Religious expression was at the hearts of the men that we were to read about for this week’s class. And much like the exodus of the bible they moved. Both John Winthrop and William Bradford were religious leaders looking for a safe or safer place to worship. Both came from backgrounds that were conducive to book learning. The groups in the readings were products of colonization. Why leave? Is that the answer to all religious suffering? Is the answer to leave? It seems to me that a more powerful symbol for religious expression would be to change the norms of society from the inside out. An underground movement seems like it would have been a lot more powerful. The exodus of the puritans was in essence seemed much as in the biblical version, a wandering across an Earthly landscape. Their wandering and prayer led them to a treacherous New England land. God’s presence was with them (so they believed) and as a result many died during the colonization period. One could argue (if they believe in such a thing) that perhaps God did not want them to travel across the landscape but rather, they should have stayed put. They should have worked towards religious tolerance (intolerance?) in their own land. What good is shunning one group, when you shun another?