Roger Williams and the Separation of Church and State
Thursday October 9, 2008
Roger Williams was banished from the Massachusetts Bay Colony on October 9, 1635. He had pushed forward his views of the need for freedom of religion and the separation of church and state. He was supposed to go back to England but instead fled to what is now Rhode Island. He lived amongst the Narragansett Indians and then founded Providence. This was the first colony to offer all its citizens freedom of worship and was founded upon the idea of separation of church and state.
Comments
“The separation of church and state” is an expression taken from a U.S. Supreme Court ruling from the 20th Century. It is not found in the U.S. Constitution. It is based on a misinterpretation of the Constitutional stipulation that the U.S. Government shall not establish a church. Unless he was a “time-traveler”; what relevance does Roger Williams have to this issue?
Well, Steve. It seems there was at that time a heavy influence of religion on the government back in Europe where Roger was from. Since he was also a member of a religious movement not approved by the powers that be back home, it seems he wanted to make sure that no one had to suffer such indignities as he had seem in the ‘Old World’ in the so-called ‘New World.’ Do you follow this line of thought so far?
If so then I would guess the rest follows. Although the situation has deteriorated greatly since then, we can still look back at Roger as having had a great idea at least. Hope this helps.
I always thought that Baptists traced their roots in the “New World” to Roger Williams? Certainly Baptists do not believe in “separation of church and state”, and neither did the Founding Fathers; they believed in no government established religion, which is exactly what you are saying in your rebuttal to Steve, Dr A. Roger Williams, as many in leadership in the New World (including leaders of the Mass colony by the time of the Revolutionary War), were fearful of a state religion, such as the Church of England, being established here, but they NEVER believed religion should be banished from the public square, nor denied its voice in the direction of the USA.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free excercise thereof…” “Officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall be required as a qualification to an Office…” That “separation of church and state” is not in the Constitution is often used ironically to indicate theocracy is legal. “Religion” and “no religious test” is more inclusive than “separation of church and state”. It would perhaps help the understanding of those who so often indicate there is no separation to actually read the Constitution and pay less attention to secondary sources designed to ignore the Constitution. Reading Williams, Jefferson, Madison might also be more definitive than accepting the possibly self serving declarations of many current Baptist “leaders” who are very opposite of Roger Williams.
The most influential of the founders were products of the Enlightment and its opposition to theocracy and sensible opposition based on historical knowledge of theocratic evils.
We should be active in making sure politicians seeking office abide by Constitutional prohibition of using government to promote religion; we should demand they abide by the oath to oppose theocracy. Perhaps education is the only solution to keep voters from supporting those who appeal to theocratic ignorance and keep so many from being bushwhacked and manipulated?
Best answer yet: The Separation of Church and State by David Barton at http://www.wallbuilders.com
I’m a student writing a paper on church-state relations and I came across James Madison’s “Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments.” In this document, Madison challenges attempts to teach religious classes in Virginia. He also calls for the free exercise of religion in the colony. Madison was influenced heavily by the Enlightenment but also studied theology at Princeton. As a young man, Madison was outraged that Baptists preachers were being jailed in Culpepper, VA. He writes to a friend describing religious persecution as a “diabolical, hell-conceived principle.” As the writer of the Constitution, this can give us some insight into what Madison intended by the wording of the First Amendment. The disestablishment clause does imply a separation of church and state, but the free exercise clause protects citizens’ rights to believe freely. I should also mention that found most of these arguements in a book written by J. Brent Walker, the head of the Baptist Joint Committee, so I’d say it’s safe to assume many Baptists leaders are still committed to Roger William’s belief in separation.
Steve, you’re full of it.
If Separation of Church and State was supposedly created from a 20th Century Supreme Court ruling, how do you explain the presence of a “wall of separation between church and state” in a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1801? How do you explain James Madison arguing that the First Amendment should read: “Congress should not establish a religion and enforce the legal observation of it by law”? How do you explain George Mason arguing that “no particular religious sect or society ought to be favored or established by Law, in Preference to others”? Clearly, separation existed long before the 20th Century.
Not in the Constitution? The phrase ’separation of Church and State’ may not literally appear in the Constitution, but the meaning is evident through what does appear in the First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law RESPECTING AN ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION”.
You’re not arguing against what separation is about but what you think separation of church and state is about. Unfortunately, history and facts don’t support your position.
Charles D said:
“Certainly Baptists do not believe in “separation of church and state”, and neither did the Founding Fathers; they believed in no government established religion”
Separation of Church and State is all about protecting religious freedom by not establishing religion! Are we talking about the same concept here?
I believe from what I have read, Williams wanted the churches in America to be separation from the church in England (which at that time was both church & state) and from Wikipedia… with his foresight of religious tolerance Williams’ settlement was based on a principle of equality. It was provided that “such others as the major part of us shall admit into the same fellowship of vote with us” from time to time should become members of their commonwealth. Obedience to the majority was promised by all, but “only in civil things.” In 1640, another agreement was signed by thirty-nine freemen, expressing their determination “still to hold forth liberty of conscience.” Thus a government unique in its day was created—a government expressly providing for religious liberty and a separation between civil and ecclesiastical authority (church and state)