to overcome the prevailing winds of political intolerance.  Lord Baltimore lost his political powers, and the Citizen Legislators of Maryland lost sight of a basic lesson to be learned from their struggles to date to form an independent legislature.  For democracy to be viable, vibrant, and tolerant, its representatives must be willing and able to pay persistent attention to reinforcing and reiterating basic constitutional principles that rise above the political fray. Otherwise discord, apathy and ignorance of past accomplishments intervene, and all citizens suffer. 

Today,  in addition to bringing the original recording of the Act of Toleration into your chamber, I also come bearing two gifts from your leadership to help you remember and to celebrate Maryland Day. 

The first is a printed version of a web-based document packet on the 1649 act of toleration, 

The second gift is the revision of a book I helped put together 23 years ago, a book that then and now, in its new edition, celebrates the richness and diversity of our State, a State in which I fervently hope we practice the best principles of the Act Concerning Religion.  Trusting that this second edition of the A New Guide to the Old Line State will prove both readable and informative -- an introduction to Maryland of today that will benefit visitor and resident alike and lead to a full appreciation of the state's rich history, we have dedicated this work to the late Comptroller Louis L. Goldstein. Louis visited every corner of Maryland and incorporated his unsurpassed knowledge of its past into just about every speech he gave.  He understood the blessings that come with being able to place what we see and what we no longer see into its historical context.  He understood why the enthusiasm of the early settlers proved so contagious and why they were willing, at least for a time, to put aside their religious differences to work towards common and productive goals.  He also asked all of us --