Christina McCarty March 25, 2009 Roger Williams’ Rantings
Basic Passage: “[Harry Vane] will witness the havoc wrought by an Indian war and an outspoken female heretic and, at the moment of his autumn landing, the controversy with Roger Williams.”
Correlate: In class we discussed a man by the name of Roger Williams. Arriving from England, Williams replaced the current preacher in the time period. Thinking they were being blessed, the Puritan townspeople were overjoyed. However, when Williams began expressing his disdain for the community, they discovered he was not what they perceived. Referred to as the "preacher from hell" Williams criticized everything they did. He believed they were a group of fake followers, still associating with the Anglican and Catholic churches of Europe . Writing to their still-Anglican and Catholic friends and family back home did not make them separatists in his eyes. He also believed continuing to practice sacraments similar to the Anglican or Catholic church was being "fake" as well. The ultimate form of scorn was when he refused wholeheartedly to join Boston’s congregation. Was this man absolutely crazy? Or, in some twisted way, was he right?
Truthfully, I would say he is right. The Puritans broke free from these churches to have "religious freedom". But what religion is really free from all other religions? They are all tied together in the belief that there is a power or being greater than our mortal selves and that identity is to be worshiped or adored. The Puritans wanted to break free, but, as Williams said, still associating with their former lives was not really breaking free. It seems that I am nit-picking at the Puritans' ideals. All I am merely saying is that they should not represent something they are not. These people are not broken completely from the Anglican or Catholic churches; they are merely a reformed branch off of these religions. Conducting similar ceremonies, talking to family and friends still considered of their former religion, and still expressing strict laws demanding people attend church are all ways in which they represent their former religion.
Alicia Vance Roger Williams, Sent from Heaven or Hell?
Basic Passage: “The fact that Williams, a minister, came in on the very ship that was to sail away with Boston’s minister must have seemed pretty much perfect, as if heaven’s Human Resources Departments had sent Williams their way. However, they would soon suspect that Roger Williams was the preacher from hell.” (Vowell, 99-100).
Correlation: At first the Pilgrims thought Roger Williams coming in on the Lyons ship was a part of God’s Providence. Vowell goes on to say that Williams did not think the Pilgrims had done enough for God after the harsh winter the remaining ones had survived. This probably made the Pilgrims feel very betrayed in some sense by Williams because they had lost so many people and overcome several struggles throughout the winter. Williams was very religious and the Pilgrims viewed him as a religious fanatic. They thought Williams was crazy because he did not care about anything except for his place in heaven. He turned down well-paying jobs in order to stay true to his beliefs and values. Williams also believed the Indians had the right to own the land that the Pilgrims had claimed as their own. He tried and wanted to convince the Pilgrims to respect the Indians and learn to live and trade with them. However, he was not very successful. Williams also wanted to separate the church and the state. He believed that if a person was forced to be a Christian by law, then they weren’t a real Christian. Williams strongly believed that forced Christianity violated Christian principles. This marks the first we see of the separation of church and state, which is important because it still exists today. Although some thought Williams was a religious fanatic and a preacher from hell, he did create the separation of church and state which we still use today in our country.
Basic Passage: What is patriotism? What does questioning authority mean? Is loyalty to America connected to questioning authority? “Patriotism is easy to understand in America - it means looking out for yourself by looking out for your country.” Said Calvin Coolidge.
Correlation: Loyalty to America is hard to differentiate from patriotism vs. questioning authority. Love and devotion to ones country is the definition of patriotism. Patriots can be loyal to America in a good and also a bad way. A patriot of America is often though of as a solider or someone in the military but that isn’t exactly what it covers. Patriotism can also be expresses as an ethical act towards America. Patriotism can also be expressed in the wrong way, which is extreme patriotism such as committing a crime because you think it helped the country. This happens more in other counties when people blow up their own people in suicide bombings. In their minds they are patriots of their country. My grandfather was in the military almost his whole life. He joined the marines right out of college and then he was in the CIA for years after that. He talked about being a patriot very little but when he did he was very short and sweet about it. Some of the people who are or were the best patriots don’t have to flaunt it. Questioning authority is our patriotic duty. All patriots have to question authority before they are real patriots. If they don’t question it they don’t know the real meaning. There is a connection between patriotism and questioning authority.
The United States is supposed to be a democracy, but in reality it is a plutocracy. In the early stages of the colonies the church was very influential in the government. There was not a large separation between church and state certain people attempted to change all of this. One such person was Roger Williams who was from England and had come to Boston. He felt that matters of the law should not be dealt with by the church and others soon began to see the merit of his ideas. The other members of the clergy however were not as pleased with what they considered dangerous new opinions and he was soon exiled. Eventually of course the United States did eventually adopt a much more firm stance on the separation of church and state even making provisions in the constitution outlining the acceptable actions, but they did not truly adopt a democratic point of view in exchange for their previously more theological one. The United States is not really a democracy as it claims, but a plutocracy. In present day America conflict between the upper and lower class continues. During America’s recent election, the Republican Party changed their rhetoric in an attempt to appeal to the middle and lower class. Just like with the founding fathers, this is an attempt to convince the less fortunate that the wealthy are looking out for them. It is a misconception that the revolution started with peaceful agreement between men. Because the wealthy had so much to loose and to avert potential chaos in the colonies, the common people were afforded some freedoms. The common people believed that their society was democratic, but this was not the case. The elite class was in charge, and their motivation was breaking free from England and increasing their wealth. The same idea has been alive and well in Republican controlled America. Tax breaks and incentives that increase the wealth of the upper class, while ignoring the poor, stem from the plutocratic elite’s American Revolution ideals.
Basic Passage: The issue of keeping church and state separate has been a topic of debate through out the whole time in history. This issue will continue to exist as long as politics use their religion views to make decision.
Correlate: Many wonder why church and state shouldn’t coexist. I figured the reason for this that wanted to make all their decisions fair, and not be based on how one feel just because of their religious belief. For example, one of the most common topics in present day is the discussion on abortion. Catholics believe that its wrong for women to have the right to kill their unborn child. That seems find but imagine the other citizens of the United States who feel the opposite about abortion. If a law was passed banning abortion then that would one group feeling like they are being deprived of their rights. That’s why you see such a conflict today with President Obama trying to pass the FOCA, which stands for the free of choose act. Another topic of discussion that always seem to be an issue is prayer in schools. Many Americans who goes to church often wants pray in school, but their others who don’t want pray at because they probably would feel like they might not have the same religion they believe. To somewhat settle that issue at the high school I attend we would have a moment of silence giving students the opportunity to pray the way they please. If you really look at mostly all the early history was influence by the Bible or other religious thoughts. Most of the Ten Commandments that’s in the Bible are laws in the United States that more than likely derived from the Bible. When we say the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag we also mentions God’s name in there. Church and State would never exist because we are such a diverse nation.
Title: Theocracy versus Separation of Church and State
Basic Passage: In class we discussed about how some of the extreme religious right feel that we should have a Theocracy and not separate church and state, to keep tradition and Christian values a part of America.
Correlation: We discussed in class about how William Bradford and the new Preacher, Roger Williams views on the Catholic church differed, and to a greater degree, separating religion from governing bodies. The Puritan judicial system was definitely closely tied to and much less run by religion, in that almost every law was related to Christian values. The separation of church and state was an undeniable need for our country to have survived as long as it has without civil strife or corruption to the point of persecution. This being said what the believers in theocracy along with others who support judicial bodies being tied to religion have a valid point. Considering the founders of our country were extremely devout Christians, you cannot argue God wasn’t a figure in our freedoms today. To Christians there is no higher power than the Lord meaning, that without morality through Christ the more sin will spread. As a fact of today, with the higher rates of atheists and agnostics, higher divorce rates, higher murder rates, higher teen pregnancy, and all around a much more dangerous world than merely just 100 years ago. Although these are major issues we also knew the dangers of corruption and power a church can gain, such as in England. With how closely our society is tied to Christianity considering how almost every holiday we celebrate is based on Christian beliefs its not hard to understand the strife between wanting the separation of church and state versus a theocracy. It has been a lose lose situation since the beginning of this controversy because yes our founders were fervent Christians yet they also knew the destructive power Theocracies can hold. Ultimately they chose the separate the state from the church relying on the “innate” human good that seems to be disappearing in today’s world.
Basic Passage:In class we discussed how the Puritans who broke any of the first four of the Ten Commandments were punished by the General Court.
Correlate:Roger Williams, a teacher and preacher, arrived in New England and saw that he didn’t agree with all the laws and the ways that the Puritans were doing things. Williams points out that there should be a separation of church and state. His view was that a person should choose to be a Christian. He didn’t agree with the fact of being told to be a Christian. Williams made a distinction between a sin and a crime. The Puritans had been punishing those people who broke any of the first four of the Ten Commandments. Anyone who worshiped another god, made idols, took the Lord’s name in vain, or did not keep the Sabbath holy, was punished in General Court. Williams thought that these were laws that needed to be done away with. I myself am a Christian, but I do not go to church on a regular basis. According to the Puritans I should probably be sitting in a jail right now. These types of laws would never be possible in the United States today. There are too many religions, including those that do not believe in God at all. However, now more than ever I feel that the United States needs God in it as much as possible. There are those that want God removed from everything including schools, money, and the pledge. Why not remove the teachings of evolution from our textbooks if the Creation of mankind by God can’t also be taught? Our country has slowly moved away from God and became a nation of the devil with no rules and regulations. Those that do not believe in God say that it isn’t right to have God shoved down their throats, but I say why should we as Christians have the ungodly beliefs shoved down ours?
Harrison Bullock Separation of Church & State Basic Passage: The issue of separation of Church and State has been a topic of debate for some time now. Ask yourself, are they really that separate? Correlate: Many Americans wonder why Church and State are separated in the first place. This separation has been traced all the way back to 1802 from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson. Later, court cases in the 1950s popularized this topic even more. On paper, yes, church and state are separate, but most of our law makers have a Christian or similar religious background that influences them to make moral decisions on issues such as abortion and stem cell research. FOCA has been a recent act that has upset many Christians in the United States. President Obama wants Americans to pay for others to have the right to murder unborn babies and has recently repealed some laws made by the Bush Administration on the issues of abortion and stem cell research. Another instance where church and state seem to collide is: when you go to court, you take an oath on the Bible, not the Torah or Koran. When you stand in a public school in the mornings you recite the Pledge of Allegiance, which contains the line “one nation under God”. When I was in high school, there were moments of silence for people to pray freely, if they chose to do so before meals. The last instance where the church and government meet is when you take an oath to become an officer of the United States Army the word “God” is used in this oath. If you think about it, this country was founded because of religious freedom and our forefathers put their Christian values at the top of their list. So why are Americans so sensitive to this issue of “God” now?
A. The distinction between a sin and a crime Eric Richardson
B. In class we talked about Roger Williams and his attempts at separating church and state.
C. The separation between church and state is an issue that has been around since the formation of our government. In the early ages, there wasn’t much that separated these two entities. The government at that time was more like the enforcement factor behind the church. So, the church made the laws in which they instituted from the bible and the government punished the individuals that did not follow these “holy laws”.Evidence of this can be shown in, The Wordy Shipmates, where it states that, “Keeping the Sabbath holy is Massachusetts By law and therefore punishable by the General Court.” Today there is a better distinction between the two but there is still evidence of them coexisting. The government incorporates God and the bible in many of its dealings. For example, on our own currency you can clearly read “in God we trust”. Also in many courtrooms across the united states there are sculptures and/or paintings of the ten commandments. Another example of this, is the pledge of allegiance. This motto is said by children every morning in school and says that, “we are one nation under god.” Whether you agree or disagree with the involvement of church in our government, the signs are clearly there that these two factors still coexists and that things will remain this way for a while.
Basic Passage: In class we talked about the separation of church and state and the role that it is playing in today’s society. We also talked about how it was viewed back in earlier times.
Correlation: In modern day America there is an ongoing conflict of the separation of church and state. Many people believe that God should not be involved in schools or the government of the United States. There are many different arguments, most of which have many good points. What I find very interesting is how many of the morals and guidelines to our daily lives have come from the Bible and the belief in God. Most of the early schools were built in order to teach kids how to read and write so that they could read the bible and help spread the word of God. Our government was founded by men of strong faith, who very much believed that God should play a major part in the country if it were to succeed. Today God is trying to be taken out of the school systems and government as our country becomes more of a melting pot to religions. What is interesting to me is how it seems that the Christian religion is being more focused on than other in this conflict (at least from what is seen in the media). Constantly we hear about there being a problem with some kid or teacher praying to God in school and someone making a huge deal about it. What we never seem to hear of is a kid being given a hard time from their Hindu faith, or them expressing their beliefs in Allah in school. It is my personal opinion that this country has done so well up till now because it has stayed in the general guidelines for living life in the Christian faith.
Basic Passage: Before coming president of the United States, Barack Obama promised to sign The Freedom of Choice Act. This act will compel taxpayer funding of abortions. The act will also force faith-based hospitals and healthcare facilities to perform abortions.
Correlation: In class we had a small discussion about what FOCA really means and what it stands for. FOCA are acronyms that stand for freedom of choice act. This act or law is in process to be passed and signed by president Obama. This act will cause a lot of confusion between Christians and other religious groups who don’t believe in such things as abortions. We as Americans are entitled to our own freedom of choice. No matter what happens or what law is passed no one will ever be satisfied with the outcome. Back in the early days people like the William Bradford and John Winthrop lead people to some great things and taught some to prosper. People welcomed them as leaders in there community. To make things better in our community we need to focus on who is the leader and support what is really going on. The real problem starts when everyone wants to be the leader. Sports teams have numerous of coaches but there is only one head coach who makes the final decision. Police departments have numerous of working police officers but there is only one police chief. I’m not saying that we shouldn’t be entitled to our own opinions because that is what America is about. Assistant coaches come up with ideas or plays, but they bring them to the head coach for approval. We as Americans are one big team. Let’s not just jump to conclusion and always focus on the negative and start making decisions as one to help the situation. The FOCA act should be a step we need to take in showing how free our country is to the world.
Basic Passage: “One nation under God indivisibly with liberty and justice for all.”
Correlation: In class we discussed Roger Williams and his attempt to separate church from state. Church and politics should not be related to one another. Most politics talk about religion in their speech and try to associate that with what is going on in the political world. Most people believe that church and state are separate but if you really sit down and analyze what you read and here they are combined. The Pledge of Allegiance is an example of them not being separate the sentence One nation under God indivisibly with liberty and justice for all,” combines both the church and the state. We have been taught to say it throughout our lifetimes and never realized what we were saying until now. People have been debating for years to separate church from state but it reality it will never happen. During any election time, the people who are giving their speech have some form of church and state combined together to make it sound more convincing and right. If making them separate is such a big deal, why do our currency today have the words “in God We Trust” written on it? If they really wanted it separate they would do something to change it instead of complaining about it and still letting things happen the way they do. In my opinion I think they should be separate, basically our leaders and they state are telling us what religion to believe in and if it’s not what they believe in then it’s wrong. We are so busy following others that we cannot see what is really going on and not realizing that we have been brain washed and told what to believe in and if anybody believes different then they are considered crazy or they do not belong in today’s society.
Title: Morality and Religion are NOT the same thing.
Passage: “[Roger] Williams makes a distinction between a sin and a crime” calling for the separation of church and state.
Correlation: Can a society function without religion? I keep coming back to the example of someone raised by wolves or chimps or somewhere that has no cultural influence. Except this example has to be expanded to a group of people that have no external cultural influence. Would these people find a way to live together in a peaceful functioning society? I bet so... There would have to be some fundamental rules for a society to function, with or without religion. At the top of that list, “you shall not kill... lie... cheat... steal” and so forth. These aren’t religious tenants, they are the fundamentals of a functioning society... otherwise society would collapse into chaos and anarchy; no one would trust each other or take care of each other. But if you look at how religion influences culture, there are more injustices and intolerances rooted in religion than any other reason: hence modern terrorism. Religion breeds fanatics. Ironically Williams was seen as a fanatic though it seems he felt there was a difference between honoring God verses honoring country. The consequence of dishonoring either should be differentiated. Working (or not) on the Sabbath should be between you and God, not you and the courts. Don’t get me wrong, religion can be good, just not necessary. Religious beliefs can be great moral guidelines as to how to treat others. But you don’t need a bible to understand that how you treat someone is likely how they will treat you. Amen.
Basic Passage: In class we talked about Roger Williams and his idea of separation of church and state.
Correlation: In class we mentioned a fanatic pastor that came to America was Roger Williams. Williams believed that the Puritans were coming off as fake and not as true Christians. He claimed the Puritans were fake because they would send letters to the King and his church pleading their loyalty to the church and to him but behind closed doors they would worship on their own and talk down to the King. The Pilgrims saw Williams as a fanatical preacher when he turned down an amazing job opportunity in Boston. Williams also claimed that Winthrop and his followers were believers of a Theoretical Government, where the government recognizes God as its state civil ruler. Williams believed that there should be a separation between the government and the church in political ideas and or decisions. His theory was that if someone makes you a Christian you aren’t really a Christian; you have to want to be one. Roger Williams’ ideas of Separation of Church and State still apply today in our government. The phrase Separation of Church and State has been mentioned several times in our countries history. Such as by Thomas Jefferson in 1802 as he refers to the First Amendment, it was also quoted by the United States Supreme Court in 1878 and in several other court cases since then. The concept of this idea of Separation of Church and State has spread to several other countries all over the globe. Today we face the debate of keeping the ideals of Separation of Church and State or letting it go in history. One side of the debate believes that the Constitution gives the government the power to regulate some aspects of religion and the 1st amendment bars only the establishment of a national church. The other side believes that the Constitution gives the government no power over religion and the 1st amendment should be broadly read to bar all types of interference with religion. What do you believe? What would Roger Williams believe?
Basic Passage: Sin is defined as an act, thought, or way of behaving that goes against the law or teachings of a religion, especially when the person who commits it is aware of it. Crime is defined as an action prohibited by law or a failure to act as required by law or an act that is considered morally wrong.
Correlation: Truth be told, there really is not a difference between a sin and a crime. They both can lead to serious consequences if people go against their better judgment. Emotions may come into play and people sometimes tend to forget what is important. Small things can be considered a sin even a crime and people may not be aware of it until it’s too late. People don’t view things as being a sin or a crime, they view it as something that gives them pleasure and not trying to think of the consequences that will soon follow. When crimes and sins are committed, people have the tendency to judge each other. Everyone makes mistakes and everyone is not perfect. People tend to do things solely on basis that they don’t know that they are doing anything wrong. Then there are some people who tend to do things even though they’re well aware of what they are doing is wrong so it’s hard trying to separate the difference between a sin and crime. Crimes and sins are committed every day. The difference is one of these words is more serious than the other. When crimes are committed, people know that some kind of punishment will soon follow. When sins are committed, people hope that all will be forgotten and they will be forgiven. So how can these two words be different when they both are somewhat the same? Whether it’s committing burglary, adultery, or murder they are all considered crimes and sins.
Is it better for America to have a theocratic government?
Basic Passage – In class we’ve discussed about the idea of theocracy in America. Is it better for us to have a theocratic government or is it better for church and state to be separate entities.
Correlation: Theocracy is a form of government in which god laws basically governs every aspect of a country or a state. There are several countries in the world that still has theocratic form of government, such as Saudi Arabia and Iran and many argues that it would be better if America have a theocratic government but is it actually the case? How will thing be different if America were to change all it laws and turn the laws of god to govern the society? Will America still be considered the superpower of the world? It is definitely going to be much different place where every single thing in our lives will be touched by the laws that many might have different opinions about. For example, if we look at Saudi Arabia in general, the society itself has low Crime Rate, Rape and even drug related violence and death are extremely rare. But on the other hand the freedoms that we enjoy in America are constantly questioned by the Wahabis or the states religious police. Most importantly the creativity and the academic innovations which made the western world most technologically advanced will be in jeopardy because of censorship in various parts of education system. To the flip side America already run on basic Christian beliefs even though these are not heavily implemented by the government. Some of the constitutional are mostly derived from the bible as well as the major holidays in America such as Christmas. More or less if America were to embrace hard line theocratic ideology it won’t be the shinning example of modern society as a whole.
Passage: "Faith is not a belief. Belief is passive. Faith is active."-Edith Hamilton
Correlation: Recently in class, we discussed the story of pastor Roger Williams and his coming to the new colony. He sailed in on the Lyon on Feburary 5, 1631, to replace the previous pastor. Williams was a highly regarded pastor. At the time, the people in the new colony saw this as sign from God; it was if God's human resource department called in for a fantastic replacement. But what the colony got was not what they expected. Williams expressed opinions that opposed any relation with the Anglican church; and if your confused by my quote, it's not the faith that I feel harsh. It is the belief. Williams believed that the colonists should ask for forgiveness from God for their previous experiences with the Anglican Church. But these people were just following the religion they grew up to believe. They couldn't have known that the religion would evolve into a different idea that would branch off from their daily routine. Their faith was devoted. They went to church, said their prayers, read their passages, followed the commandments, and abided by God. What they did was right by God and man. There is no need for any forgiveness. People must worship God in their own way.
Title: Theocracy in the world. Basic Passage: In class we discussed whether we lived in a Theocracy or a democracy, Does the rest of the world live in a Theocracy.
Correlation: Theocracy is a form of government in which a god is recognized as the state's supreme civil ruler, or in a broader sense, a form of government in which a state is governed by immediate divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided. For believers, theocracy is a in which divine power governs an earthly human state, either in a personal embodiment, replacing or dominating civil government. Theocratic governments enact theonomic laws. Theocracy should be distinguished from other secular forms of government that have a state of religion, or " are merely influenced by theological or moral concepts, and monarchies held by the grace of god. A theocracy may be monist in form, where the administrative leader of the government is identical with the administrative leader of the religion, or it may have two 'arms,' but with the state administrative leaders subordinate to the religious hierarchy.
America was founded on base on freedom of religion. Though, the Puritans would not accept any other religion but their own. People defying their religion were persecuted publicly. Like Geneva, during the period of John Calvin’s influence and the Massachusetts Bay Colony of the puritans had many characteristics of Theocracies. Like Florence during the short reign of Girolamo Savonrola, during his rule un-Christian books, statues, poetry, and other items were burned. Sates today with Theocratic characteristics like Andorra, Bhutan, Tibet, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Vatican City, Norway, and Israel, Where the head of state if also the head of religion. America may not be a Theocracy, but the press of Christianity, or any religion is always mentioned in political races.
basic passage: in class we talked about how williams saw the puritans as being fake.
Correlation: In today’s society, being fake is the way to move up in the world. Majority of the working class have a boss or even co-worker that they probably cannot stand to be around; yet to hold on to their job or position, they are forced to “suck it up” and pretend to love the jerks they work with everyday. However centuries ago, Roger Williams came to what was America in the works, with a true mindset of being real. He came and saw that the Puritans were somewhat defeating the purpose of pulling away. I can kind of agree with his mindset. Why leave and embark on such a dangerous trip, begin life from scratch, then still hold onto ties with those that cause them to take such drastic actions in the first place? I can also identify with the Puritans point of view but only to a certain extent. The Puritans probably kept ties with those of the Catholic Church just to keep the piece. Maybe their need to be fake was based upon the need to survive. Perhaps those of the Catholic faith had an advantage over the Puritans and they (the Puritans) somewhat depended on the aid of the Catholics. Who gave Roger the nerve to come over and criticize the Puritans? Was he there that first winter when the Puritans were literally freezing to death? No, he came later once things were somewhat established only to criticize how the Puritans conducted their lives. No wonder they considered him to be the preacher from hell. Although being fake is looked down upon, apparently Americans have been doing it since the hard time of the Puritans. It’s not always easy getting to the top or ahead by being a hundred percent real. Sometimes we have to do things that others may consider to be a bit shady, but we do what we have to do to advance.
Roger Williams: Good Christians or JUST Christians?
From the lecture in class it seemed like Roger Williams went off on a wild tangent about not associating with the Church from England and other religious groups because if they maintained contact with those other groups they weren’t considered “good Christians.” Good Christians are supposed to spread the word of the lord. Are they not? Wouldn’t it seem righteous to maintain contact where it is needed? And wouldn’t that make them good Christians to do so? Turning their backs on others for petty reasons does not make them “good Christians.” The religious culture of Christians is to live and breathe the word of the lord and that also includes spreading the word and love of the lord. How could they do such things if all they keep doing is segregating themselves and their faith from everyone else? They can’t. Roger Williams may have been able to speak the word of the lord but was he really practicing it and teaching it correctly? One would think not when he preaches his segregation sermons. Ask not what your Lord can do for you but what you can do for your Lord, Right? Maybe he was a terrible interpreter of the Bible but someone should have told him. Due to his inept ability to spread the word of the lord in the way that it was intended to be spread, he was viewed as “the preacher from hell.” A well deserved title based on class lecture.
Brett Williams Marcg 25, 2009 Theocracy has no legs to stand on
Basic Passage: “Some colonists saw this as providence, that a new preacher Roger Williams, was arriving on the very same ship that their last had left”
Correlation: Roger Williams’ timely arrival quickly made him fit into the puritans way of thinking that they are God’s chosen few. He would not forsake them and Williams’ arrival early on had made it seem as if God had really intended on sending them some sort of guiding light towards providence.
Names like “Preacher from Hell” seemingly made it clear that settlers didn’t see eye to eye with what Williams’ intentions were and the message he wanted to convey to the settlers. As i that weren’t enough, Williams also declined an offer to join the Boston congregation, which was one of the most prestigious positions in the Puritan community, because of its ties back to Catholics.
Why wouldn’t a preacher who revoked the ideas of Catholics be revered in puritan communities? The decision to cast him out as one among many seems almost like a business transaction. Puritan ideals’, like in most cases of theology, had been set aside for a time in order to better or preserve the community. They couldn’t support a preacher who renounced their business transactions with Catholics. The Puritans, patriarchs of the idea that there should be no separation in the practices of church and business, had chosen not to support someone who was preaching the same sermon!
Could it be that theology has no place in societies business matters? Possibly.
Basic Passage: The idea of theocracy was discussed in class.
Correlation: From the beginning, American politics was influenced by the bible, idolizing certain general principles of scriptural morality. I don’t mean that Americans ever contemplated literally applying Old Testament legislation that had been written for the ancient Jewish Commonwealth—executing Sabbath-breakers or homosexuals, for example. Rather, they respected the spirit of many of the Bible’s laws. Without religion-based morality only government can restrain people from exhausting the country’s resources on vice. However, if religion took too direct a role in politics, it would become a combatant in political struggles. It’s true that today we are in a culture war, pitting religion against secularism. However, the real question isn’t whether America will follow Saudi Arabia and Iran down the road to outright theocratic rule but instead, whether the very general biblical beliefs of the majority will have a say in forming our laws - a far cry from true theocracy. From a Christian’s perspective, everything belongs to Jesus Christ. It would be no more surprising to have the Christian Engineering Society say that they intended to ‘reclaim engineering for Jesus Christ.’ I think that could be confused with an intention to drive non-Christians out of the engineering profession, but there’s nothing very bizarre for a Christian to want to reclaim anything in society, including the legal system, for the one who, from a Christian perspective, is its rightful owner. This Christian atmosphere had certainly dissipated by 1973, when the Supreme Court issued Roe vs. Wade, making abortion a constitutional right. Within a few years, religious conservatives organized in response, finding refuge among the Republicans. Following 1972, religious conservatives had two choices: either concede the loss of longstanding political influence, or contest it. In contesting it, they weren’t fighting for theocracy. They were, and are, fighting for the American way.
Stacy Moralis Title: Sin or Crime? Basic Passage: In class, we questioned the topic of sin and crime. What is the difference between these two words? Correlation: “When many of us consider "What is sin?" we think of violations of the Ten Commandments. Even then, we tend to think of murder and adultery as "major" sins compared with lying, cursing, or idolatry” (allaboutgod.com). The definition of a sin is an offense against religious or moral law. “A crime is a wrongdoing classified by the state or Congress as a felony or misdemeanor. It is an offence against a public law. This word, in its most general sense, includes all offences, but in its more limited sense is confined to felony.” (lectlaw.com) A sin is still someone doing something wrong, but wrong to their religious beliefs and morals. It is a person disobeying God’s rules. In your heart, you know that it is wrong and ask for forgiveness. A crime is something done against a government law. A person will have to have consequences for committing a crime, sometimes lifelong consequences. A crime is the same thing as a sin, but a sin is not the same thing as a crime. There are life-threatening consequences for someone who commits a crime. There are religious consequences for someone who sins. A sin stays in a person’s head. They ask for forgiveness and regret. A crime is something that cannot be fixed or turned around. There is no escaping a crime. Is there a difference? Is one worse than the other? Or, do they mean the same thing and just used as a different word?
Correlate: Throughout American history, the separation of church and state has been a hot topic. However, many people have heard of this idea, but have no idea what it exactly means. The idea of having these two monumental ideals contaminate each other would be disastrous for America and the ideals it wishes to uphold. The main two advocates of church and state separation are Roger Williams and Thomas Jefferson. Roger Williams is known as one of the greatest Christian preachers in American history and had no use for politics. His counterpart, Thomas Jefferson, was known as one of the greatest political minds in American history and was a known agnostic. Jefferson believed that all religions were pointless and for naïve people looking for a higher being. He believed that this desire clouded people’s judgment and could be disastrous if brought into law making and the governing of America. He believed that the American government should rely solely on its natural instincts on a fair and just government and should keep all theological ideals away from government. Williams however felt the exact opposite. He believed that the church was a holy and sacred gathering and that Christianity in the New World could be tainted by the interference of the government. If government leaders were to say how, where and when worship could be performed and then their influence on the service would be without a doubt. Although this topic is probably the only topic that these two American pioneers could agree on, their thoughts on this topic stand still today. The church and the government should stay apart and should allow each other to think and operate independently of each other as much as possible.
Correlate: Roger Williams had a strong opinion on the separation of church and state. In 2009, it is still an issue. There is a fine line between what is too much separation and not enough. Williams comes across to me as a genuine person, with a conscious awareness to problems in the world. In his time sin and crime went hand in hand in regards to punishment. The idea of treating sin as a crime essential a good idea . Who is to say what sin gets punished other than those sins that break the law. Many sins are a result of personal convictions. A certain sin to you, does not necessarily mean it is a sin to your neighbor. In Williams’ era they seemed to only be Protestants and Anglicans. Now we have many more religions that are practiced in the U.S. Yes, Christianity is the basis of the country, but how can you tell one to follow a certain religion or any religion at all. Williams said,"God is too large to be housed under one roof." By incorporating church with the state, it forces people to adapt to religion, even if they do not want to follow genuinely. For the most part all religion share the same message “do good.” Of course there are some exceptions to that, but I feel the main point of religion is to reach a higher level of character and well-being. When being forced to do certain things it can harden the heart. Being truthful and honest with your life goes a lot further than following a fake religion.
Basic Passage: Roger Williams was offered a job as a priest in Boston, but he turned down the job. Williams was an advocate of separation of church and state. He opposed the Anglican church and wanted the Puritans to disassociate themselves with the church in England.
Correlate: John Winthrop opposed Williams, believing he was too radical and unwilling to compromise. Williams was concerned with being honest and did not care about money or prestige. He believed the Boston church should not continue Catholic traditions like the way they observed communion. He thought they should apologize for attending the state church while in England. The right-winged Puritans saw themselves as salt and light for the rest of the world. They acted as if their loyalties lied with the king, even though they resented his control over their faith. The separation of church and state was established in the states to keep the government from becoming involved in religious affairs. When lawmakers interpret this law they should remember that it was people like Williams who wanted separation. The law was not put in place to keep the church from spreading its ideas and keeping them from offending anyone. A few weeks ago at church they were honoring the pastor for something. They were saying how the pastor had gotten to talk with Governor Bob Riley when he came in town. The governor was at the pulpit reading something that Sunday. He stopped in the middle and said to the pastor, “Son, you’ve got some big shoes to fill.” I think he was saying it because the pastor had recently come to the church. The church must be aware that laws may be made in the future that keep preachers from preaching like they do now. When Jim Crowe ruled the South, it was commonplace for the then more progressive Republican candidates to get no votes. Now the votes are more balanced, which coorelates that the church is losing its influence. The values of the church tend to be the same values of conservatives, at least the moral values. It makes sense for people in the church to want less government if they think the government wants to control them.
Basic Passage: There are many religions in the world today, the question is which one a human will be brought into through there entire life. Many religions that are in the world today all seem to have their own sense of meaning of how the people interact during their time of time together. So how come their insn't just one we can all believe in.
Correlation: Religion dates back all the way to the Puritans when which it began. The Puritans were so involved in the church in that they wanted to purify it. However, the Protestant's wanted to do the opposite. Everyone that the Puritans met along their journey they wanted them to join. Many people though went their own ways and became apart of something new. Nevertheless, by them breaking off and going their own ways they made history to other religions. Could you really believe how the world would be if their were just one religion. There would be just one church everywhere around the world, which would be very boring. Now off course, if there were just one religion it would probably be Catholic, and if there were two it would be Catholic, and Baptist. Really having just one or two religions would make the world less complicated to in that marriage would not be a problem. Marriage between man and women would go more smoothly because there wouldn't be all the other religions in the way of love. Religion is also one of the most powerful characteristics of the common human today.
28 comments:
Christina McCarty
March 25, 2009
Roger Williams’ Rantings
Basic Passage: “[Harry Vane] will witness the havoc wrought by an Indian war and an outspoken female heretic and, at the moment of his autumn landing, the controversy with Roger Williams.”
Correlate: In class we discussed a man by the name of Roger Williams. Arriving from England, Williams replaced the current preacher in the time period. Thinking they were being blessed, the Puritan townspeople were overjoyed. However, when Williams began expressing his disdain for the community, they discovered he was not what they perceived. Referred to as the "preacher from hell" Williams criticized everything they did. He believed they were a group of fake followers, still associating with the Anglican and Catholic churches of Europe . Writing to their still-Anglican and Catholic friends and family back home did not make them separatists in his eyes. He also believed continuing to practice sacraments similar to the Anglican or Catholic church was being "fake" as well. The ultimate form of scorn was when he refused wholeheartedly to join Boston’s congregation. Was this man absolutely crazy? Or, in some twisted way, was he right?
Truthfully, I would say he is right. The Puritans broke free from these churches to have "religious freedom". But what religion is really free from all other religions? They are all tied together in the belief that there is a power or being greater than our mortal selves and that identity is to be worshiped or adored. The Puritans wanted to break free, but, as Williams said, still associating with their former lives was not really breaking free. It seems that I am nit-picking at the Puritans' ideals. All I am merely saying is that they should not represent something they are not. These people are not broken completely from the Anglican or Catholic churches; they are merely a reformed branch off of these religions. Conducting similar ceremonies, talking to family and friends still considered of their former religion, and still expressing strict laws demanding people attend church are all ways in which they represent their former religion.
Alicia Vance
Roger Williams, Sent from Heaven or Hell?
Basic Passage: “The fact that Williams, a minister, came in on the very ship that was to sail away with Boston’s minister must have seemed pretty much perfect, as if heaven’s Human Resources Departments had sent Williams their way. However, they would soon suspect that Roger Williams was the preacher from hell.” (Vowell, 99-100).
Correlation: At first the Pilgrims thought Roger Williams coming in on the Lyons ship was a part of God’s Providence. Vowell goes on to say that Williams did not think the Pilgrims had done enough for God after the harsh winter the remaining ones had survived. This probably made the Pilgrims feel very betrayed in some sense by Williams because they had lost so many people and overcome several struggles throughout the winter. Williams was very religious and the Pilgrims viewed him as a religious fanatic. They thought Williams was crazy because he did not care about anything except for his place in heaven. He turned down well-paying jobs in order to stay true to his beliefs and values. Williams also believed the Indians had the right to own the land that the Pilgrims had claimed as their own. He tried and wanted to convince the Pilgrims to respect the Indians and learn to live and trade with them. However, he was not very successful. Williams also wanted to separate the church and the state. He believed that if a person was forced to be a Christian by law, then they weren’t a real Christian. Williams strongly believed that forced Christianity violated Christian principles. This marks the first we see of the separation of church and state, which is important because it still exists today. Although some thought Williams was a religious fanatic and a preacher from hell, he did create the separation of church and state which we still use today in our country.
Title: Loyalty to America
Basic Passage: What is patriotism? What does questioning authority mean? Is loyalty to America connected to questioning authority? “Patriotism is easy to understand in America - it means looking out for yourself by looking out for your country.” Said Calvin Coolidge.
Correlation: Loyalty to America is hard to differentiate from patriotism vs. questioning authority. Love and devotion to ones country is the definition of patriotism. Patriots can be loyal to America in a good and also a bad way. A patriot of America is often though of as a solider or someone in the military but that isn’t exactly what it covers. Patriotism can also be expresses as an ethical act towards America. Patriotism can also be expressed in the wrong way, which is extreme patriotism such as committing a crime because you think it helped the country. This happens more in other counties when people blow up their own people in suicide bombings. In their minds they are patriots of their country. My grandfather was in the military almost his whole life. He joined the marines right out of college and then he was in the CIA for years after that. He talked about being a patriot very little but when he did he was very short and sweet about it. Some of the people who are or were the best patriots don’t have to flaunt it. Questioning authority is our patriotic duty. All patriots have to question authority before they are real patriots. If they don’t question it they don’t know the real meaning. There is a connection between patriotism and questioning authority.
Laura Piper
Theocracy Vs. Plutocracy
The United States is supposed to be a democracy, but in reality it is a plutocracy. In the early stages of the colonies the church was very influential in the government. There was not a large separation between church and state certain people attempted to change all of this. One such person was Roger Williams who was from England and had come to Boston. He felt that matters of the law should not be dealt with by the church and others soon began to see the merit of his ideas. The other members of the clergy however were not as pleased with what they considered dangerous new opinions and he was soon exiled. Eventually of course the United States did eventually adopt a much more firm stance on the separation of church and state even making provisions in the constitution outlining the acceptable actions, but they did not truly adopt a democratic point of view in exchange for their previously more theological one. The United States is not really a democracy as it claims, but a plutocracy.
In present day America conflict between the upper and lower class continues. During America’s recent election, the Republican Party changed their rhetoric in an attempt to appeal to the middle and lower class. Just like with the founding fathers, this is an attempt to convince the less fortunate that the wealthy are looking out for them. It is a misconception that the revolution started with peaceful agreement between men. Because the wealthy had so much to loose and to avert potential chaos in the colonies, the common people were afforded some freedoms. The common people believed that their society was democratic, but this was not the case. The elite class was in charge, and their motivation was breaking free from England and increasing their wealth. The same idea has been alive and well in Republican controlled America. Tax breaks and incentives that increase the wealth of the upper class, while ignoring the poor, stem from the plutocratic elite’s American Revolution ideals.
David Broadnax
Title: Can Church and State get Along?
Basic Passage: The issue of keeping church and state separate has been a topic of debate through out the whole time in history. This issue will continue to exist as long as politics use their religion views to make decision.
Correlate: Many wonder why church and state shouldn’t coexist. I figured the reason for this that wanted to make all their decisions fair, and not be based on how one feel just because of their religious belief. For example, one of the most common topics in present day is the discussion on abortion. Catholics believe that its wrong for women to have the right to kill their unborn child. That seems find but imagine the other citizens of the United States who feel the opposite about abortion. If a law was passed banning abortion then that would one group feeling like they are being deprived of their rights. That’s why you see such a conflict today with President Obama trying to pass the FOCA, which stands for the free of choose act. Another topic of discussion that always seem to be an issue is prayer in schools. Many Americans who goes to church often wants pray in school, but their others who don’t want pray at because they probably would feel like they might not have the same religion they believe. To somewhat settle that issue at the high school I attend we would have a moment of silence giving students the opportunity to pray the way they please. If you really look at mostly all the early history was influence by the Bible or other religious thoughts. Most of the Ten Commandments that’s in the Bible are laws in the United States that more than likely derived from the Bible. When we say the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag we also mentions God’s name in there. Church and State would never exist because we are such a diverse nation.
Brian Strong
Title: Theocracy versus Separation of Church and State
Basic Passage: In class we discussed about how some of the extreme religious right feel that we should have a Theocracy and not separate church and state, to keep tradition and Christian values a part of America.
Correlation: We discussed in class about how William Bradford and the new Preacher, Roger Williams views on the Catholic church differed, and to a greater degree, separating religion from governing bodies. The Puritan judicial system was definitely closely tied to and much less run by religion, in that almost every law was related to Christian values. The separation of church and state was an undeniable need for our country to have survived as long as it has without civil strife or corruption to the point of persecution. This being said what the believers in theocracy along with others who support judicial bodies being tied to religion have a valid point. Considering the founders of our country were extremely devout Christians, you cannot argue God wasn’t a figure in our freedoms today. To Christians there is no higher power than the Lord meaning, that without morality through Christ the more sin will spread. As a fact of today, with the higher rates of atheists and agnostics, higher divorce rates, higher murder rates, higher teen pregnancy, and all around a much more dangerous world than merely just 100 years ago. Although these are major issues we also knew the dangers of corruption and power a church can gain, such as in England. With how closely our society is tied to Christianity considering how almost every holiday we celebrate is based on Christian beliefs its not hard to understand the strife between wanting the separation of church and state versus a theocracy. It has been a lose lose situation since the beginning of this controversy because yes our founders were fervent Christians yet they also knew the destructive power Theocracies can hold. Ultimately they chose the separate the state from the church relying on the “innate” human good that seems to be disappearing in today’s world.
Jennifer Gray
Separation of Church and State
Basic Passage:In class we discussed how the Puritans who broke any of the first four of the Ten Commandments were punished by the General Court.
Correlate:Roger Williams, a teacher and preacher, arrived in New England and saw that he didn’t agree with all the laws and the ways that the Puritans were doing things. Williams points out that there should be a separation of church and state. His view was that a person should choose to be a Christian. He didn’t agree with the fact of being told to be a Christian. Williams made a distinction between a sin and a crime. The Puritans had been punishing those people who broke any of the first four of the Ten Commandments. Anyone who worshiped another god, made idols, took the Lord’s name in vain, or did not keep the Sabbath holy, was punished in General Court. Williams thought that these were laws that needed to be done away with.
I myself am a Christian, but I do not go to church on a regular basis. According to the Puritans I should probably be sitting in a jail right now. These types of laws would never be possible in the United States today. There are too many religions, including those that do not believe in God at all. However, now more than ever I feel that the United States needs God in it as much as possible. There are those that want God removed from everything including schools, money, and the pledge. Why not remove the teachings of evolution from our textbooks if the Creation of mankind by God can’t also be taught? Our country has slowly moved away from God and became a nation of the devil with no rules and regulations. Those that do not believe in God say that it isn’t right to have God shoved down their throats, but I say why should we as Christians have the ungodly beliefs shoved down ours?
Harrison Bullock
Separation of Church & State
Basic Passage: The issue of separation of Church and State has been a topic of debate for some time now. Ask yourself, are they really that separate?
Correlate: Many Americans wonder why Church and State are separated in the first place. This separation has been traced all the way back to 1802 from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson. Later, court cases in the 1950s popularized this topic even more. On paper, yes, church and state are separate, but most of our law makers have a Christian or similar religious background that influences them to make moral decisions on issues such as abortion and stem cell research. FOCA has been a recent act that has upset many Christians in the United States. President Obama wants Americans to pay for others to have the right to murder unborn babies and has recently repealed some laws made by the Bush Administration on the issues of abortion and stem cell research. Another instance where church and state seem to collide is: when you go to court, you take an oath on the Bible, not the Torah or Koran. When you stand in a public school in the mornings you recite the Pledge of Allegiance, which contains the line “one nation under God”. When I was in high school, there were moments of silence for people to pray freely, if they chose to do so before meals. The last instance where the church and government meet is when you take an oath to become an officer of the United States Army the word “God” is used in this oath. If you think about it, this country was founded because of religious freedom and our forefathers put their Christian values at the top of their list. So why are Americans so sensitive to this issue of “God” now?
A. The distinction between a sin and a crime
Eric Richardson
B. In class we talked about Roger Williams and his attempts at separating church and state.
C. The separation between church and state is an issue that has been around since the formation of our government. In the early ages, there wasn’t much that separated these two entities. The government at that time was more like the enforcement factor behind the church. So, the church made the laws in which they instituted from the bible and the government punished the individuals that did not follow these “holy laws”.Evidence of this can be shown in, The Wordy Shipmates, where it states that, “Keeping the Sabbath holy is Massachusetts By law and therefore punishable by the General Court.”
Today there is a better distinction between the two but there is still evidence of them coexisting. The government incorporates God and the bible in many of its dealings. For example, on our own currency you can clearly read “in God we trust”. Also in many courtrooms across the united states there are sculptures and/or paintings of the ten commandments. Another example of this, is the pledge of allegiance. This motto is said by children every morning in school and says that, “we are one nation under god.” Whether you agree or disagree with the involvement of church in our government, the signs are clearly there that these two factors still coexists and that things will remain this way for a while.
A.J. Paschall
Separation of Church and State
Basic Passage: In class we talked about the separation of church and state and the role that it is playing in today’s society. We also talked about how it was viewed back in earlier times.
Correlation: In modern day America there is an ongoing conflict of the separation of church and state. Many people believe that God should not be involved in schools or the government of the United States. There are many different arguments, most of which have many good points. What I find very interesting is how many of the morals and guidelines to our daily lives have come from the Bible and the belief in God. Most of the early schools were built in order to teach kids how to read and write so that they could read the bible and help spread the word of God. Our government was founded by men of strong faith, who very much believed that God should play a major part in the country if it were to succeed. Today God is trying to be taken out of the school systems and government as our country becomes more of a melting pot to religions. What is interesting to me is how it seems that the Christian religion is being more focused on than other in this conflict (at least from what is seen in the media). Constantly we hear about there being a problem with some kid or teacher praying to God in school and someone making a huge deal about it. What we never seem to hear of is a kid being given a hard time from their Hindu faith, or them expressing their beliefs in Allah in school. It is my personal opinion that this country has done so well up till now because it has stayed in the general guidelines for living life in the Christian faith.
Shaun Kyles
“The FOCA Act”
Basic Passage: Before coming president of the United States, Barack Obama promised to sign The Freedom of Choice Act. This act will compel taxpayer funding of abortions. The act will also force faith-based hospitals and healthcare facilities to perform abortions.
Correlation: In class we had a small discussion about what FOCA really means and what it stands for. FOCA are acronyms that stand for freedom of choice act. This act or law is in process to be passed and signed by president Obama. This act will cause a lot of confusion between Christians and other religious groups who don’t believe in such things as abortions. We as Americans are entitled to our own freedom of choice. No matter what happens or what law is passed no one will ever be satisfied with the outcome. Back in the early days people like the William Bradford and John Winthrop lead people to some great things and taught some to prosper. People welcomed them as leaders in there community. To make things better in our community we need to focus on who is the leader and support what is really going on. The real problem starts when everyone wants to be the leader. Sports teams have numerous of coaches but there is only one head coach who makes the final decision. Police departments have numerous of working police officers but there is only one police chief. I’m not saying that we shouldn’t be entitled to our own opinions because that is what America is about. Assistant coaches come up with ideas or plays, but they bring them to the head coach for approval. We as Americans are one big team. Let’s not just jump to conclusion and always focus on the negative and start making decisions as one to help the situation. The FOCA act should be a step we need to take in showing how free our country is to the world.
Shareca Hawthorne
Separate for a reason
Basic Passage: “One nation under God indivisibly with liberty and justice for all.”
Correlation: In class we discussed Roger Williams and his attempt to separate church from state. Church and politics should not be related to one another. Most politics talk about religion in their speech and try to associate that with what is going on in the political world. Most people believe that church and state are separate but if you really sit down and analyze what you read and here they are combined. The Pledge of Allegiance is an example of them not being separate the sentence One nation under God indivisibly with liberty and justice for all,” combines both the church and the state. We have been taught to say it throughout our lifetimes and never realized what we were saying until now. People have been debating for years to separate church from state but it reality it will never happen. During any election time, the people who are giving their speech have some form of church and state combined together to make it sound more convincing and right. If making them separate is such a big deal, why do our currency today have the words “in God We Trust” written on it? If they really wanted it separate they would do something to change it instead of complaining about it and still letting things happen the way they do. In my opinion I think they should be separate, basically our leaders and they state are telling us what religion to believe in and if it’s not what they believe in then it’s wrong. We are so busy following others that we cannot see what is really going on and not realizing that we have been brain washed and told what to believe in and if anybody believes different then they are considered crazy or they do not belong in today’s society.
Title: Morality and Religion are NOT the same thing.
Passage:
“[Roger] Williams makes a distinction between a sin and a crime” calling for the separation of church and state.
Correlation:
Can a society function without religion?
I keep coming back to the example of someone raised by wolves or chimps or somewhere that has no cultural influence. Except this example has to be expanded to a group of people that have no external cultural influence. Would these people find a way to live together in a peaceful functioning society? I bet so... There would have to be some fundamental rules for a society to function, with or without religion. At the top of that list, “you shall not kill... lie... cheat... steal” and so forth. These aren’t religious tenants, they are the fundamentals of a functioning society... otherwise society would collapse into chaos and anarchy; no one would trust each other or take care of each other. But if you look at how religion influences culture, there are more injustices and intolerances rooted in religion than any other reason: hence modern terrorism. Religion breeds fanatics. Ironically Williams was seen as a fanatic though it seems he felt there was a difference between honoring God verses honoring country. The consequence of dishonoring either should be differentiated. Working (or not) on the Sabbath should be between you and God, not you and the courts.
Don’t get me wrong, religion can be good, just not necessary. Religious beliefs can be great moral guidelines as to how to treat others. But you don’t need a bible to understand that how you treat someone is likely how they will treat you. Amen.
Courtney Wesolowski
Title: Separation of Church and State
Basic Passage: In class we talked about Roger Williams and his idea of separation of church and state.
Correlation: In class we mentioned a fanatic pastor that came to America was Roger Williams. Williams believed that the Puritans were coming off as fake and not as true Christians. He claimed the Puritans were fake because they would send letters to the King and his church pleading their loyalty to the church and to him but behind closed doors they would worship on their own and talk down to the King. The Pilgrims saw Williams as a fanatical preacher when he turned down an amazing job opportunity in Boston. Williams also claimed that Winthrop and his followers were believers of a Theoretical Government, where the government recognizes God as its state civil ruler. Williams believed that there should be a separation between the government and the church in political ideas and or decisions. His theory was that if someone makes you a Christian you aren’t really a Christian; you have to want to be one. Roger Williams’ ideas of Separation of Church and State still apply today in our government. The phrase Separation of Church and State has been mentioned several times in our countries history. Such as by Thomas Jefferson in 1802 as he refers to the First Amendment, it was also quoted by the United States Supreme Court in 1878 and in several other court cases since then. The concept of this idea of Separation of Church and State has spread to several other countries all over the globe. Today we face the debate of keeping the ideals of Separation of Church and State or letting it go in history. One side of the debate believes that the Constitution gives the government the power to regulate some aspects of religion and the 1st amendment bars only the establishment of a national church. The other side believes that the Constitution gives the government no power over religion and the 1st amendment should be broadly read to bar all types of interference with religion. What do you believe? What would Roger Williams believe?
Title: Sin and Crime: Is there a Difference?
Basic Passage: Sin is defined as an act, thought, or way of behaving that goes against the law or teachings of a religion, especially when the person who commits it is aware of it. Crime is defined as an action prohibited by law or a failure to act as required by law or an act that is considered morally wrong.
Correlation: Truth be told, there really is not a difference between a sin and a crime. They both can lead to serious consequences if people go against their better judgment. Emotions may come into play and people sometimes tend to forget what is important. Small things can be considered a sin even a crime and people may not be aware of it until it’s too late. People don’t view things as being a sin or a crime, they view it as something that gives them pleasure and not trying to think of the consequences that will soon follow.
When crimes and sins are committed, people have the tendency to judge each other. Everyone makes mistakes and everyone is not perfect. People tend to do things solely on basis that they don’t know that they are doing anything wrong. Then there are some people who tend to do things even though they’re well aware of what they are doing is wrong so it’s hard trying to separate the difference between a sin and crime.
Crimes and sins are committed every day. The difference is one of these words is more serious than the other. When crimes are committed, people know that some kind of punishment will soon follow. When sins are committed, people hope that all will be forgotten and they will be forgiven. So how can these two words be different when they both are somewhat the same? Whether it’s committing burglary, adultery, or murder they are all considered crimes and sins.
Farhan Mahmood
Is it better for America to have a theocratic government?
Basic Passage – In class we’ve discussed about the idea of theocracy in America. Is it better for us to have a theocratic government or is it better for church and state to be separate entities.
Correlation: Theocracy is a form of government in which god laws basically governs every aspect of a country or a state. There are several countries in the world that still has theocratic form of government, such as Saudi Arabia and Iran and many argues that it would be better if America have a theocratic government but is it actually the case? How will thing be different if America were to change all it laws and turn the laws of god to govern the society? Will America still be considered the superpower of the world? It is definitely going to be much different place where every single thing in our lives will be touched by the laws that many might have different opinions about. For example, if we look at Saudi Arabia in general, the society itself has low Crime Rate, Rape and even drug related violence and death are extremely rare. But on the other hand the freedoms that we enjoy in America are constantly questioned by the Wahabis or the states religious police. Most importantly the creativity and the academic innovations which made the western world most technologically advanced will be in jeopardy because of censorship in various parts of education system. To the flip side America already run on basic Christian beliefs even though these are not heavily implemented by the government. Some of the constitutional are mostly derived from the bible as well as the major holidays in America such as Christmas. More or less if America were to embrace hard line theocratic ideology it won’t be the shinning example of modern society as a whole.
Eric Dobbs
Title: "Harsh"
Passage: "Faith is not a belief. Belief is passive. Faith is active."-Edith Hamilton
Correlation: Recently in class, we discussed the story of pastor Roger Williams and his coming to the new colony. He sailed in on the Lyon on Feburary 5, 1631, to replace the previous pastor. Williams was a highly regarded pastor. At the time, the people in the new colony saw this as sign from God; it was if God's human resource department called in for a fantastic replacement. But what the colony got was not what they expected. Williams expressed opinions that opposed any relation with the Anglican church; and if your confused by my quote, it's not the faith that I feel harsh. It is the belief. Williams believed that the colonists should ask for forgiveness from God for their previous experiences with the Anglican Church. But these people were just following the religion they grew up to believe. They couldn't have known that the religion would evolve into a different idea that would branch off from their daily routine. Their faith was devoted. They went to church, said their prayers, read their passages, followed the commandments, and abided by God. What they did was right by God and man. There is no need for any forgiveness. People must worship God in their own way.
Devin Lochidge
Title: Theocracy in the world.
Basic Passage: In class we discussed whether we lived in a Theocracy or a democracy, Does the rest of the world live in a Theocracy.
Correlation: Theocracy is a form of government in which a god is recognized as the state's supreme civil ruler, or in a broader sense, a form of government in which a state is governed by immediate divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided. For believers, theocracy is a in which divine power governs an earthly human state, either in a personal embodiment, replacing or dominating civil government. Theocratic governments enact theonomic laws. Theocracy should be distinguished from other secular forms of government that have a state of religion, or " are merely influenced by theological or moral concepts, and monarchies held by the grace of god. A theocracy may be monist in form, where the administrative leader of the government is identical with the administrative leader of the religion, or it may have two 'arms,' but with the state administrative leaders subordinate to the religious hierarchy.
America was founded on base on freedom of religion. Though, the Puritans would not accept any other religion but their own. People defying their religion were persecuted publicly. Like Geneva, during the period of John Calvin’s influence and the Massachusetts Bay Colony of the puritans had many characteristics of Theocracies. Like Florence during the short reign of Girolamo Savonrola, during his rule un-Christian books, statues, poetry, and other items were burned. Sates today with Theocratic characteristics like Andorra, Bhutan, Tibet, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Vatican City, Norway, and Israel, Where the head of state if also the head of religion. America may not be a Theocracy, but the press of Christianity, or any religion is always mentioned in political races.
Brittnye Lewis
March 25, 2009
being fake
basic passage: in class we talked about how williams saw the puritans as being fake.
Correlation: In today’s society, being fake is the way to move up in the world. Majority of the working class have a boss or even co-worker that they probably cannot stand to be around; yet to hold on to their job or position, they are forced to “suck it up” and pretend to love the jerks they work with everyday.
However centuries ago, Roger Williams came to what was America in the works, with a true mindset of being real. He came and saw that the Puritans were somewhat defeating the purpose of pulling away. I can kind of agree with his mindset. Why leave and embark on such a dangerous trip, begin life from scratch, then still hold onto ties with those that cause them to take such drastic actions in the first place?
I can also identify with the Puritans point of view but only to a certain extent. The Puritans probably kept ties with those of the Catholic Church just to keep the piece. Maybe their need to be fake was based upon the need to survive. Perhaps those of the Catholic faith had an advantage over the Puritans and they (the Puritans) somewhat depended on the aid of the Catholics. Who gave Roger the nerve to come over and criticize the Puritans? Was he there that first winter when the Puritans were literally freezing to death? No, he came later once things were somewhat established only to criticize how the Puritans conducted their lives. No wonder they considered him to be the preacher from hell.
Although being fake is looked down upon, apparently Americans have been doing it since the hard time of the Puritans. It’s not always easy getting to the top or ahead by being a hundred percent real. Sometimes we have to do things that others may consider to be a bit shady, but we do what we have to do to advance.
Susan Howard
Roger Williams: Good Christians or JUST Christians?
From the lecture in class it seemed like Roger Williams went off on a wild tangent about not associating with the Church from England and other religious groups because if they maintained contact with those other groups they weren’t considered “good Christians.” Good Christians are supposed to spread the word of the lord. Are they not? Wouldn’t it seem righteous to maintain contact where it is needed? And wouldn’t that make them good Christians to do so? Turning their backs on others for petty reasons does not make them “good Christians.” The religious culture of Christians is to live and breathe the word of the lord and that also includes spreading the word and love of the lord. How could they do such things if all they keep doing is segregating themselves and their faith from everyone else? They can’t.
Roger Williams may have been able to speak the word of the lord but was he really practicing it and teaching it correctly? One would think not when he preaches his segregation sermons. Ask not what your Lord can do for you but what you can do for your Lord, Right? Maybe he was a terrible interpreter of the Bible but someone should have told him. Due to his inept ability to spread the word of the lord in the way that it was intended to be spread, he was viewed as “the preacher from hell.” A well deserved title based on class lecture.
Brett Williams
Marcg 25, 2009
Theocracy has no legs to stand on
Basic Passage: “Some colonists saw this as providence, that a new preacher Roger Williams, was arriving on the very same ship that their last had left”
Correlation: Roger Williams’ timely arrival quickly made him fit into the puritans way of thinking that they are God’s chosen few. He would not forsake them and Williams’ arrival early on had made it seem as if God had really intended on sending them some sort of guiding light towards providence.
Names like “Preacher from Hell” seemingly made it clear that settlers didn’t see eye to eye with what Williams’ intentions were and the message he wanted to convey to the settlers. As i that weren’t enough, Williams also declined an offer to join the Boston congregation, which was one of the most prestigious positions in the Puritan community, because of its ties back to Catholics.
Why wouldn’t a preacher who revoked the ideas of Catholics be revered in puritan communities? The decision to cast him out as one among many seems almost like a business transaction. Puritan ideals’, like in most cases of theology, had been set aside for a time in order to better or preserve the community. They couldn’t support a preacher who renounced their business transactions with Catholics. The Puritans, patriarchs of the idea that there should be no separation in the practices of church and business, had chosen not to support someone who was preaching the same sermon!
Could it be that theology has no place in societies business matters? Possibly.
Lauren Harris
Title: America a Theocracy?
Basic Passage: The idea of theocracy was discussed in class.
Correlation: From the beginning, American politics was influenced by the bible, idolizing certain general principles of scriptural morality. I don’t mean that Americans ever contemplated literally applying Old Testament legislation that had been written for the ancient Jewish Commonwealth—executing Sabbath-breakers or homosexuals, for example. Rather, they respected the spirit of many of the Bible’s laws. Without religion-based morality only government can restrain people from exhausting the country’s resources on vice. However, if religion took too direct a role in politics, it would become a combatant in political struggles. It’s true that today we are in a culture war, pitting religion against secularism. However, the real question isn’t whether America will follow Saudi Arabia and Iran down the road to outright theocratic rule but instead, whether the very general biblical beliefs of the majority will have a say in forming our laws - a far cry from true theocracy. From a Christian’s perspective, everything belongs to Jesus Christ. It would be no more surprising to have the Christian Engineering Society say that they intended to ‘reclaim engineering for Jesus Christ.’ I think that could be confused with an intention to drive non-Christians out of the engineering profession, but there’s nothing very bizarre for a Christian to want to reclaim anything in society, including the legal system, for the one who, from a Christian perspective, is its rightful owner. This Christian atmosphere had certainly dissipated by 1973, when the Supreme Court issued Roe vs. Wade, making abortion a constitutional right. Within a few years, religious conservatives organized in response, finding refuge among the Republicans. Following 1972, religious conservatives had two choices: either concede the loss of longstanding political influence, or contest it. In contesting it, they weren’t fighting for theocracy. They were, and are, fighting for the American way.
Stacy Moralis
Title: Sin or Crime?
Basic Passage: In class, we questioned the topic of sin and crime. What is the difference between these two words?
Correlation: “When many of us consider "What is sin?" we think of violations of the Ten Commandments. Even then, we tend to think of murder and adultery as "major" sins compared with lying, cursing, or idolatry” (allaboutgod.com). The definition of a sin is an offense against religious or moral law.
“A crime is a wrongdoing classified by the state or Congress as a felony or misdemeanor.
It is an offence against a public law. This word, in its most general sense, includes all offences, but in its more limited sense is confined to felony.” (lectlaw.com)
A sin is still someone doing something wrong, but wrong to their religious beliefs and morals. It is a person disobeying God’s rules. In your heart, you know that it is wrong and ask for forgiveness. A crime is something done against a government law. A person will have to have consequences for committing a crime, sometimes lifelong consequences. A crime is the same thing as a sin, but a sin is not the same thing as a crime. There are life-threatening consequences for someone who commits a crime. There are religious consequences for someone who sins. A sin stays in a person’s head. They ask for forgiveness and regret. A crime is something that cannot be fixed or turned around. There is no escaping a crime. Is there a difference? Is one worse than the other? Or, do they mean the same thing and just used as a different word?
Stuart Lang
Separation of Church and State
Correlate: Throughout American history, the separation of church and state has been a hot topic. However, many people have heard of this idea, but have no idea what it exactly means. The idea of having these two monumental ideals contaminate each other would be disastrous for America and the ideals it wishes to uphold.
The main two advocates of church and state separation are Roger Williams and Thomas Jefferson. Roger Williams is known as one of the greatest Christian preachers in American history and had no use for politics. His counterpart, Thomas Jefferson, was known as one of the greatest political minds in American history and was a known agnostic.
Jefferson believed that all religions were pointless and for naïve people looking for a higher being. He believed that this desire clouded people’s judgment and could be disastrous if brought into law making and the governing of America. He believed that the American government should rely solely on its natural instincts on a fair and just government and should keep all theological ideals away from government.
Williams however felt the exact opposite. He believed that the church was a holy and sacred gathering and that Christianity in the New World could be tainted by the interference of the government. If government leaders were to say how, where and when worship could be performed and then their influence on the service would be without a doubt.
Although this topic is probably the only topic that these two American pioneers could agree on, their thoughts on this topic stand still today. The church and the government should stay apart and should allow each other to think and operate independently of each other as much as possible.
Fuller Talbot
Title: "Real"igion
Passage: Williams seperation of church and state
Correlate:
Roger Williams had a strong opinion on the separation of church and state. In 2009, it is still an issue. There is a fine line between what is too much separation and not enough. Williams comes across to me as a genuine person, with a conscious awareness to problems in the world. In his time sin and crime went hand in hand in regards to punishment. The idea of treating sin as a crime essential a good idea . Who is to say what sin gets punished other than those sins that break the law. Many sins are a result of personal convictions. A certain sin to you, does not necessarily mean it is a sin to your neighbor.
In Williams’ era they seemed to only be Protestants and Anglicans. Now we have many more religions that are practiced in the U.S. Yes, Christianity is the basis of the country, but how can you tell one to follow a certain religion or any religion at all. Williams said,"God is too large to be housed under one roof." By incorporating church with the state, it forces people to adapt to religion, even if they do not want to follow genuinely. For the most part all religion share the same message “do good.” Of course there are some exceptions to that, but I feel the main point of religion is to reach a higher level of character and well-being. When being forced to do certain things it can harden the heart. Being truthful and honest with your life goes a lot further than following a fake religion.
Brett Allen
Roger William’s Radical Ideas
Basic Passage: Roger Williams was offered a job as a priest in Boston, but he turned down the job. Williams was an advocate of separation of church and state. He opposed the Anglican church and wanted the Puritans to disassociate themselves with the church in England.
Correlate: John Winthrop opposed Williams, believing he was too radical and unwilling to compromise. Williams was concerned with being honest and did not care about money or prestige. He believed the Boston church should not continue Catholic traditions like the way they observed communion. He thought they should apologize for attending the state church while in England. The right-winged Puritans saw themselves as salt and light for the rest of the world. They acted as if their loyalties lied with the king, even though they resented his control over their faith. The separation of church and state was established in the states to keep the government from becoming involved in religious affairs. When lawmakers interpret this law they should remember that it was people like Williams who wanted separation. The law was not put in place to keep the church from spreading its ideas and keeping them from offending anyone. A few weeks ago at church they were honoring the pastor for something. They were saying how the pastor had gotten to talk with Governor Bob Riley when he came in town. The governor was at the pulpit reading something that Sunday. He stopped in the middle and said to the pastor, “Son, you’ve got some big shoes to fill.” I think he was saying it because the pastor had recently come to the church. The church must be aware that laws may be made in the future that keep preachers from preaching like they do now. When Jim Crowe ruled the South, it was commonplace for the then more progressive Republican candidates to get no votes. Now the votes are more balanced, which coorelates that the church is losing its influence. The values of the church tend to be the same values of conservatives, at least the moral values. It makes sense for people in the church to want less government if they think the government wants to control them.
Orin Eleuterius
Title: Religion Today
Basic Passage: There are many religions in the world today, the question is which one a human will be brought into through there entire life. Many religions that are in the world today all seem to have their own sense of meaning of how the people interact during their time of time together. So how come their insn't just one we can all believe in.
Correlation: Religion dates back all the way to the Puritans when which it began. The Puritans were so involved in the church in that they wanted to purify it. However, the Protestant's wanted to do the opposite. Everyone that the Puritans met along their journey they wanted them to join. Many people though went their own ways and became apart of something new. Nevertheless, by them breaking off and going their own ways they made history to other religions. Could you really believe how the world would be if their were just one religion. There would be just one church everywhere around the world, which would be very boring. Now off course, if there were just one religion it would probably be Catholic, and if there were two it would be Catholic, and Baptist. Really having just one or two religions would make the world less complicated to in that marriage would not be a problem. Marriage between man and women would go more smoothly because there wouldn't be all the other religions in the way of love. Religion is also one of the most powerful characteristics of the common human today.
Post a Comment