guinness74's review against another edition
4.0
I've always been intrigued by Roger Williams and his steadfastness regarding the separation of church and state and his founding of Rhode Island. I don't really know why...but his character has always been interesting to me. Anyway, this book is an outstanding look at how Rhode Island, and particularly Roger Williams, withstood the trials and scourges of other colonies, Native American influence, and English intrigues and violence to become the first truly civil society in the world; a model for government that eliminates religion from its sphere of judgment. Unfortunately, the book spends the first 1/4 talking about English parliamentary history and Sir Edward Coke, who, while having a significant influence on Roger Williams, doesn't really figure into the story of his creation of Rhode Island and civil secular government. So, it loses a star. Regardless, if you're at all interested in Puritan settlement, separation of church and state (decades before Jefferson wrote to Danbury), and civil society, then this book is for you.
knarr's review against another edition
4.0
Learned a lot. This book spends a good portion of its first third in England, with a grounding in common law and early 17th century English politics (and theology). This is a good thing, because what played out in the United Colonies, and in Rhode Island later is understood entirely in the context of the legal and religious precedent. Once the activity switches to North America, things move more deliberately, and Barry does a good job of incorporating the indigenous culture and community into our understanding of what happened in the Massachusetts Bay, Plymouth and Providence.
Barry places Williams in the historical perspective of a leader and thinker whose influence grew up from his faith but that, later, spilled over into civil society. He points out that (mostly), we assume that Church and State should be separated such that religion will not unduly influence the practice of good government. However, he makes the case that while Williams championed the same separation it was for a very different reason. As a man of faith, Williams believed that anything human is by nature profane - because man is born into sin. So, his affairs of state must be unclean and therefore, it is religion that needs protection from government - not the other way around.
A detailed, methodical but informative treatment. Living in Rhode Island (about half a mile from the place where Williams made his home in the 1630s), this book brought to life the early colonial history of the state, and illuminated its impact on the later United States. Worthwhile.
Barry places Williams in the historical perspective of a leader and thinker whose influence grew up from his faith but that, later, spilled over into civil society. He points out that (mostly), we assume that Church and State should be separated such that religion will not unduly influence the practice of good government. However, he makes the case that while Williams championed the same separation it was for a very different reason. As a man of faith, Williams believed that anything human is by nature profane - because man is born into sin. So, his affairs of state must be unclean and therefore, it is religion that needs protection from government - not the other way around.
A detailed, methodical but informative treatment. Living in Rhode Island (about half a mile from the place where Williams made his home in the 1630s), this book brought to life the early colonial history of the state, and illuminated its impact on the later United States. Worthwhile.
jlbrown23's review against another edition
5.0
Roger Williams is my new hero. I knew almost nothing about him before reading this book(left Mass. over religious differences with Puritans & founded Rhode Island). Now I know that he is the one who founded MY America.
Williams believed it was possible to be a devout Christian, yet still tolerate and respect the beliefs of others. The Puritans on the other hand had a long list of beliefs, and if you didn't agree 100%, you would wind up banished or dead. NO religious tolerance at all(thus "Pure-itans").
Sound familiar? The author's central premise is that this conflict continues to this day. There is a part of this country that thinks if you don't have a narrow set of thoughts and beliefs, you are not a "real American". There is another part that is deeply committed to their own beliefs(whatever they may be), but are happy to let others follow their own path as long as they are paying their bills and not hurting anyone.
For those like me on "Team Live and Let Live", Williams is essentially our founding father. He risked much taking that stand, and the books goes through the tribulations and formative moments that molded his beliefs. His defining moment was when (for daring to disagree with some of their beliefs) his fellow Christians drove him out of his home in to the wilderness in the middle of the New England winter. This meant almost certain death. Yet the "heathen" Indians decided to take him in and shelter him until the weather broke. This was in part due to the friendship and respect Williams had with the Indians before this incident (due to him being open and inquisitive instead of close minded and dogmatic).
Another interesting premise is William's main basis for disagreement with the Puritans - that combining religion and government would corrupt RELIGION. We tend to think of this the other way around, but I think that Williams' view is more correct and profound. His premise is that God's kingdom was perfect and pure, but that Man's kingdom was flawed and corrupt. Attempting to combine them profaned religion and allowed human corruption to contaminate it.
When you are looking for who to be thankful to for our freedom of worship in this country - look AWAY from the dogmatic Pilgrims, and towards Roger Williams. And read his story to learn what to me might be the most important part of our history I never heard about in school.
Williams believed it was possible to be a devout Christian, yet still tolerate and respect the beliefs of others. The Puritans on the other hand had a long list of beliefs, and if you didn't agree 100%, you would wind up banished or dead. NO religious tolerance at all(thus "Pure-itans").
Sound familiar? The author's central premise is that this conflict continues to this day. There is a part of this country that thinks if you don't have a narrow set of thoughts and beliefs, you are not a "real American". There is another part that is deeply committed to their own beliefs(whatever they may be), but are happy to let others follow their own path as long as they are paying their bills and not hurting anyone.
For those like me on "Team Live and Let Live", Williams is essentially our founding father. He risked much taking that stand, and the books goes through the tribulations and formative moments that molded his beliefs. His defining moment was when (for daring to disagree with some of their beliefs) his fellow Christians drove him out of his home in to the wilderness in the middle of the New England winter. This meant almost certain death. Yet the "heathen" Indians decided to take him in and shelter him until the weather broke. This was in part due to the friendship and respect Williams had with the Indians before this incident (due to him being open and inquisitive instead of close minded and dogmatic).
Another interesting premise is William's main basis for disagreement with the Puritans - that combining religion and government would corrupt RELIGION. We tend to think of this the other way around, but I think that Williams' view is more correct and profound. His premise is that God's kingdom was perfect and pure, but that Man's kingdom was flawed and corrupt. Attempting to combine them profaned religion and allowed human corruption to contaminate it.
When you are looking for who to be thankful to for our freedom of worship in this country - look AWAY from the dogmatic Pilgrims, and towards Roger Williams. And read his story to learn what to me might be the most important part of our history I never heard about in school.
thorkell's review against another edition
5.0
A friend of mine suggested this book to me, telling me it was on his top 10 list. The title did not interest me but I knew I could trust him so I bought it. Now I would like to recommend this amazing book to others. If you want to understand where the idea of freedom of speech and the separation of state and church came from then this is where you should begin.
What struck me was how relevant this book is to our times. It's almost like we keep making the same mistakes, never learning from our past experiences and dangers. The book also shows how dangerous it can get when religion and politics is not separated. A lot of what was happening back then is not only happening today in the Islamic world, but also in some form in the western world.
So do your self a favor and get yourself a copy of this wonderful book.
What struck me was how relevant this book is to our times. It's almost like we keep making the same mistakes, never learning from our past experiences and dangers. The book also shows how dangerous it can get when religion and politics is not separated. A lot of what was happening back then is not only happening today in the Islamic world, but also in some form in the western world.
So do your self a favor and get yourself a copy of this wonderful book.
emiged's review against another edition
4.0
You know those moments when you realize that the "history" you've believed in not only isn't the whole story, but perhaps is even completely wrong? Yeah. So, you know how the Puritans risked everything to sail across the ocean and colonize America because they believed in freedom of religion? Actually, they left England because the king and those who led the Church of England demanded complete conformity under pain of torture, dismemberment, and death, and they couldn't, in good conscience, conform. However, the Puritans didn't believe in religious liberty; they just wanted the ability to create a community where they could compel everyone to believe and worship the way they (the Puritans) were sure was ordained by God. "Liberty, in the view of [Massachusetts Governor John] Winthrop and his fellow magistrates, in the view of Massachusetts clergy, and in the view of most Massachusetts freemen, was the liberty to live a life which the magistrates defined as good and godly. And it was the responsibility of government to see to it that a godly life was lived." And they were almost as brutal enforcing conformity as those they had left behind in England. And they burned books! Ugh!!
Honestly, after reading this, I cannot fathom why Roger Williams isn't enshrined right next to Jefferson, Adams, and Franklin as one of those Founding Fathers absolutely instrumental to both the individual liberties we enjoy today as well as to the separation between church and state. Roger Williams declared that the state had "no authority to inject itself in any way into an individual's relationship with God" and should be limited to enforcing laws which govern human relationships - an absolutely radical position at the time. The Providence compact, the ruling civil document for the initial settlement of what later became Rhode Island, "did not refer to God in any way," unlike every other founding document up to that point. Williams was "a devout Puritan renowned for his piety" who frequently mentioned God in his writings, but felt strongly that the state should be completely separate from religion to allow for freedom of conscience.
Williams felt it a "monstrous partiality" to maintain a "conviction of one's own correctness and of others' errors" that "presumed that 'so many thousands in the Nations of the World all the world over' who disagreed were, simply and entirely, wrong." He pointed out by "refus[ing] to consider the possibility, any possibility, that it might be he who was wrong," this view essentially "reject[ed] 'all the consciences in the world' but one's own" while ignoring the imprudence of placing power in the hands of the state - to the point of executing those with whom you disagreed - on the rightness of matters of conscience. After all, in a few short years, England itself had gone from Catholic to Protestant to Catholic and back to Protestant again, with thousands of lives lost in the religious conflict.
Williams supported Native American ownership of land and went beyond the lip-service of others that the Indians were also children of God, to recognizing their rights to claim the land they occupied and used, learning their language, and negotiating peace with local tribes as equals. He went so far as to pointedly write "warning the 'proud English' that Indians were 'by birth as Good,' and that the English might well find 'Heaven open to Indians wild, but shut to thee.'"
His writings were instrumental in changing the tide of public opinion back in England and securing the permanent charter that allowed the experiment of civil, non-religious government to continue in Rhode Island. He insisted that the right to rule derived from the people, not a divine endowment, direct from God, which was again absolutely radical for the time.
In the afterword, Mr. Barry highlights how many of the same debates, trying to find the proper balance between individual rights and federal powers, are continuing today. Willams's views, so extreme in the 1600s, are fundamental to our nation today. Fascinating perspective on the birth of basic American beliefs.
For more book reviews, come visit my blog, Build Enough Bookshelves.
Honestly, after reading this, I cannot fathom why Roger Williams isn't enshrined right next to Jefferson, Adams, and Franklin as one of those Founding Fathers absolutely instrumental to both the individual liberties we enjoy today as well as to the separation between church and state. Roger Williams declared that the state had "no authority to inject itself in any way into an individual's relationship with God" and should be limited to enforcing laws which govern human relationships - an absolutely radical position at the time. The Providence compact, the ruling civil document for the initial settlement of what later became Rhode Island, "did not refer to God in any way," unlike every other founding document up to that point. Williams was "a devout Puritan renowned for his piety" who frequently mentioned God in his writings, but felt strongly that the state should be completely separate from religion to allow for freedom of conscience.
Williams felt it a "monstrous partiality" to maintain a "conviction of one's own correctness and of others' errors" that "presumed that 'so many thousands in the Nations of the World all the world over' who disagreed were, simply and entirely, wrong." He pointed out by "refus[ing] to consider the possibility, any possibility, that it might be he who was wrong," this view essentially "reject[ed] 'all the consciences in the world' but one's own" while ignoring the imprudence of placing power in the hands of the state - to the point of executing those with whom you disagreed - on the rightness of matters of conscience. After all, in a few short years, England itself had gone from Catholic to Protestant to Catholic and back to Protestant again, with thousands of lives lost in the religious conflict.
Williams supported Native American ownership of land and went beyond the lip-service of others that the Indians were also children of God, to recognizing their rights to claim the land they occupied and used, learning their language, and negotiating peace with local tribes as equals. He went so far as to pointedly write "warning the 'proud English' that Indians were 'by birth as Good,' and that the English might well find 'Heaven open to Indians wild, but shut to thee.'"
His writings were instrumental in changing the tide of public opinion back in England and securing the permanent charter that allowed the experiment of civil, non-religious government to continue in Rhode Island. He insisted that the right to rule derived from the people, not a divine endowment, direct from God, which was again absolutely radical for the time.
In the afterword, Mr. Barry highlights how many of the same debates, trying to find the proper balance between individual rights and federal powers, are continuing today. Willams's views, so extreme in the 1600s, are fundamental to our nation today. Fascinating perspective on the birth of basic American beliefs.
For more book reviews, come visit my blog, Build Enough Bookshelves.
carlymae's review against another edition
3.0
I started reading this as a source for a history paper. It was interesting and well written that I continued reading it even after the paper was finished. Great piece of history written in a way that holds the readers interest.
endomental's review against another edition
4.0
The book:
Once again, Barry has presented a meticulously researched and detailed account of history. I've read his book "The Great Influenza: The Story of the Deadliest Pandemic in History," and found it very interesting, but I liked this better.
Barry goes back to well before Williams became a figure in New England, to the people and forces that shaped his views and opinions. It drags a bit during this set-up, but it does help to put things in context.
He presents both sides of a man who was both loved and hated in his time, and recognizes some of the criticism and dismissal that Williams has been subject to by historians.
Sarah Vowell wrote one of my favorite books about Williams and the Puritans, "The Wordy Shipmates." If Barry is too dry, and you still want to learn about the man and his time, I'd suggest her book. Or maybe start there and move on to Barry. The two works complement each other well.
The man:
Williams led a fascinating life, emigrating with the wave of Separatists and Puritans leaving England during the reign of James I, being banished from Massachusetts for his lack of conformity, founding Providence, and ultimately, Rhode Island. His views on "soul liberty" and the separation of church and state helped form part of the national identity.
His story also explains a lot about Rhode Island. By establishing a "plantation" (colony) where anyone could worship as they chose as long as they kept the civil peace, he created a haven for the dispossessed and different. Where Massachusetts and to a less degree, Connecticut, was all about conformity, Rhode Island was all about marching to your own religious drum. 200 years before Emma Lazarus wrote her famous sonnet for the Statue of Liberty, Rhode Island was accepting the "wretched refuse" of the other colonies.
That fierce commitment to nonconformity continued on. Rhode Island became the first place in the world founded on the idea of freedom of worship and the separation of church and state. It later became the first democracy in the New World. It was the first place to legislatively abolish slavery (a law that never left the books, yet went blithely ignored for much of the 18th century). Rhode Island was the first colony to declare its independence from Britain (May 4, 1776), and the last to ratify the new Constitution - they were holding out for the promise of freedom of religion in the nascent Bill of Rights. Those aren't all of Rhode Island's quirks, but you get the idea.
When Jefferson and his contemporaries discussed the separation of church and state, and freedom of worship, they quoted Williams' writings.
Williams was instrumental in negotiations with the native populations. He learned the languages and befriended and respected them. He purchased the land that became Providence from the Narragansett, and was later proud to say it was bought with love, rather than taken in anger.
There's a lot to learn about Williams, and many ways to interpret it. He's an important, though often obscure figure in our history.
Once again, Barry has presented a meticulously researched and detailed account of history. I've read his book "The Great Influenza: The Story of the Deadliest Pandemic in History," and found it very interesting, but I liked this better.
Barry goes back to well before Williams became a figure in New England, to the people and forces that shaped his views and opinions. It drags a bit during this set-up, but it does help to put things in context.
He presents both sides of a man who was both loved and hated in his time, and recognizes some of the criticism and dismissal that Williams has been subject to by historians.
Sarah Vowell wrote one of my favorite books about Williams and the Puritans, "The Wordy Shipmates." If Barry is too dry, and you still want to learn about the man and his time, I'd suggest her book. Or maybe start there and move on to Barry. The two works complement each other well.
The man:
Williams led a fascinating life, emigrating with the wave of Separatists and Puritans leaving England during the reign of James I, being banished from Massachusetts for his lack of conformity, founding Providence, and ultimately, Rhode Island. His views on "soul liberty" and the separation of church and state helped form part of the national identity.
His story also explains a lot about Rhode Island. By establishing a "plantation" (colony) where anyone could worship as they chose as long as they kept the civil peace, he created a haven for the dispossessed and different. Where Massachusetts and to a less degree, Connecticut, was all about conformity, Rhode Island was all about marching to your own religious drum. 200 years before Emma Lazarus wrote her famous sonnet for the Statue of Liberty, Rhode Island was accepting the "wretched refuse" of the other colonies.
That fierce commitment to nonconformity continued on. Rhode Island became the first place in the world founded on the idea of freedom of worship and the separation of church and state. It later became the first democracy in the New World. It was the first place to legislatively abolish slavery (a law that never left the books, yet went blithely ignored for much of the 18th century). Rhode Island was the first colony to declare its independence from Britain (May 4, 1776), and the last to ratify the new Constitution - they were holding out for the promise of freedom of religion in the nascent Bill of Rights. Those aren't all of Rhode Island's quirks, but you get the idea.
When Jefferson and his contemporaries discussed the separation of church and state, and freedom of worship, they quoted Williams' writings.
Williams was instrumental in negotiations with the native populations. He learned the languages and befriended and respected them. He purchased the land that became Providence from the Narragansett, and was later proud to say it was bought with love, rather than taken in anger.
There's a lot to learn about Williams, and many ways to interpret it. He's an important, though often obscure figure in our history.
eroggbyrne's review
4.0
Lots and lots of hyperbole, but very interesting subject, time period, and I learned a lot that I didn't know! Definitely recommend to anyone interested in learning about the roots of governance in the US.
bil's review
4.0
This book is long and a little dense, but does such a great job of placing Roger Williams in context as a theologian, philosopher, Englishman, colonist, and leader. I also got a bit of education about the English civil war (re-education? Sorry Mr. Costello!) and Christian terrorism.
I especially enjoyed theblog pamphlet fight between Roger and John Cotton.
Anyway, really good book, lots to think about, even here in the 21st Century.
I especially enjoyed the
Anyway, really good book, lots to think about, even here in the 21st Century.
brycee8f83's review
3.0
A great depiction of the importance of the separation of church and state in the founding of America and the role of Roger Williams but very politically dense.