John Henry Newman was a severe critic of latitudinarianism, but perhaps not a fair one. He left out of his description the emphasis on ethics and behaviour, as opposed to doctrine and dogma. It would be fairer to say, I think, that the Latitudinarian view was that every man's view of revealed religion is acceptable if it leads him to act in accordance with the generally understood and accepted standards of Christian (and Jewish) morality.

That viewpoint has been the more or less consensus attitude towards religion in the US, paraphrased as "religion is a good thing and everyone should have one." In a society with many sects, the belief that everyone should be allowed to get to heaven in his own way as long as he behaves properly is the best guarantor of civil peace; even the best meant and most charitable advice that someone is mistaken in his faith is not likely to be accepted in the spirit in which it was offered.