of american exceptional is some and a belief that we are a christian nation. but from the beginning there was an alternative vision. roger williams was a minister with such a tremendous reputation that when he arrived in america after john winthrop founded boston he was the minute the -- immediately offered the boston church which he declined. ..

>> disable liberty, the former american individuals. a lot of pier. so to my surprise the book became about much more than religion in american public life or the separation of church and state. became about the development of the modern idea of individualism and freedom itself. this is not a biography. want to learn about how all williams raise his kids, you will be disappointed. i don't care. it is, in effect -- i've been

asked questions. i don't know. i don't care. i focused on a history of ideas. those ideas did not come from reading a book. they came from living through extraordinary times. the overreach of two games, rebellion, revolution, the beheading of an, the heading of a king, the rise of cromwell, sorted power. it starts out in six. times and it is a story that could have been written by shakespeare. it starts with king james. baptized catholics, add to catholic parents. his father was assassinated. his mother married does queen of scots, executed, forced to advocate the crown to him when he was 13 months old. he became king of scotland at

age 13 months. stow's lloyd's to come from his mother raised a protestant. his personal modeled, blessed be the peacemakers. despite repeated assassination attempts by catholics, often with links to spain state sponsored religious terrorism on queen elizabeth and on himself there is an attempt on his left the blow of parliament when he was in it by catholics. he nonetheless tried to build bridges between catholics and protestants. for one thing he made peace --

peace with spain. this only made english protestant suspicious. they became suspicious as it began to is this search of quick closer to catholic style of theology. those who supported them wanted what and arch bishop called the beauty of holiness. holiness. those cathedrals are just extraordinary, as we all know. they were active, almost a guerrilla movement of people who would smash stained glass and cathedrals, tear down and destroy crucifixes. also highly intelligent, wrote books and political theory not surprisingly for an infant did not believe he had in the borders the limits, he believed the king and absolute power. he injected in this

constitutional history the idea of the divine right from king's. his apologists and kingston to have them around supported his view the king is the law. speak it. the king is above the law by his divine right, ." that quote, though at his carnation, he took an oath not to alter the laws of the land and this goes notwithstanding he may alter or suspend any particular law frees the state for the good of the nation, especially nestle securities earhart. on you and the last presidential a administration essentially repeated these 400 year old arguments. at a memo he wrote he said the constitution, would not apply, his nasa security situation

there was already an english bible there are already a bible. but as far as the king james felt it did not teach obedience to authority adequately. so he had a new translation, the king james bible, this enormously wonderful literary work and obviously a judge of literary work, but the king james bible exists because he wanted to make sure in the english bible taught people to obey authority. it was actually a political tool . the one group james did not want to make peace with was puritans. he said he would bury them out of the kingdom or hang them or worse. he believed if the subject no

right to rebel and that those a bad thing you attacked the of the subjects only remedy was to respond sob's and tears to god. that was hit. when oxford don asserted a sudden it's unlawfully resist when they're wife was threatened the high commissioner thomas was not a church court system, almost entirely parallel course system and present and then imprisoned to others who defended him. enter sir edward coke. now, few of you have ever heard of him, but i can tell you every single american knows his most famous ruling and the get to that in a minute. he was not a pleasant man. he was assessed with his own interest. there was one thing he cared about more than his own

interest, and that was the war. he was the greatest jurists in english history. he defied common law by reporting and analyzing decisions. his most vicious enemy, and he had many, conceded to the king to give cook his to without his reports the law would be like a ship without ballast. he also said president including prohibiting double jeopardy and the judicial review of legislative acts. that is an art book. but the most important thing to him was what he called the agent rights and liberties of england. when the king issued a decree in tried to enforce it as it was a law cook argued to the king's own privy council, and the privy council is like the cabinet, the president's cabinet, that the king had no power to create law simply by unilateral decree.

and he convinced the king's own privy council to rebut the king on that point. when the king in prison to people without charge cook pioneered the use of habeas corpus to free them. until then habeas corpus had always been used as a tool to expand crowned power. had been used when some regional lord or leader imprisoned somebody outside of london, a writ of habeas corpus forced that regional lord to prove that whoever was imprisoned was imprisoned consistent with the king's law, a way to expand crown power. now, cook for the first time used habeas corpus against the king to make sure whoever the king imprisoned was consistent with the law. regarding the idea of the king being able to overturn the law for reasons of state, cook says, reason the state claims by jakarta.

this was the ruling that everybody in this room and in america does. the house of everyman is his castle. this idea almost 400 years ago when he made the ruling, a castle was not just some torras bought it was a concrete, massive fortress with the lord and soldiers. he is saying these great lords have no more right than the lowest person in england, the same rights and liberties. their home is their castle. so let me and -- not surprisingly saying, he continued his fight a parliament , and when they came was pursuing limits on parliament's rights he gets up

on the floor and says when he says he cannot allow our liberties, he strikes at the root, serve thousands and thousands then he read what he called a protestation expressing parliamentary privileges and rights, and it declared that the liberties, franchises, privileges command jurisdiction of parliament are the engine and then divided birthright and inheritance of the subjects of england. the handling and proceeding of these businesses, every house, every member of the house of parliament of right ought to have freedom of speech. the king did not want parliament to be able to consider certain issues. james, after this was passed by parliament presented to the king in a parliamentary maneuver, a procedural maneuver that did not give the king and opportunity to

rejected. he ended up tearing it out of the lawbooks and ripping it to shreds and then sent cook to the tower of london without charge. cook responded by saying, if the king desires my head, he knows where he may find it. eventually took that out, james dies, his son becomes king. the opposition, the french continues. and cook wrote what is called the petition of right, which is a direct influence on our constitution. several amendments of the bill of rights come out of that. in addition, the habeas corpus clause. he forced it through parliament and then forced -- to put a lot of pressure on charles and forced into excepted. winston churchill calls the

petition of right the main foundation of english, the charter of every self respecting man at any time in any land. now, for much of the time that cook struggling with to kang's to preserve english liberty, at his side was a young man taking notes. they grew so close that he referred to him as his son. the boy was roger williams. williams did not read or study it cook. he had been beside them, gun with him to the star chamber, the privy council, parliament, direct confrontations with the king in person, to gangs, and his views on liberty ran in his veins. he believe in liberty. by the time of the petition of rights, 1628, williams is no longer a boy. he finished cambridge, a

brilliant career as a scholar, and he was a young minister. within days of agreeing to the petition of right charles began violating it. one of the key issues was he was collecting taxes without parliamentary approval. he just agreed never to do it again and started doing it, but in even greater issue was the church of england and its continued drift toward catholicism in this really in planned parliament. parliament reconvened and immediately responded with to attacks hot on the king, and charles dissolved parliament and swore he would never call another, but it was not that simple. soldiers pounding of the door of the house of commons, fist fights on the floor, people physically holding the speaker of the house down in his chair because if he rose that adjourns

commons. he is a tool, represents the king, so he wants to do the king's bidding. those, not by any means all puritans, but those who feared the direction of the church of england and feared the power of the king was exercising, took control of passing a resolution after resolution against peoples. pounding of the door, and they declared those it will fully complied with the king wanted in giving taxes and other things were mes, traders to england. they adjourned the house, doors open to many of the leaders of parliament are arrested and watching it was roger williams. at this time he was a trusted messenger that members of parliament were using.

the last note he carried for one of these members of parliament said, this day in parliament no man almost knowing what to do, the destruction was so sudden and great, he whose heart bleeds not at the threats of these times is so stupid. i pray god send us comfort and with all to be armed for the worst to befall us. the particular is were to have an eyewitness to report. with that witness roger williams . now, cook had given williams a deeper understanding of liberty, power, and of a law, not strictly a narrow legal sense the way it is used in court, but the larger sense the weight is an infrastructure around which society forms of self. there is another influence on williams, francis bacon. now, bacon is one of the most fascinating figures i've ever encountered. i don't have the time to talk

about much about him in this conversation, but they're is a substantial part of the book about him. i will only say he was chancellor of england. he was the most important apologist. they despise each other. they spent much of each other's lives trying to destroy the other. they competed for the same job, the same wife, the competed in court. williams rejected all of his political views, but a sign of his own independence of mind is that he could divorce his rejection on politics and personal corruption for that matter. yet learned from him. kirk could not separate the personality. when bacon gave cook a copy of his magnificent, his great masterpiece, he writes on it, a

ship of fools. william's, however, read it, and as all that. bacon is known as the father of the modern scientific. he demanded that only looking at evidence he understood it was

totally impossible for any. he had written fund in the king danced rival. there is a translation how totally changing for the political purpose. he concluded that no human can and possibly in to prick scripture without error. follow them and no one should force their interpretation he

called doing so monstrous partiality. he taught the best people. he gave people the benefit of the doubt. his enemy, one in a call in the sweetest solo ever knew. another, even more bitter opponent commented on his great sincerity, his disposition is without fault, as i can see. i would be lower than to call his testimony into question and in fitted with many good endowments for service to christ. these were people who violently disagreed with them. he had a brilliant intellect. the idea of freedom reign as core. he sought treatment did not respect authority he had a model

and cook of courage. what today would be called enrichment. you add this together and you can understand why you could have an explosive impact. skipping over the details of the enormous pressure, james and charles put on those political dissenters, which, again, eventually lead to civil war and the beheading. but to summarize i give you one example. one theologian, richard montague, so denigrated kelvin basic, although unofficial theology of the church of england at the time was calvinism. my view, move the church of england much closer to catholicism, justifying his claim to absolute powers, views were considered so extreme, even for charles apologists that parliament chose to to cut ties timid criminal sedition. blocked charges against him and

elevated him to bishop and made him a member of the privy council comment closest advisers. montague then said before god it will never be until we have our own inquisitions. that is the kind of pressure there were putting on dissenters. so these pressures, before they erupted in revolution said dow's the puritans. now we come to john winthrop, governor of massachusetts. he was as one of his critics at the same time his great mislay command as the exemplify the absolute best of the values, he was an avatar of conventional wisdom. he was entirely constructive and not destructive, but there was absolutely nothing original about him. give you a sense of how

important christ was to him and, perhaps, to most, if not all puritans, i want to read from his private journal. he wrote the most sweet love of my heavenly husband. he spoke of my marriage chamber. so high was rest with his love. he kissed me with the kisses of his mouth. my heart leaped with the need for joy, lord my love. someone with this kind of passion for christ, it would not be surprising that he and those who accompanied him to america will determine to the move jerusalem, a new city of god, the glory of god. got informed every aspect of their life in massachusetts, even their legal book read like it came directly from the petition of right.

identical language. no punishment could be imposed unless sabinas some express love the country. no arbitrary power. they added a kind of co dissent. that said punishment could be inflicted. in the particular case. if someone could come up with some interpretation of scripture the person goes to prison rjo that included death for blasphemy and adultery, although they did not execute anybody for blasphemy, cut off their ears.

and they did execute several people for adultery, although more frequently the paris mayor was must what -- much less severe, whipping and you're probably also brought to a familiar with the scarlet letter. williams also wanted a godless society, but he certainly disagreed over using force to impose god's law. almost from the day of his arrival, from the moment he rejected the offer of the ministry of the boston church she confronted other clergy and magistrates, the magistrates were the elected man who basically or all affectively governor or assistant governors, and he developed and did become minister. he, over several years, forced the magistrates and his colleagues in the clergy to retrieve. on one particular issue winthrop reported williams was heard

before all the ministers and clergy, they clearly confuted him, but williams did not consider himself conceded, nor did the body politic because on this same issue williams builds such a popular support for his position, winthrop later noted that the government was forced to retrace it said -- steps. this does not -- this did not help ahu. the magistrates realized that his popularity, in their words, all we made him the more dangerous. and on one thing when most important thing, the magistrates would not retreat, and neither would he. he said from the moment that he arrived that the state had no right to enforce the ten commandments, the commandments which govern human relationship with god.

from day one the state had no business. the second, thou shalt not murder, steel. commit adultery, perjury. those things the state should enforce, but nothing about the relationship between humans and got. years later, matured into a systematic vision of a power the state televisa be the individual, but the basics of everything that ever felt later was comprehensive turned upon this one axiom on the first table. and the government and the clergy could forgive anything as long as the center confessed and conformed, there would be welcome back. they tried repeatedly to bring williams into the fold and get into reform and it failed.

they told him, however, that they would make an exception. they would allow him to think wherever he wanted to think, so long as he remained silent. the trial lasted weeks because they kept giving him changes to recanted. all the ministers of the massachusetts colony were present they could not reduce

them for many of his errors. he was banished. banished from massachusetts, rid of execution if he returned after banishment. they're quite serious this was a specific explicit deal with the agreed to. among his friends he did talk to them about the same issues. word of this got to boston. they ordered a dozen soldiers, rough men with combat veterans from the religious wars in

europe, arrested them and put them immediately on a ship back to london where they immediately were sent to prison for life almost certainly after having their ears caught of and the time removed. like in english prison was a life sentence, generally a very short sentence, not even the rats a well. winthrop, however, was a friend of williams and sent him a warning, a blizzard delayed the soldiers. williams disappeared, fled into the blizzard and never saw salem again. he spent that winner he never

was quite a will to except it had never believed he could have happened that his friends d colleagues had banished him. he could understand it if they had excommunicated him, but he had been banned from the civil society. he could never grasp. the indians saved his life. his relationship absolutely crucial. crucial to american history, even though i'm skipping over. but the very key to what happens later. in this spring he settled what he believed was outside in the english standard -- boundary. a few followers joined him. he got a note from plymouth. he get a note from the governor of plymouth with said he had fallen to the edge of bounds.

plymouth feared to displease methods used -- massachusetts. he had to move. he did say, if he removed but to the other side of the water he would be outside in the english jurisdiction, and we should be loving neighbors together. there the other side of the water you will have the country free of for him. he could make of it what he would. now, of course, he founded providence rhode island and made it by far the freest society in the world. the governing compact in every other colony in the americans, whether founded by the english, french, spanish, or portuguese all started out as being founded for the glory of god. undertaken for the glory of god and the advancement of christmas -- christian religion.

the entirely civil document, entirely secular, government, the only civil and only secular. providence was a place where the soul was going to be free. he began using the phrase soul liberty, which was later picked up. now, as rhode island grew and prospered massachusetts looked with displeasure on those parts which have become very offensive. they feared that this freedom, and freedom of religion and ryland was this dangerous infection that might spread to

massachusetts and corrupt massachusetts society. then, of course, let's not forget, all this land up there, it was likely to be pieced u.s. so they probably seized part of ryland. they marched soldiers threw what is now ryland. the dispossessed people living there on land they had bought from the indians and ordered them not to enter any part of our jurisdiction, including the lands he pretended to have purchased upon peril of your life. the only way rhode island in williams ideas could survive was it williams went back to london and up protection from parliament. by now the civil war had started, the king had fled london, parliament was in control, he had many friends. in massachusetts, they also needed parliamentary support for its own survival.

they could not really take on parliament. williams was quite happy to go because the intended not only to protect his colony but to spread his ideas. morceli, revolutionary london the possibilities in the old world were even greater than the new world. the old world was or action was. people were leaving massachusetts to go back to london to participate in the english revolution he made several trips back to london and spent several years there. he succeeded brilliantly. he won leal charters for his colony by winning the protection of cromwell who had known for 20 plus years and was quite influential. cromwell was the one person that massachusetts was afraid of. the back of canal was the end of

it. more importantly williams and what made him a major figure was that he became a huge figure in revolutionary london. this is the time referred to as the world turned upside down. europe had been alive. there is no king. everything seemed possible. there was this whole fix, and he arrived in london having on board ship while traveling and had to go to new amsterdam. only a few miles away. he had been banished. he wrote a book called the key to language of america. a brilliant anthropological study. many books and indians. this is by far the best. actually, i think tom can give you a copy.

anyway, no longer just a friend of cromwell begging for attention. he was a person in his own right his views were sought out. by no means the only person. he was a close friend of john milton. depending on how will you know in this politics, his closest friend. very tight. end then he struck out of the largest question, the series of publications the question of church, state, and freedom. finally he produced a masterpiece, something called the bloody ten a persecution. it is a 4-under page analysis of history, law, logic, experience, and, of course, conscription.

he lived through what happens in the church in massachusetts and the political establishment. he believed the state cannot touch this church without corrupting it. he knew when you mix religion and politics you get politics. even when those who are strong believers in a christian nation cannot deny that. 150 years before jefferson he called fur a war of separation between the wilderness of the world and the garden of the church. his goal was to protect the church he despised hypocrisy. also given the possibility of interpreting the bible, he

demanded that permission be granted to the most anti christian conscience is in all nations of the country. he wrote that forced worships thinks of gauze nostrils and compared it discourage all. he went so far as massachusetts was pressuring indians to convert to christianity people who leave indians should convert to christianity. he personally preach to india is to get them to convert to christianity the heart and the influence and not to be forced by threats stop massachusetts from forcing indians to convert to christianity. there are at least 180 books and

pamphlets the next few years after that published specifically addressing him by name. that is a lot of publications. he loved the mainstream. even more publications as his ideas spread. no longer had to identify the author of the idea. it's just out there. you just discussed the idea itself. so it is really the side of the exceptions of his role in the debate. stop that everyone reads. fact, it was a minority. but more being cited published and did not attribute some of to help cover even though the copied it word for word down to a typographical errors. no attribution. and he went far beyond when he talked about allowing freedom of worship. he went far beyond anyone knows of the time.

even among those who wanted toleration the question was whether there would be a uniform worship and a uniform church of england or some protestant sects would be allowed to wash it -- worship freely. among those few not one, not one that wanted a diaz to be allowed. williams what he called anti christian. his impact was enormous ritually every scholar. everything john locke said was a derivative of williams.

his most revolutionary statements dealt with politics. let me read something he said about the church that is politically irrelevant. the church or a company of worshipers is likened to a corporation society or company of east india or turkey merchants or any other society or company in london, which companies may descend, divide, break into this prison, faction, and holly dissolved and break up into pieces. yet the city itself be not in the least measure impair discouraged. so the church is no different than any other entity in life. separate from the society itself, not integral. remember, this is a devout puritan. then he get even more. at the time, even those who

disputed the right of kings enough that they fought a revolution against it still believe that the authority of government came from god. no member of parliament, even in the middle of the civil war argued otherwise. in america, even when the after being elected governor of massachusetts made an address to the free men and said, there were chosen by you, our authority comes from god. nobody thought that was an arrogant statement. everyone agreed. extraordinary. williams was the first person in the modern world. i mean, even hugo, if you know it's a national, contemporary, talking about -- i don't want to get into it just now. soria went there. but even he wanted a national

search. in fact, he admired the way the church of england works. so williams was the first person in modern world to link the freedom of religion to politics and to say that governments entirely secular. i get your 30. where does it come from? i infer that the sovereign foundation of civil power lies in the people. governments have no power nor time than the sole power of people consenting and agreeing show trust them with. now, this is three years before the most radical elements in london. anything like that, and they were quoting them, influenced by him. and the idea that it sounds so and revolutionary tests because it is so much, place, everyone in this room.

nobody believed it when he said it. he was entirely alone. he rejected a view which was universally known and what some people of today. adversaries and massachusetts said if the church and people following from god, god will visit the country. remind you of what jerry baldwin said. it is exactly the same thing. he called themself a diligent and constant observer of evidence. he did almost a quantitative analysis. he looked around, in addition to cook his uncle was the mayor of london, brother was an international trader and put literally all over the world. it divided the world into

roughly 30 places caught 30 sections, and as he pointed out, 25 of them never heard the word of god. anyway, he said looking at all the evidence, if success be the measure then reason and experience proust calamity and success can relate to all and are no argument of god's love and fate. therefore, he included, that a christian magistrate or government official is no more and no better a magistrate then one of any other religion. try saying that today in south carolina and getting a vote. that brings us back to the present. the constitution numbers not from theory. it came as a specific response to specific historical events. they start part of the story. as much as winthrops this and

inform the american culture so does williams as i said earlier, every document but ryland has gone to furthering the religious religion. does not mention god, and neither does the constitution. the declaration mentions the creator, but in the constitution , there is no reference to any entity which could possibly be mistaken for got. instead it does you the word blessing, and i know i am sure the writer is well aware. the only blessing he astros the blessing of liberty. in 1963 the supreme court, school prayer was a violation of the first amendment, the closest conference ever came to any real action on that an amendment that

will allow school prayer. prior to the floor vote on the amendment, a lot of votes. actually, this story i know because my wife works. ticket very seriously, amending the constitution. he fought hard, walk down to the floor of the senate with a stack of books. and gave one of the most of the most deeply analytical, legal and philosophical analysis ever given in the first amendment. available online.

he ended up sounding like williams. he started by speaking at his ancestors, murder upon the cracks because they dissented from the doctrines of the establishment. let stand by the first amendment that is has been written and interpreted. i close with a prayer that the senate will do exactly this and no more. just a little bit more. up close with a couple things. the word conformist and nonconformist said its pacific limited meeting -- meaning defined by whether one bidder did not get here. in america of the word took on a more general and a limited social cultural meaning. williams wished to conform in this more general sense, but he

could not. he simply could not. any power which would force conformity. championing a new kind of individualism, almost by default he had been forced the views of individualism, freedom and nonconformity in both the specific in general santos. details in both england and this parcel of america that was our island. if williams ideas nonetheless became quintessentially american , so did winthrops. he saw the individual standing alone with god and glorious isolation and so independent of the state as to be almost outside it. it went from saw a state committed to christian ideals demanding conformity and opposing community standards upon individuals. between williams use on one side of those and went above the other was a tension, and that very tension is also essentially american cultural commentators

speak of the guests with some form a society. no myth that terrigenous came to build a christian country, a city on a hill that would shine from laurel to city. they believe themselves to be chosen and blessed by god. the belief was not myth of reality. lee is also not with the reality that those puritans would not submit there would not submit. there would not even sit silently as nonparticipants

while others listen to prayers'. it is also not met the reality that another and former principal pranced like a great river through american history and culture. they don't enforce those of the ten commandments for its divine the relationship. he belonged to the 17th century and was one of the most remarkable men of the century with absolute faith in the bible and absolute faith in his own interpretation of it he believe that monstrous, another person, compel conformity to his or anyone else's use.

his enemies called him a firebrand. they feared the conflagration of free thought would ignite and lack faith in the source of god words. they feared being challenged in having their world under challenge to. they feared chaos of freedom, and they feared the loneliness of it. williams embraced all that. freedom, he believed, was worth it, his wife and all. risking one's life is rare, but not so rare that it is not seen on many. roger williams, this devout. and, man of faith to love god, willing to risk more than his life for all the remarkable things he said, the most remarkable was this, having brought to bear we must not so cheap, nor the least crane of it for the whole world, no, not for the saving of souls of our own most precious.

so he knew that to believe in freedom and liberty required faith in the freedom of thought of conscience, and that was liberty. and one last couple of paragraphs. winthrop wrote him soon after his banishment. as i said earlier, he maintained relationships. the first question williams answered, confess my gains the loss of friends, but he went on

to say that he hoped to gain the excellency, the knowledge of christ, jesus my lord. later he spoke of freedom saying your case is the worst because you're very judgment and conscience leads you to spite their fellow servants, expel them the second question about what spirit and what end, whether the spirit of christ jesus, the spirit of antichrist i also see jesus. thank you very much, and i'll take questions.

[applause] >> very kind to say the things that i do. i appreciate what they do as well. go ahead. >> i can speak loudly. >> you first used the word when he spoke in massachusetts. >> were the laws, five then all

was a common-law. >> -leros something that they called the massachusetts body of liberty. it was separate legal code. and in england there was really the petition of right. and common law. >> they actually codified the whole thing, yes. >> thank you. >> sure. >> move a little bit closer. can you hear okay? >> how did we end up back where we started? >> i don't think we ever left. the argument has been ongoing,

and, of course, these days i think it is -- these days those who believe we are a christian nation think everybody who thinks otherwise is an atheist or, at best, a secularist. the idea, i think it is important to understand that the idea was to protect the church. the key -- of course what he talked about i did not get into. there is this concept that the state should be the berthing father of the church, but what he realizes that is great in theory, but some human has to make those decisions on what is good for the church. someone in politics is ultimately going to be deciding something for the church if there going to be.

that is what he objected to, speaking as an arm of god. someone in politics, a frail human, and not even a minister. king james, whom he knew was a corrupt man and held the church of england, king charles to he knew was not quite as corrupt was still had the church of england and many other priorities beside the church. this concept he found fatally flawed because, again, some person, some man who was a politician had to be making decisions about the church. again, the idea that forced worship stinks' in god's nostrils. he thought god did not excepted parker si, so all these people who would prey without really meaning it or not paying a lot of attention are without