Roger Williams, founder of Rhode Island and a resolute defender of religious liberty, was born of middle class parents in London in about 1603. He grew up in the Church of England, the most obvious option, since all over England it was the legally establish church, the official church, and the national church. It was a time when men and women were still being sent to the Tower of London for disobeying the crown; when dissenters were either driven from the kingdom, or burned at the stake.

As persecution and punishment intensified, many people left England and settled in the American colonies. Among these "Puritans" as they were called, were Roger and Mary Williams who arrived in 1631. Unlike other Puritans who wished to "reform" the corrupted Church of England, Williams had to separate himself completely, believing "it was not possible nor honorable to pledge loyalty to an institution that one intended to remake. My conscience was persuaded against the national church and ceremonies."

Williams not only challenged other colonists who had not cut themselves cleanly from England's church, he even questioned the right of the civil magistrates to enforce the purely religious rules. He believed in a total separation of powers between the church and civil government. He believed the Law of Moses belonged strictly to the realm of religion, not of civil authority, that the religious laws were matters for "individual conscience" not for the sheriff.

The Puritans in Boston disagreed with Williams and were agitated by his thoughts. They believed both civil and ecclesiastical government must rely upon a firm partnership to make Massachusetts work. Williams persisted in his liberal views believing that nations should not compel the religion of its people. He made a distinction between "Christendom" and "Christianity" the former being the polluting mixture of politics and religion, and the latter being a thirsting after righteousness. "Demanding that men accept a certain religion was" said Williams, "like requiring an unwilling spouse to enter into a forced bed." In a book published in England, he called the alliance of church and state, "a bloody tenent of persecution." Williams proclaimed the essential difference between the church and the state must never be confounded or muddled. When God's people open "a gap in the hedge or 'wall of separation' between the Garden of the Church and the Wilderness of the World, God hath ever broke down the wall itself and made his Garden a Wilderness, as at this day." The only way to set things right was to carefully clean out the church garden and rebuild that wall around it. Williams was banished from the Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1635 for having "erroneous and very dangerous" opinions.

History confirms the fact that establishing a church within civil government leads to unrighteous dominion, and promotes feelings of arrogance and superiority from the clergy (and sometimes its church members) because they not only set themselves up as judges of human conscience but they assume the power to set their own moral agendas, and determine which religions are worthy of tolerating, and those which are not. To Roger Williams, "mere toleration" was not a worthy goal, only total "freedom of conscience" would suffice, and it had to be extended to all consciences, "Paganish, Jewish, Turkish, or Antichristian." He believed "true civility and Christianity may both flourish" in that state or kingdom which had the courage to guarantee liberty to "diverse and contrary consciences." In other words, Williams believed both the church and the state could not only survive separately, but flourish as well, so long as every person could believe as their conscience dictated.

Forty-five years later, John Locke gave the world a nudge along its path toward freedom when he published his Letter on Toleration. His essay influenced the passage of England's Toleration Act of 1689 which finally ended the persecution of Protestant dissenters. However, the Act only achieved partial "liberty of conscience" because the established church still exercised its power; the Act did not apply to Catholics, Unitarians, or Atheists, and it excluded dissenters from holding political office.

During the colonial period in Virginia, and up until the Constitution and Bill of Rights were adopted, tolerance was still defined by the dominant faith; for example: 1) The Episcopal church was the established church, and it tolerated the existence of a few other religions 2) Laws were established requiring church attendance 3) Citizens were punished for holding certain beliefs contrary to the Episcopal belief 4) Baptist preachers were stoned and jailed for preaching and publishing their religious sentiments 5) Forced tithes were collected by the civil powers, and 6) Males were required to take oaths of loyalty to various government officials. (Encyclopedia Britannica)

James Madison, author or our Constitution, was appalled by the injustices he observed in Virginia and felt that religious tolerance was only the "half way point on the road to freedom," that it was an unacceptable principle for civil government to adopt because "there existed an assumption of superiority of the established sect." One church would assume special privileges, which would result in favoritism at the expense of others. Madison argued (as did Roger Williams) that religion was totally outside the scope of civil authority, and a law compelling people to support it financially was a violation of the constitutional guarantee of "freedom of conscience." He termed tax support "an establishment of religion and a violation of the individual taxpayer's religious liberty." As a result, he was instrumental in constructing the wording in the First Amendment, which prevents government from establishing religion. (William and Mary Quarterly, January 1951)

Obviously, the meaning of religious tolerance has evolved. The concept began as an attempt to end religious persecution and punishment by the national church, and today is thought of mainly as an attitude which "allows" some sort of "difference from the established standard." This implies there still remains a superior-inferior relationship, and that the superior entity in the relationship is in control. It sets the rules for "community standards" and is many times made up of people in the dominant religion in a town or city.

So how far have we really come in terms of tolerance? We're not burning people at the stake anymore, but those who are "different" are still being psychologically banished if they don't go along with the status quo. Almost every day we read or hear about murders, acts of violence, or ostracism perpetuated on others because of race, religion, sex, political affiliation, or AIDS. In fact, AIDS has become an American object lesson in intolerance. "Children with AIDS have had school doors barred. Parents of such children have watched their homes burn. Women with AIDS are routinely seen, in even the nicest company, as 'dirty women.' Men with AIDS have died by the hundreds of thousands, and their only memorial so far is a traveling quilt they no longer need to stay warm." (Mary Fisher, USA Weekend, 11-19-95)

And, Religious Intolerance is still being practiced in some cities under the guise of "community standards." For example, Provo Mayor George Stewart has single-handedly shut down the public swimming pool on Sunday claiming "community standards" dictate his decision. He, however, left the public golf course open on Sunday because of behind-the-scenes, influential arm-twisting. We can only assume that "money talks," and minorities without that kind of clout still suffer from discrimination and persecution.

It's interesting to note that the United Nations has declared 1995 as the Year for Tolerance. Their definition is as follows: "Tolerance on the part of each and every one means an attitude devoid of arrogance in relations between the generations, the sexes, individuals and communities, and between the human race and nature."

But its one thing to define tolerance as an attitude "devoid of arrogance," but quite another to practice it. Despite our brilliance and capacity for setting lofty ideals, we fall short of reaching them because no matter how liberal we are, we still remain creatures of prejudice, temper, and the irrational. We still appraise the environment according to our own experience and cultural background. So, should we give up on the word tolerance and choose another? Or do we keep refining its definition to mean something more open-minded? Changing attitudes and behaviors is a slow and sometimes arduous process, yet the difficulty of the task must not be a reason to keep from trying. People have the capacity to change if they want to, and it's a never-ending process. It takes becoming aware of their own ethnocentric behaviors and feelings. It also takes education, critical reflection, and effort. The results could be liberating for both individuals and societies.

--Nancy Moore