Roger Williams and The Wall of Separation
In the seventeenth century, across Europe as well as in the European colonies, civil authorities (the state) strongly believed that to uphold public order, all citizens should share the same faith. Therefore, they believed it was their duty to curtail dissident religious views, and even persecute dissenters. A few Christian radicals, in contrast, argued that civil authorities had no right to govern individual conscience, as belief was a decision that belonged to personal conscience. Furthermore, if the church engaged with civil affairs, it became corrupt itself. One of those making this argument was an English minister in New England (the British colony in North America), Roger Williams. He argued that there should be a ‘wall of separation’ between the church and the state. He explained his view using a parable referring to the Garden of Eden, when a hedge or wall separated paradise from the wilderness of the world. For Williams, the wall needed to protect religious people from political interference with their beliefs. Therefore, he opposed any form of religious establishment where the civil authorities support one church and exclude all others. Williams was convinced that that would be detrimental to true Christianity. He believed that civil authorities should focus exclusively on organising society. They could only intervene in religious matters if and insofar they threatened civil order. But even then, he favoured utmost restraint. All these principles are expressed in the Charter of Rhode Island, of which Williams was the main source of inspiration.
A century and a half later, the American president Thomas Jefferson used the same metaphor of a ‘wall of separation’ in a letter. It is unclear if Jefferson knew the parable of Williams, but the similarity is striking. Today, the metaphor of a wall of separation is often used to argue that the civil authorities should be ‘neutral’ or secular – for example, that people in civil service would not wear religious symbols or marks. That is not what Williams meant, though.
Further information about Roger Williams can be found at On Site, In Time.
For more information on this and other peace treaties, see
Title
Roger Williams and The Wall of Separation
content
In the seventeenth century, across Europe as well as in the European colonies, civil authorities (the state) strongly believed that to uphold public order, all citizens should share the same faith. Therefore, they believed it was their duty to curtail dissident religious views, and even persecute dissenters. A few Christian radicals, in contrast, argued that civil authorities had no right to govern individual conscience, as belief was a decision that belonged to personal conscience. Furthermore, if the church engaged with civil affairs, it became corrupt itself. One of those making this argument was an English minister in New England (the British colony in North America), Roger Williams. He argued that there should be a ‘wall of separation’ between the church and the state. He explained his view using a parable referring to the Garden of Eden, when a hedge or wall separated paradise from the wilderness of the world. For Williams, the wall needed to protect religious people from political interference with their beliefs. Therefore, he opposed any form of religious establishment where the civil authorities support one church and exclude all others. Williams was convinced that that would be detrimental to true Christianity. He believed that civil authorities should focus exclusively on organising society. They could only intervene in religious matters if and insofar they threatened civil order. But even then, he favoured utmost restraint. All these principles are expressed in the Charter of Rhode Island, of which Williams was the main source of inspiration.
A century and a half later, the American president Thomas Jefferson used the same metaphor of a ‘wall of separation’ in a letter. It is unclear if Jefferson knew the parable of Williams, but the similarity is striking. Today, the metaphor of a wall of separation is often used to argue that the civil authorities should be ‘neutral’ or secular – for example, that people in civil service would not wear religious symbols or marks. That is not what Williams meant, though.
A century and a half later, the American president Thomas Jefferson used the same metaphor of a ‘wall of separation’ in a letter. It is unclear if Jefferson knew the parable of Williams, but the similarity is striking. Today, the metaphor of a wall of separation is often used to argue that the civil authorities should be ‘neutral’ or secular – for example, that people in civil service would not wear religious symbols or marks. That is not what Williams meant, though.
Context
In the 1620s, a strict group of Protestants called the Puritans settled in northeastern Massachusetts. They intended to live by a strict interpretation of Christianity and did not accept dissent. Rhode Island, on the other hand, was founded by Roger Williams, who was also a devout Christian but had some exceptionally radical ideas. Inspired by him, Rhode Island granted religious freedom to all (see clipping Rhode Island and Roger Williams). During the Massachusetts persecution, Quakers were allowed to live and practice their faith freely in neighbouring Rhode Island. Although Rhode Island's founder, Roger Williams, found their behaviour and disrespect extremely irritating and distasteful, he valued freedom of religion and speech more. Quakers later developed a more open and tolerant attitude towards people of other faiths and creeds. Under the leadership of Quaker William Penn, another open and tolerant colony was founded - Pennsylvania.
Questions
Do you think that the state should interfere with religion? Do you know of examples where the state does interfere? Or other examples where state and religion are somehow mingled? Do you think that is a good idea or not?
Spatial Coverage
USA
Rhode Island
map
41.823611 / -71.422222
Subject
Is Referenced By
Source
Roger Williams, The Bloudy Tenent of Persecution, for Cause of Conscience, Discussed [in a Conference between Truth and Peace]: and Mr. Cotton’s letter examined and answered, ed. Edward Bean Underhill, London, Hanserd Knollys Society, 1848 [reprint, orig. 1644], p. 435.
Audience
No
Creator
Patrick Pasture
Contributor
Christophe Schellekens