right like mandated church attendance wasn't designed to make the proles morally better it was designed to smoke out hidden catholics and persecute them (since attending an anglican mass was a mortal sin for 17th century catholics, they couldn't attend church)
Also other unapproved Christian sects, which were big thing at the time (hence Massachusetts, for example).
i actually don't know the answer to this one way or another, did puritans and other protestant dissenters consider it sinful to attend anglican service the same way catholics did?
as someone with mostly irish heritage ive fallen into the trap before of interpreting modern english history as being *exclusively* about oppressing catholics when it's only about that most of the time
It's not my heritage at all and I only vaguely remember some things I've read, but certainly there were nonconformist Christians who refused to attend a recognized church and were therefore fined money they couldn't really afford.
Yes, though most of the premature Dissenters are post-Elizabeth anyway. Elizabethan Dissent (not Presbyterian) was mostly still internal Anglican. And it varied by degree and sect, but once the can of “I interpret it my way” was open, theology went Wild Wild West REALLY fast.
Quakers did
Quakerism did not exist till well after the Elizabethan era
mtsw just referred to 17th century, which Quakerism formed in the middle of
you're both right. OP was specifically talking elizabethan era (pre quakers) but i expanded the conversation to the 17th century as a whole (def includes quakers)
It ALSO made property forfeitable, nullified marriages, delegitimized children, made inheritance impossible, caused whippings & branding, & deprived children & widows access to the only social services that existed (the parish). AKA why my Quaker many greats-grandmother immigrated _alone_ to Philly.