Jeremiah 31:31-34
2 Corinthians 3:1‑18

No!  No!  No!  That seems to have been Roger Williams' favorite word.  He used the word so often that it led him to found the colony of Rhode Island and to being one of the founders of the first Baptist church in the colonies of this land.  Roger Williams began his life as an Anglican later was a Baptist and concluded his life as a Quaker.  His movement into different faith communities was related to his search and courageous stand for religious liberty.  And it was his quest for religious liberty that caused him to say, “No,” so often. 
           
To the Anglican state Church of England Roger Williams said, "No."  To the King of England who usurped land from the Native Americans on these shores Roger Williams said, "No."  To the legislation of saying grace before meals Roger Williams said, "No."  He rebelled by saying grace after a meal.  Many have followed his approach but for a different reason.  They are not sure they will be thankful for the meal until after they have eaten it.  To the enforcement of Sabbath rules Roger Williams said, "No."  The Puritans, our religious fore parents in the United Church of Christ, formed the Massachusetts Bay Colony.  They arrived in Massachusetts because they were fleeing religious persecution in England.  As they became established as a colony one of the first things the Puritans did was to establish a religion to which all in the colony had to adhere.  They in turn persecuted those who did not adhere to the religious standards they had established.  They were repeating the very practice that had motivated them to flee England.  Roger Williams protested vehemently and used his favorite word, “No.”  Eventually the Massachusetts Bay Colony said, "No," to Roger Williams and banished him from the colony.  He had to flee for his life. 
           
If Roger Williams were alive today he would still be sounding out his favorite word:  "No," to government sponsored prayer in public schools; "No," to tuition tax credits for private schools; "No," to a Year of the Bible proclaimed by the President; "No," to tax breaks for churches and ministers; "No" to chaplains paid by public monies; "No," to the imprint "In God We Trust" on our coins.
    
Behind all the "no's" of Roger Williams was a resounding yes.  His life was lived as a yes for freedom, especially religious freedom.  The Puritans insisted that they believed in freedom, freedom to establish a godly colony, a theocracy, a "Zion in the wilderness."  They attempted a bold experiment: a new government and a new church together forming a God‑fearing, God‑serving community of faith.
           
That was what Roger Williams challenged.  He challenged an assumption that was 1300 years old, the assumption that church and government must reinforce each other.  Williams said, "Yes" to freedom but "No" to the assumption.  What a revolutionary idea!  He shook the foundations.  Roger Williams said "Yes" to freedom of believing or not believing...responding to God or not responding...worshipping or not worshipping.  Imagine the freedom to be Protestant, Catholic, atheist, Muslim, or Jew; free to support the church financially and personally or free to withhold support.  A lot of people have chosen this last option!  Roger Williams wrote in bold letters across the pages of our nation's history:  No coercion in matters of Faith, Hope, and Love!
    
When the United States of America were constituted as a nation, it was the first time in history that a government was established without any relationship to religion or to a religious institution.  The constitution of the United States became official on June 21, 1788 when New Hampshire became the ninth state to ratify.  Three years later the Bill of Rights became part of the constitution and first among the amendments was the guarantee of religious liberty, but that did not settle the issue.  Actually, religious liberty is an increasingly important issue; the Supreme Court deals with a church/state case nearly every session.
           
We can and must keep separate the activities of the church and the state.  We hold dear the vital separation of church and state.  But we should never confuse the separation of church and state with the separation of faith and politics.  The two are inseparable.  Our faith has to lead us to take action in the political realm; otherwise it is both a hollow and a shallow faith. 
           
Throughout his ministry Jesus’ activity was both profoundly religious and profoundly political.  He was building a community among those who had been ground under the heels of both their imperial Roman overlords and the powerful elites among their own people who collaborated with the Empire.  This community recognized God as their only king and had as their first creed, “Jesus is Lord.”  This simple three-word formula is clearly a religious statement.  But in the first century, it was also a bold political statement. (Steve Hyde, “Reflections,” Regarding Ravensworth, June 1, 2008)
           
During this Presidential election year there is a heightened interest in the relationship of faith and politics.  In recent years actions taken by both religious and political leaders have threatened through a desire for uniformity to diminish if not destroy the freedom of religious expression.  Religious liberty has become an issue of increasing concern to me.  There has been a strong effort by some to legislate morality and religious practice.  Since September 11, 2001, there has been an increase of crimes against faith communities, especially against Muslims and to a lesser extend against those who offer support to Muslims.  
           
We need to be diligent in the practice of our faith.  We need to be diligent in defending the freedom of every person to worship God without coercion of any kind.  We must be diligent in defending and protecting the right of every person not to worship. We must be diligent in working for the freedom of religion and the freedom from religion.
           
The words of Paul to the Corinthians are uplifting and encouraging:  "Where the Presence of God is, there is liberty" (2 Cor. 3:17).  On the one hand no one, no force can prevent any of us from worshipping God because no one can get inside of our minds and control our thoughts.  This is part of what makes mute and ridiculous the statement that the Supreme Court has taken God out of the schools.  In 1963 my high school history teacher said, “As long as I give tests there will be prayer in schools.” On the other hand if one person or group is imposing its way of life or its approach toward worship onto another person or group then liberty is diminished.  People are not experiencing liberty when their outward expressions are molded, shaped, and formed as a result of coercion, legislation, or intimidation and those outward expressions are different from their inward experiences. 
           
The Puritans were intimidated and persecuted in England because they denied ecclesiastical authority to the King.  They were convinced that the King should not tell people in the church how to worship or what actions the church could or could not take.  When the opportunity to travel to a new land arose, many of them were eager for the adventure and hoped for a place of religious liberty.  They came to Plymouth, Massachusetts and there is inscribed this dedication for their action:  "To the forefathers in recognition of their labors, sacrifices and sufferings for the cause of civil and religious liberty."  That was in 1620 but religious liberty did not last a century in the Massachusetts Bay Colony.  By 1692 the entrenched Puritan hostility to freedom of thought and speech helped cause the deaths of nineteen men and women during the Salem witch trials.  Artemas Ward summed up the attitude and actions of the Puritans:  "The Puritans nobly fled from a land of despotism to a land of freedom where they could not only enjoy their own religion, but could prevent everybody else from enjoying his."
           
The mix of people and beliefs was dangerous for believers who happened to be in the wrong religion.  The wrong religion conveniently was the religion of those in the minority.  Quakers were beaten, exiled, even executed in Massachusetts.  Presbyterians who moved into Virginia were denied voting and other civil rights by dominant Episcopalians.  Catholics who were denounced in most colonies found a haven in Maryland, dubbed the "Free State" for its religious tolerance; however, Jews could not vote or hold office in Maryland and the penalty for blasphemy was a fine of 40 pounds sterling and a hole bored in the blasphemer's tongue.  The religious persecution and denial of religious liberty did not stop there.  No denomination has had a more bitter taste of home‑grown religious intolerance than the Mormons.  The founder of Mormonism, Joseph Smith, was tarred and feathered in New York; Mormon Wars occurred in our own state of Illinois and Utah; Joseph Smith and his brother died at the hands of a lynch mob. 
           
One further illustration was the battle between Catholics and Protestants and the Army in 1871 when 54 people were killed.  That did not happen in Belfast but on 8th Avenue in New York City.  
           
It was the awareness of some of this harassment, persecution, and denial of religious liberty that caused the framers of the Constitution to give serious consideration and finally adoption to the Bill of Rights.  The framers of the Constitution were from very different religions.  It may be properly questioned whether Benjamin Franklin had any religious conviction.  George Washington was an Episcopalian, Thomas Jefferson was a Diest, and John Adams was a Calvinist.  Jefferson said his proudest achievement was drafting the Virginia statute of religious freedom.  Thus he said, "The God who gave us life gave us liberty at the same time."  James Madison is credited with leading the debate for the Bill of Rights, but not without some serious prodding by a Baptist named James Leland.  Madison did not think there was a need for a statement to guarantee religious liberty.  Leland and fellow Baptists felt so strongly about this issue that Leland threatened to run against Madison to represent Virginia at the Continental Congress.  After Leland and Madison discussed the issue, Madison agreed with Leland about a statement on religious liberty and Leland agreed not to run against Madison.  Later, Madison said, "Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of other sects?" 
           
Religious liberty has not always been a part of our history.  The formation of the First Amendment which states that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof....," came as a result of experience with religion in the colonies of this country.  By law religion and government are enjoined from merging.
           
Evidence abounds throughout the history of our nation of efforts by some to impose their religious convictions onto others.  The tension caused by the separation of church and state has resulted in numerous Supreme Court rulings.   
           
The prevailing winds of fear, insecurity, and uncertainty have been blowing for several years.  These have increased dramatically since September 11, 2001.  As this storm continues to rage, people are tempted to grab at anything that offers calmness, order, security, and certainty.  As James Dunn, a contemporary champion of religious liberty, has said, "An orgy of certainty threatens to take freedom captive."  Many people are attempting to establish certainty for the social and political realms of life by establishing a religion by which all citizens are required to abide.  The struggle for freedom has involved struggle against authoritarian church powers who would control the beliefs and practices of believers and congregations alike. 
           
Do you ever wonder about people who are so sure of the importance of their endeavor, its righteousness and its justice that they are certain God is on their side aiding their cause?  Many believe God has blessed this nation because for some reason they believe God is partial to the United States.  Those of us who are part of the church and committed to Christianity need to refute such statements and suggestions.  God shows no partiality to people whether they are in England, Nicaragua, Vietnam, Iraq, Iran, Cuba, or the United States.  What is communicated about God and us if we state that God is partial to the United States or allow such a statement to go unchallenged?  It is wrong to identify the rule of God with any nation or government.  Such attitude and action harnesses God to the service of that nation.  This puts God to work in the service of patriotism. 
           
Invoking the name of God often is a way of saying that this matter or that matter is beyond thought, beyond analysis, that it is a matter of faith and therefore beyond debate.  There is no need or reason for anything to be beyond debate.  Often it is in the free exchange of differing and opposing views that we are challenged to reexamine ideas and beliefs as well as to think new thoughts and develop new ideas. 
           
Much has been said in recent years about prayer in public schools, tuition tax credits, faith based initiatives, and other suggestions that would subvert the First Amendment guarantee of religious liberty.  Government is frequently tempted and eager to use religion for its own end and organized religion is often willing to utilize the power of the state to coerce belief and practice.  We must resist both approaches as our foreparents resisted.  Roger Williams was the pioneer resister on this soil with all of his "No's" which enabled him to say "Yes," to religious liberty. 
           
With regard to an amendment establishing prayer in public schools, the comments of Richard Cohen and George Will are insightful.  Cohen stated:  "You cannot sanitize a prayer enough so that it can be everyone's prayer.  If it is said in a public school that makes it the state's prayer and thus the state's religion."  ("Prayer," The Washington Post, May 9, 1982.)  Here is George Will's comment:  "Supermarkets sell processed cheese and instant mashed potatoes, so many people in the country must like bland substitutes for real things.  But it is one thing for the nation's palate to tolerate frozen waffles; it is another and more serious thing for the nation's soul to be satisfied with add‑water‑and‑stir instant religiosity.  When government acts as liturgist for a pluralistic society, the result is bound to be a pure'e that is tasteless, in several senses." ("Opposing Prefab Prayer," Newsweek, 6/7/82)  It is interesting that according to some polls more people in the United States favor prayers in schools than regularly pray in church.  It is another attempt at legislating religious practice and morality.  Roger Williams said, "No," and so should we. 
           
A perpetual passion for freedom has found doctrinal expression in the concept of "soul liberty"‑the right of every individual to exercise conscience‑and institutional expression in the concept of autonomous congregations‑church fellowships bound to each other only by means of voluntary cooperation.  It is a basic premise and principle of the United Church of Christ.   
           
Religious liberty is a right guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution.  During this week when we celebrate our nation’s birthday, may we renew our commitment to religious liberty.  May we never permit anything to influence us in a way that will cause us to surrender our conviction for and commitment to religious liberty.  Where the Presence of God is there is liberty.  May we learn from Roger Williams.  Let us recognize there are things to which we need to say "No," so that, along with Roger Williams, we then can say a resounding "Yes," to religious liberty. 

Bibliography
Steve Hyde, “Reflections,” Regarding Ravensworth, June 1, 2008
Richard Cohen, "Prayer," The Washington Post, May 9, 1982.
George Will, "Opposing Prefab Prayer," Newsweek, June 7, 1982.
Welton Gaddy, "The Autonomy of Believers" The Broadway Pulpit, February 20, 1983.
Ted Kennedy, "Tolerance and Truth in America," Speech delivered at Liberty Baptist College, October 3, 1983.
Lowell Weiker, Jr. "Back to the Future," Church and State, March 1986, vol. 39, no. 3, pp. 10‑13.