Julian Sanchez | November 16, 2005
Nick Gillespie rediscovers a champion of freedom of conscience in the founder of Rhode Island.
Reason needs your support. Please donate today!
Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.
(310) 367-6109
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment or disable your ability to comment for any reason at any time.
|11.16.05 @ 12:26PM|#
Nick,
This is one of the finest pieces I've read on Reason (yes, that is a compliment). Thank you for reminding us of who should be remembered as the archetype of a true American and proto-libertarian.
|11.16.05 @ 12:33PM|#
Great article!
proto-libertarian
Oh, I'm sure that if we try hard enough we can find a reason to take away his decoder ring. :)
|11.16.05 @ 12:42PM|#
Why is it that, in centuries past, the people who pushed hardest for secular governments were extremely devout themselves; whereas now, the extremely devout seem to be pushing for more religion in government?
Great piece, btw. I never knew much about RI's founder besides his name.
slightlybad|11.16.05 @ 12:47PM|#
"the founder of Providence, Rhode Island, the grim port town whose main growth industry is serving as the backdrop for gross-out comedies by the Farrelly brothers."
Gillespie, you're a wicked dipshit. Providence isn't really that grim or much of a port town anymore. The whole downtown has been revitalized thanks to former mayor Buddy Cianci (currently esconsed in the federal pen) and it's known as a town for those involved in the arts.
Oh yeah, and the main industries in Providence are the Mafia and political corruption :).
|11.16.05 @ 12:50PM|#
thoreau,
What? I'm allowed to make up words, too.
MP|11.16.05 @ 1:12PM|#
I'm looking forward to reading that book.
|11.16.05 @ 1:15PM|#
phooey.
a two-time loser; thrown out of england, thrown out of massachusetts. only RI would keep him, and a quick look at their politics for the past decade or two suggests the standards there aren't particularly high. (Back to back impeachments of supreme court chief justices, a mayor twice elected, twice convicted.)
|11.16.05 @ 1:16PM|#
You didn't mention that he's one heck of a good piano player.
|11.16.05 @ 1:47PM|#
Roger Williams is one of history's underrated figures. Well done.
Where are all the H & R religion-haters, they should be out here bashing Williams' religious devotion?
|11.16.05 @ 2:19PM|#
Hmm, I wouldn't say I'm a religion hater, although I am an atheist and I just can't quite understand how folks in this day and age can believe in god, especially the one in the bible.
But Mr Williams had two things going for him: 1) he lived in a time where I think it's more excusable to believe in a vengeful, invisible guy who lives somewhere in the sky and knows, sees, and hears all and is all powerful and 2) he didn't try to force it down other people's throats, actually advocating for keeping the expression of personal beliefs free for everyone.
|11.16.05 @ 2:31PM|#
I wrote a term paper on Roger Williams once (I think-- at least I did the research). He's always been one of my heroes. I'm glad someone wrote on him here.
|11.16.05 @ 4:15PM|#
Excellent article, although I do think it's important to note that Williams' opinions about tolerance were largely borne of his Calvinist beliefs. He couldn't see forcing people to live like saints when their lack of "elect" status would keep them out of heaven anyway. It helps to show that trying to determine what someone will think based on the doctrines they subscribe to is usually pointless, a lesson we could all use these days.
|11.16.05 @ 5:07PM|#
I understand that Williams' criteria for the "true Church" meant a gathering of the Elect (predestined for Heaven) without any contamination from being mixed with the soteriologically-challenged. Even indirect contamination was unacceptable (eg, the willingness of Massachusetts Puritans to go to Anglican services during their trips back to England made them tainted, hence the True Church could not contain such tainted people).
Williams' standards for the True Church were so strict that no existing religious institution actually met the standards. His concept of religious purity would naturally not allow the secular government to get involved.