Yes, and what they said was absolutely true and factual. Just because the bill did later on pass does not detract from the very real pervasive dynamic of religious intolerance in the early colonies, as well as the continued legacy of religious intolerance that still exists today in America. Absolutely everything I've said is factually correct. The larger context matters more than any one small bit of information that doesn't align with the pervasive dynamic.

Then I quoted this to you from The Smithsonian?

"From the earliest arrival of Europeans on America’s shores, religion has often been a cudgel, used to discriminate, suppress and even kill the foreign, the “heretic” and the “unbeliever”—including the “heathen” natives already here. Moreover, while it is true that the vast majority of early-generation Americans were Christian, the pitched battles between various Protestant sects and, more explosively, between Protestants and Catholics, present an unavoidable contradiction to the widely held notion that America is a “Christian nation.”

The much-ballyhooed arrival of the Pilgrims and Puritans in New England in the early 1600s was indeed a response to persecution that these religious dissenters had experienced in England. But the Puritan fathers of the Massachusetts Bay Colony did not countenance tolerance of opposing religious views. Their “city upon a hill” was a theocracy that brooked no dissent, religious or political.

In newly independent America, there was a crazy quilt of state laws regarding religion. In Massachusetts, only Christians were allowed to hold public office, and Catholics were allowed to do so only after renouncing papal authority. In 1777, New York State’s constitution banned Catholics from public office (and would do so until 1806). In Maryland, Catholics had full civil rights, but Jews did not. Delaware required an oath affirming belief in the Trinity. Several states, including Massachusetts and South Carolina, had official, state-supported churches."

You stubbornly refuse to see the larger context when doing so proves you wrong. It's a somewhat childish tactic and why I won't be discussing anything substantive with you in the future.