# Talk:Maryland Toleration Act

Whatever has been put for the long s prints as a question mark. Should one just put a regular "s" instead?

 
Why is this here?  shouldn't there be context somewhere? JHK

I think the context is supposed to be that this Act only tolerated Christian churches, and made it illegal and punishable by death not to worship Jesus. I added something about that in the article.
The founder of Maryland was Catholic and used Maryland as a haven for Catholics who were experiencing persecution in England. To keep Maryland safe for the Catholic Church the Toleration Act was written. Establishing, in a sense, a state religion. 
-CP

This is like saying that the Declaration of Independence was meaningless because there was still slavery. It was an extremely important document even though much improvement was needed in the Colonies and early United States in order to fully realize its ideas. To dismiss it's importance is to reject any progress unless absolute perfection is instantly realized.2602:306:BDA0:97A0:466D:57FF:FE90:AC45 (talk) 06:25, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Shouldn't this article have inline citations, instead of notes and a bibliography?Mario777Zelda (talk) 01:30, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Maryland Toleration Act/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Hello. I will review this article. --Edge3 (talk) 18:49, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

"It was later revoked by William Claiborne in 1654, a Virginian who had been appointed as a commissioner by Oliver Cromwell and was a staunch advocate for the Anglican Church, was reinstated in 1658 following the restoration of rule by the colonial proprietors, and was repealed permanently in 1692 following the Glorious Revolution." - Might be too complex and disrupts the simpler flow of the rest of the article. Try splitting this up into two or more sentences.
"Whatever Calvert's intentions may have been, the charter that gave him control of the colony had been granted by an Anglican king, the document itself seems to have assumed that the Church of England would be the official church in the colony, and Catholics were quickly outnumbered by an influx of Anglican settlers." - Ditto.--Edge3 (talk) 18:52, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
"While the significance of the Toleration Act should not be overstated..." - Tone is unencyclopedic. --Edge3 (talk) 19:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
The last entry in the References section needs Underwood's name on it. --Edge3 (talk) 21:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks very much for the thorough review. I've made improvements to the article based on each of your suggestions. Geraldk (talk) 01:36, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
The article looks great! I just finished checking most of your sources, and I see no problems at all. I shall now pass the nomination. Here are some suggestions for improvement:

Provide the full text of the Act. Wikisource might be a good place.
Use the detailed info in your book sources to make the coverage more thorough.
Keep up the good work!--Edge3 (talk) 04:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Someone played a prank here. Look at the names for the two founding noblemen in 1634 near the beginning of the article. Please fix it if you know the true names to use.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johndrawls (talk • contribs) 23:04, 25 March 2010 (UTC) 

Shouldn't "Maryland Catholics overthrew Calvert's rule" be "Maryland Protestants overthrew Calvert's rule"? Calvert was Catholic.  The Toleration Act would have been rescinded by Protestants not Catholics.  Please correct or explain.
"Following the Glorious Revolution of 1688 in England, when the Catholic King James II of England was deposed and the Protestant William III ascended the throne, a rebellion of Maryland Catholics overthrew Calvert's rule. They quickly rescinded the Toleration Act, and it would never be reinstated. In fact, the colony established the Church of England as its official church in 1702 and explicitly barred Catholics from voting in 1718.[7] The Calvert family regained control over the colony in 1715, but only after Benedict Calvert converted to Protestantism. His political control remained tenuous enough that he did not risk an attempt to reinstate protections for Catholics.[14] It took until the era of the American Revolution for religious tolerance or freedom to again become the practice in Maryland.[7]"  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.240.27.4 (talk) 16:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC) 

I see the claim in the opening of the article but are there any supporting references? Is this a controversial opinion or is it now widely accepted? If so then great, but please also provide the citation in the article (or here if you don't know how to add it, and someone else will). 2602:306:BDA0:97A0:466D:57FF:FE90:AC45 (talk) 06:30, 22 February 2014 (UTC).

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Maryland Toleration Act/CommentsTalk:Maryland Toleration Act/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
Last edited at 16:28, 4 May 2008 (UTC).
Substituted at 23:23, 29 April 2016 (UTC)