Developing: Pakistani Plane Escorted by UK Fighter Jets — 2 Men Arrested

Doc Thompson’s 24-hour radio marathon, ‘#24forok,’ continues until 9 am ET — Listen Live!

Faith

Students Crack RI Founding Father & Religious Dissident Roger Williams’ 17th Century Secret Code

Nov. 30, 2012 10:30pm Billy Hallowell

Brown Students Crack Roger Williams Secret Code | Rhode Island

This image provided by Brown University shows the preface page of the “Mystery Book” from the John Carter Brown Library in Providence, R.I. Lucas Mason-Brown, a senior mathematics major at Brown University, helped crack a mysterious shorthand code developed and used by religious dissident Roger Williams in the 17th century. (AP Photo/John Carter Brown Library at Brown University)

PROVIDENCE, R.I. (AP) — The obscure book’s margins are virtually filled with clusters of curious foreign characters – a mysterious shorthand used by 17th century religious dissident Roger Williams.

For centuries the scribbles went undeciphered. But a team of Brown University students has finally cracked the code.

Historians call the now-readable writings the most significant addition to Williams scholarship in a generation or more. Williams is Rhode Island’s founder and best known as the first figure to argue for the principle of the separation of church and state that would later be enshrined in the Bill of Rights.

His coded writings are in the form of notes in the margins of a book at the university’s John Carter Brown Library. The nearly 250-page volume, “An Essay Towards the Reconciling of Differences Among Christians,” was donated in the 1800s and included a handwritten note identifying Williams as the notes’ author – though even that was uncertain at first.

A group including former library director Edward Widmer, Williams scholar and Rhode Island College history professor emeritus J. Stanley Lemons and others at Brown started trying to unravel the so-called “Mystery Book” a few years ago. But the most intense work began earlier this year after the university opened up the challenge to undergraduates, several of whom launched an independent project.

“No one had ever looked at it systematically like this in generations,” said Widmer. “I think people probably looked at it and shrugged.”

Senior math major Lucas Mason-Brown, who has done the majority of the decoding, said his first instinct was to develop a statistical tool. The 21-year-old from Belmont, Mass., used frequency analysis, which looks at the frequency of letters or groups of letters in a text, but initially didn’t get far.

He picked up critical clues after learning Williams had been trained in shorthand as a court stenographer in London, and built his own proprietary shorthand off an existing system. Lucas-Brown refined his analysis and came up with a rough key.

In this Thursday, Nov. 29, 2012 photo, Lucas Mason-Brown, a senior mathematics major at Brown University who helped crack a mysterious shorthand code developed and used by religious dissident Roger Williams in the 17th century, stands for a photo outside the John Carter Brown Library on the university’s campus in Providence, R.I. Credit: AP

Williams’ system consisted of 28 symbols that stand for a combination of English letters or sounds. How they’re arranged is key to their meaning; arrange them one way and you get one word, arrange them another, you get something different. One major complication, according to Mason-Brown: Williams often improvised.

From there, Mason-Brown was able to translate scattered fragments, and the students determined there were three separate sections of notes. Two are Williams’ writings on other books, a 17th century historical geography and a medical text. The third – and most intriguing – is 20 pages of Williams’ original thoughts on one of the major theological issues of the day: infant baptism.

Williams also weighed in on the conversion of Native Americans, implying it was being achieved through treachery and coercion, said Linford Fisher, a history professor at Brown who has been working with Mason-Brown.

Fisher said the new material is important in part because it’s among Williams’ last work, believed to have been written after 1679 in the last four years of his life.

Widmer said the new discovery is remarkable on several levels.

“Part of it was the excitement of a mystery being cracked, and part of it was Roger Williams is very famous in Rhode Island – no other state has a founder as tied up with the state’s identity as Rhode Island,” he said. “To have a major new source, a major new document, from Roger Williams is a big deal.”

In CONTROL, Glenn Beck presents a passionate, fact-based case for guns that reveals why gun control isn’t really about controlling guns at all; it’s about controlling us. Find out more HERE.

Back to The Blaze »

Comments (80)

universalphilos
Posted on December 9, 2012 at 12:10am
Spiritual guidance to one man, August 20, 1975, may be of value to many to hear: “Become that of an attorney, that the laws of this land may be changed in such a manner that it should stand as a nation before God. The founders of [your] nation did write your Constitution, your Bill of Rights. They brought forth that of freedom of religion. Since that time, three million laws have been passed to suppress your rights.”

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
frenchdragon
Posted on December 2, 2012 at 3:19pm
There are a couple of things I find amusing. Why when being sworn in as a witness in court, do you have to swear on the Bible? When Obama was sworn in as president, he have to be prompted to say “So help me God”! It’s because this country was founded in Judeo-Christian principles and the thought was that no one would dare lie to God.

This goes against some peoples feelings today. I’m NOT one of them.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- SoNick
  Posted on December 2, 2012 at 5:11pm
  he swore on the Bible because he’s a Christian and traditionally, that’s how things have always been done. But tradition does not mean law and you could could easily decide to use another book, or no book at all. Roosevelt did not swear on the Bible. John Quicy Adams swore on a book of law. Other presidents refused to “swear” for religious reasons, and decided to “affirm” instead. Remember: “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States »
  
  Report this comment
- minorityconservative2
  Posted on December 3, 2012 at 3:12pm
  Whether he is a CHRISTian or not is debatable. Not all who say they are, are. Some lie to attain public office/confidence. The fact that it is a tradition only further proves our nation was founded on CHRISTian principles and values, by CHRISTians. I think that was the point of what they were trying to say here in refutation of liberal’s denial of such.
  
  Report this comment
RoguePO
Posted on December 2, 2012 at 4:20am
Can we not have “reporters” copy/past articles and actually do their own “work”.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
RoguePO
Posted on December 2, 2012 at 4:18am
Exact same article is on Yahoo……. So what did the text say I’ve yet to read what they decoded?

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- airportengineer
  Posted on December 2, 2012 at 5:05pm
  My thoughts exactly!!
  
  Report this comment
MainMan
Posted on December 1, 2012 at 1:25pm
If we have separation of C and S then Obama (Barry) needs to step down from office, because he is God right.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- idarusskie
  Posted on December 1, 2012 at 9:37pm
  the separation of church and state is not enshrined in the bill of rights. the congress establishmentation of religion is.
  
  Report this comment
- bree001
  Posted on December 2, 2012 at 4:06pm
  Since Obama is trying to establish himself as some sort of God/Religion, then he should step down because it is unconstitutional.
  
  Report this comment
FL-Okie
Posted on December 1, 2012 at 11:25am
@Sonic (and others), You make the mistake of using “establish” in the modern sense of “create or start.” The Founders, when writing the Constitution, used the word in a more precise, technical way. The Church of England was called “The Established Church.” It was linked to the government (in several ways) and received funding from the government. No other church was permitted initially, and though this gradually changed, the Dissenting Churches were subject to limitations and their members still required to financially support the Established Church. When the First Amendment was written, prohibiting Congress from passing a law ESTABLISHING a RELIGION, it was in this sense. What Congress (and maybe the states subsequent to the 14th Amendment) cannot do is establish a religion or a specific church as the official faith of the country and the recipient of either direct funding from the government (i.e., taxpayer dollars) or indirect funding by requiring the payment of tithes and offerings to the designated church by the people regardless of their own beliefs or interests. The First Amendment has NOTHING to do with keeping the influence of any or all churches and/or religions out of the government (or public square) through the voluntary efforts of individual citizens or even elected officials (hence the ban on religious tests for candidates). Nor does it prohibit the government from encouraging or even participating in faith oriented activities (Thanksgiving, for exa

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Moliminous
Posted on December 1, 2012 at 10:52am
Shame on you, Blaze! The “issue” is NOT the separation of church and state, it never was. The issue was weather the state can impose a religion and/or thwart any religion. The eventual answer to the latter was “No it cannot.” The issue was on the limitation of government to establish, not practice.

The longer the mythology about “separation of church and state” continues, the more frequently we’re going to have marxist atheists like Barry Soertero in positions of influence.

Wake up.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Pontiaku
  Posted on December 1, 2012 at 1:00pm
  [The issue was weather the state can impose a religion and/or thwart any religion. The eventual answer to the latter was “No it cannot.” The issue was on the limitation of government to establish, not practice.]
  Human/Animal sacrifice, adult-child marriages, drug use, female genital mutilation, witch burning, etc etc… If you think the federal government cannot limit practices you best rethink that.
  
  Report this comment
- From Virginia
  Posted on December 1, 2012 at 4:14pm
  Actually, in our beginning, it was only the fed that couldn’t establish a church – like the church of England where the King/Queen was the head of the church. States could, and did, establish religions all over the place. That only went away quite recently.
  
  Report this comment
- SoNick
  Posted on December 2, 2012 at 5:02pm
  @Moliminous
  Are you implying that an “atheist” (your words) sits in the White House because of a conspiracy to establish a mythical church-state separation? Then I guess you are not familiar with article VI, paragraph 3 of the Consitution, that clearly states : « no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States ».
  
  Report this comment
Jupitor
Posted on December 1, 2012 at 10:15am
“Roger Williams is very famous in Rhode Island – no other state has a founder as tied up with the state’s identity as Rhode Island.”

Really? Unless his statement is specifically around the 13 original colonies/states, it’s quite a stupid statement. I wouldn’t be able to name Roger Williams until I read this article, complete with it’s BS about the separation of church and state being enshrined in the Bill of Rights. I’d wager a much greater number of people could name at least 2 founders of Texas vs 1 founder of any other state.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- The_Jerk
  Posted on December 1, 2012 at 10:30am
  It’s R.I., Rampant Ignorance. It’s the home of Lincoln Chafee. What more needs to be said?
  
  Report this comment
- Qoheleth
  Posted on December 1, 2012 at 11:13am
  I’d say the question of which founder is most tied to the identity of the state is an open question, but certainly Roger Williams is among the foremost. With his guidance, RI became a sanctuary for religious freedom and an example of settler-indigenous people relations. His thoughts on freedom of religion presaged quite a bit of the religious underpinning of the First Amendment. His thoughts on baptism and mission work anticipated the Stone-Campbell movement by about 100 years.
  The cryptograms are an interesting side-light, and do reveal a bit more of his thoughts, but the remainder of his writings are in plain text an warrant a good reading first.
  
  Report this comment
- The_Jerk
  Posted on December 1, 2012 at 11:21am
  Qoheleth, you just made an excellent argument for states’ rights. He, Roger Williams, created a sanctuary for those who differ, which is why the feds ‘one rule for all’ is so obscene. The feds black robed princes had to pervert the Constitution to come to their conclusion.
  
  Report this comment
- TugboatPhil
  Posted on December 2, 2012 at 2:11pm
  If he was that influential, why isn’t the state called Williamsiana or Rogerton? William Penn knew how to run his own PR!
  
  Report this comment
cjelephant
Posted on December 1, 2012 at 10:10am
I hate articles like this because they always say “We broke the code! We now KNOW what he wrote and we have 20 intriguing pages!”

But they never tell us WHAT was actually written! What did Williams say about infant baptism that was so intriguing? We’ll never know.

But we broke the code!!!

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- G-WHIZ
  Posted on December 1, 2012 at 10:26am
  Y’ MIGHT be able to fond it if y’a did a webserch….RogerWilliams+Rhode Island+Mason-Brown.
  D’Oh!!
  
  Report this comment
- Qoheleth
  Posted on December 1, 2012 at 11:03am
  G- Here’s the thing: We shouldn’t have to. What the gentlemen is saying is that it isn’t very good reporting to tell only half the story and force your readers to do a web search to fill in the blanks. This is an obvious question and it should be answered in the article.
  
  Report this comment
AbrahamsSheepdog
Posted on December 1, 2012 at 9:40am
Have they cracked the code in media? Hint chris mathews

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
staythecourse
Posted on December 1, 2012 at 9:14am
BILLY: Get it right! I know this is a copy of an AP article but I would really expect YOU to get it right and put a side not in the article. “Williams is Rhode Island’s founder and best known as the first figure to argue for the principle of the separation of church and state that would later be enshrined in the Bill of Rights.” THERE IS NO PRINCIPLE OF SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE in the Constitution. That is a misunderstanding that has been pushed by the Living Constitutionalists and Progressives.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- SoNick
  Posted on December 1, 2012 at 10:17am
  Geez, you guys really have a hard time understanding basic English. Of course the First Amendment is about the Separation of Church and State. It was written in opposition to the way things were done in England, which still has an “official” religion to this day. The founders saw the folly of having the state interfere in such private matters as faith, so they made sure faith and politics belonged to different realms. And spare me your illogical statements such as that “it was devised to protect religious people, not to protect people from religion” bullcrap (ie: freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion). “Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. Notice which comes first: “No law regarding the establishment…”. What does that mean? It means : we’re not going to tell you what to believe or that you have to believe at all. In return, we promise not to make laws that will ever infringe on your rights to pray to the divinity of your choice. How is that not a clear example of Separation of Church and State?
  
  Report this comment
- AsForMeAndMyHouse
  Posted on December 1, 2012 at 10:49am
  Thank you for pointing this out! Saves me the trouble lol my “red-flag” went up immediately upon reading that statement.
  
  Report this comment
- FL-Okie
  Posted on December 1, 2012 at 11:07am
  @Sonic (and no doubt, others), You make the mistake of using “establish” in the modern sense of “create or start.” The Founders, when writing the Constitution, used the word in a more precise, technical way. The Church of England was called “The Established Church.” It was linked to the government (in several ways) and received funding from the government. No other church was permitted initially, and though this gradually changed, the Dissenting Churches were subject to limitations and their members still required to financially support the Established Church. When the First Amendment was written, prohibiting Congress from passing a law ESTABLISHING a RELIGION, it was in this sense. What Congress (and maybe the states subsequent to the 14th Amendment) cannot do is establish a religion or a specific church as the official faith of the country and the recipient of either direct funding from the government (i.e., taxpayer dollars) or indirect funding by requiring the payment of tithes and offerings to the designated church by the people regardless of their own beliefs or interests. The First Amendment has NOTHING to do with keeping the influence of any or all churches and/or religions out of the government (or public square) through the voluntary efforts of individual citizens or even elected officials (hence the ban on religious tests for candidates). Nor does it prohibit the government from encouraging or even participating in faith oriented activities (Thanksgivi
  
  Report this comment
- independentvoteril
  Posted on December 1, 2012 at 11:29am
  than explain the religious carvings on our government buildings?? it was not to stop people from establishing a religion nor practice of said religion.. HOWEVER.. it does NOT stop RELIGION from entering INTO the government .. just OUT of such..
  
  Report this comment
- M1A2_Tanker
  Posted on December 2, 2012 at 5:25am
  SoNick,
  
  Faith is not the same thing as Religion! This is where you “Anti-Religion-All-Inclusive-Tolerant-For-Only-My-View” Morons can’t understand “Basic English”.
  
  Report this comment
- SoNick
  Posted on December 2, 2012 at 12:39pm
  @M1A2_Tanker
  I’m sorry, but I really don’t get what you’re trying to say.
  
  Report this comment
1776freedomofspeech
Posted on December 1, 2012 at 7:10am
The idea or to use the term “notion” that is so commonly over used today (by everybody since Pres. Obama started saying it to ridicule the opposition’s ideas), was to protect the religious public from the oppressiveness of government. Not to protect the non-religious public from the religious public.

We are a religious country and our religions are Christian based by design. In God We Trust!

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Eastinfection
Posted on December 1, 2012 at 6:44am
B-E S-U-R-E T-O D-R-I-N-K Y-O-U-R O-V-A-L-T-I-N-E

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zdA__2tKoIU

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Stelex
  Posted on December 1, 2012 at 10:42am
  Classic
  
  Report this comment
nzkiwi
Posted on December 1, 2012 at 5:12am
So what did he actually write? Did I miss something?

A teasing part synopsis is all fine and dandy but what did he exactly say – that would be very interesting.

I am very impressed with the abilities of mathematicians and codebreakers as what they do seems almost magical to me, but the important thing is the transcription.

Isn’t it?

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- KingCanon
  Posted on December 1, 2012 at 5:33am
  Tune in next week…
  Same Beck time.
  Same Beck channel!
  
  Report this comment
- AbrahamsSheepdog
  Posted on December 1, 2012 at 9:35am
  Yeah! What illuminaty used doesn’t tell us what they said. Probably something about nwo. They really are sneaky & rich & us secret code- we know that. -nonstory here.
  
  Report this comment
loneindividual
Posted on December 1, 2012 at 3:38am
All the comments sound really stupid.

You’d think people would become more interested in cryptology and talking about the logic as to why he kept all that encoded OR perhaps how Christianity is really sectarian and perhaps our founding fathers were right about how Christianity is a really screwed up religion after being handled by bastardizing tyrants for hundreds of years.

People who visit TheBalze really annoy me when they only talk about modern politics. (including myself lol)

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- burnteye86
  Posted on December 1, 2012 at 4:43am
  thebalze.com? I can’t seem to locate that
  
  Report this comment
- RufusEdinwhirl
  Posted on December 1, 2012 at 5:13am
  We have something in common, this is the first time I’ve read your comments and I too find them annoying.
  
  Report this comment
- nzkiwi
  Posted on December 1, 2012 at 5:34am
  Well, I don’t know. “The Balze” does have a nice ring to it if one says it aloud…
  
  Report this comment
- nzkiwi
  Posted on December 1, 2012 at 5:37am
  All of us here certainly have “The Balze” to express our honest, thoughtful, and un-PC points of view.
  
  As Mr Hallowell has, no doubt, discovered to his chagrin…
  
  Report this comment
- Eastinfection
  Posted on December 1, 2012 at 6:37am
  Don’t worry LONE… you’re not the only one…..
  
  Jo Ovies once made this mistake doing the call sign for sports- radio 850 The Buzz in Raleigh NC….
  
  http://soundcloud.com/joe-ovies
  
  Report this comment
- gac1218
  Posted on December 1, 2012 at 8:51am
  The Balze is obviously secret code for the Blaze, and I’m no Mason- Brown
  
  Report this comment
- loneindividual
  Posted on December 1, 2012 at 5:51pm
  Beck’s got TheBalze. :)
  
  Report this comment
SubHuman
Posted on December 1, 2012 at 2:44am
To the Blaze: When you just copy/paste articles from the leftist wire agency AP you get incorrect and misleading statements such as, “the principle of the separation of church and state that would later be enshrined in the Bill of Rights.”

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- BubbleheadDan
  Posted on December 1, 2012 at 6:25am
  I caught that too. I had to scroll back up to the top of the article after I read that. That is when I saw the (AP) and then it made perfect sense. I am surprised nobody else has picked up on that.
  
  Report this comment
- Mia Cav
  Posted on December 1, 2012 at 8:43am
  I caught that as well. I looked up at the author and thought Hallowell was better than that from other articles.
  
  Report this comment
ltdan
Posted on December 1, 2012 at 2:19am
Even our elected officials believe that it’s in there, or is it, if you repeat it often enough people will soon start to believe it? Oh wait! We’re already there.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- TIME_THE_AVENGER
  Posted on December 1, 2012 at 3:17am
  Somewhere in hell, Joseph Goebbels smiles and is promptly slapped.
  
  Report this comment
Diane TX
Posted on November 30, 2012 at 11:40pm
To the author of this piece:

The separation of church and state is NOT enshrined in the Bill of Rights (the First Amendment.) It very clearly states that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; (religion). Nowhere does it state that any religion is banned from public property.

I’ll leave it up to others to decide if Obama’s religion of big government is in violation of the First Amendment.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Chuck Stein
  Posted on November 30, 2012 at 11:55pm
  Good observation, Diane. It has been repeated so often that even writers for The Blaze reflexively state it.
  
  Report this comment
- NOTAMUSHROOM
  Posted on November 30, 2012 at 11:56pm
  I noticed that jumping off the page at me as well, Diane. Then I looked at who the writer of the piece is and much to my surprise it was Hallowell! Not! Methinks he’s really a Progressive anti-Christian type. Doesn’t know much. Seems to cut and paste a lot.
  
  Report this comment
- ThoreauHD
  Posted on December 1, 2012 at 12:34am
  Maybe Diane should write these posts. If you can’t comprehend the difference between State Religion and separation of Church and State, then you ought not post. You aren’t helping.
  
  Report this comment
- Chuck Stein
  Posted on December 1, 2012 at 12:50am
  @ Thoreauhd
  Diane’s post concerned the First Amendment, which (like it or not) permitted STATES to have “official” religions. Do you dispute that?
  The CURRENT Constitutional framework includes the 14th Amendment. Under the “Doctrine of Incorporation”, States are NO LONGER able to have “state religions”.
  If your post was (somehow) directed at someone other than Diane (e.g. Billy Hallowell), then I apologize for my mistake.
  
  Report this comment
- FieldJudge
  Posted on December 1, 2012 at 1:15am
  Touchdown!
  
  Report this comment
- taxpro4u03
  Posted on December 1, 2012 at 2:54am
  As Chuck Stein eludes, the ‘current’ CORPORATE constitution (stemming from the SECOND Organic Acts of 1871/74) have nothing to do with the unlawfully (though ‘legal’) suspended (April 24, 1863) REPUBLIC Constitution — though the two co-exist. — THIS is what people need to ACCEPT… We live in an ‘alternate reality’ which we have been indoctrinated to ‘believe’ are one and the same — they are NOT. Corporations can do what they want (as proven by psycholinguistics — i.e. ‘penalty’ means ‘tax,’ or whatever ‘we’ — meaning the Corporate SCOTUS ‘says’ it means) — Ever ‘ask why’ The native americans are …. ‘sovereign,’ yet ‘co-existing’ capital “C” citizens? — Gotta be a reason… :-)
  
  Report this comment
- Chuck Stein
  Posted on December 1, 2012 at 7:38pm
  @ Taxpro4u
  Actually, I was just talking about the run-of-the-mill history of the Doctrine of Incorporation (under the 14th Amendment). Under that doctrine, the restrictions on Congress under the Bill of Rights are also put onto the States. Only recently, the 2nd Amendment was made subject to the Doctrine of Incorporation. The Doctrine of Incorporation is distinct from the recognition of corporations as “persons” under the 14th Amendment.
  
  Report this comment
TJexcite
Posted on November 30, 2012 at 11:35pm
In 300 years they will look back at what is left of the tweet library and try to decode what ROFLOL, DLTDHYOTWO and ICWUDT meant.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- grayling646
  Posted on December 1, 2012 at 12:48am
  Lol. IDHACWTLTASF. MYCDTFUP?
  
  Report this comment
- TIME_THE_AVENGER
  Posted on December 1, 2012 at 3:18am
  4NIK8R works for me.
  
  Report this comment
- M13
  Posted on December 1, 2012 at 9:25am
  Will they decode the meaning of Encinom’s name? Which we now know is code for idiot.
  
  Report this comment
TheWhiteFalcon
Posted on November 30, 2012 at 11:32pm
“principle of the separation of church and state that would later be enshrined in the Bill of Rights.”

Nope, that’s not in there. Congress can’t make a religion, but it doesn’t say they must be separate.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Diane TX
  Posted on November 30, 2012 at 11:41pm
  Wow, “like minds” and all that.
  
  Report this comment
- Anonymous T. Irrelevant
  Posted on December 1, 2012 at 12:25am
  For any writer of The Blaze, a Glenn Beck production, that should be a no-brainer, meaning they should know that by heart, unless they are quoting someone, OR, they copied it word-for-word from someone else’s article.
  Why should we, as mere posters, catch things like this? Did Glenn know who he was hiring? Did he make a bet with someone else that he could change someone’s political ideology by having hem write for a conservative news site. Not necessarily focusing on Billy here, but Beck did hire people from HuffPo.
  
  Report this comment
- finky555
  Posted on December 2, 2012 at 8:40pm
  @Anonymous “For any writer of The Blaze, a Glenn Beck production, that should be a no-brainer, meaning they should know that by heart, unless they are quoting someone, OR, they copied it word-for-word from someone else’s article.
  Why should we, as mere posters, catch things like this?”
  
  Happens too often on The Blaze, making me wonder who is checking their facts. Not expected from Hallowell.
  
  Report this comment
Lone Ranger
Posted on November 30, 2012 at 11:26pm
Roger Williams believed that the state should be separated from the church by a one-way wall so that government could not affect religion but religion could affect government. As proof of that, the constitutions of all 13 colonies required that only Christians could be elected to office. It took a former KKK lawyer that FDR sneaked onto the Supreme Court to pervert Williams’ meaning.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- FieldJudge
  Posted on December 1, 2012 at 1:20am
  Most interesting… Thanks for sharing and enlightening us with this information.
  
  Report this comment
- SacredHonor1776
  Posted on December 1, 2012 at 5:54am
  What Roger Williams did was break away from the corrupt Puritan government in MA, where their was no freedom of religion, to create a government where all doctrinal differences were welcome. Freedom of religion, not one religion enforcing a single theocratic rule.
  
  Report this comment
CharlesTaylor
Posted on November 30, 2012 at 11:14pm
Interestingly enough Williams repeatedly refers to his Christmas Tree as a “Holiday” Tree.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- The_Jerk
  Posted on November 30, 2012 at 11:21pm
  Translation?
  
  Report this comment
- Anonymous T. Irrelevant
  Posted on December 1, 2012 at 12:26am
  Funny, Charles, funny!
  
  Report this comment
JUSTANOTHEROPINION
Posted on November 30, 2012 at 10:51pm
Interesting to say the least. I hope THEBLAZE stays on top of this and is able to follow up in the future with what the notes actually say.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
DZ-015
Posted on November 30, 2012 at 10:49pm
Are we certain it is not a copy of H.P. Lovecraft’s “Necronomicon?”

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- TIME_THE_AVENGER
  Posted on December 1, 2012 at 3:20am
  I was hoping for the original lyrics to ‘King Of The Road’ in Old English. Dang.
  
  Report this comment
- TIME_THE_AVENGER
  Posted on December 1, 2012 at 3:36am
  Sorry. That was Roger Miller. Wrong Roger. Over and out.
  
  Report this comment
- JACKTHETOAD
  Posted on December 2, 2012 at 2:21am
  A good read indeed, needless though. Just visit your Family’s graves and honor their memory. They’ll hang with you. :)=
  
  Report this comment
welovetheUSA
Posted on November 30, 2012 at 10:48pm
Bravo……

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Pontiaku
  Posted on December 13, 2012 at 2:42pm
  test
  
  Report this comment
- Pontiaku
  Posted on December 13, 2012 at 2:44pm
  test2
  
  Report this comment

It appears that you have Javascript Disabled. Please enable Javascript in your browser preferences for a better user experience on TheBlaze. You can not comment without Javascript enabled.