JOHN LELAND

That every man’s speak freely without fear, maintain the principles that he believes, worship according to his own faith, either one God, three Gods, no God, or 20 Gods; and let government protect him in doing so.

Ministers should share the same protection of the law that other men do, and no more. To proscribe [prohibit] them from seats of legislation, etc., is cruel. To indulge them with an exemption from taxes and bearing arms is a tempting emolument [benefit]. The law should be silent about them; protect them as citizens, not as sacred officers, for the civil law knows no sacred religious officers.

The liberty I contend for is more than toleration. The very idea of toleration is despicable; it supposes that some have a pre-eminence above the rest to grant indulgence; whereas all should be equally free, Jews, Turks, Pagans and Christians. Test Oaths and established creeds should be avoided as the worst of evils.

To say that religion cannot stand without a state establishment is not only contrary to fact (as has been proved already) but is a contradiction in phrase.

May our exports be so great, and our imports so small, that the balance of trade may be in our favor.

May the debt of the United States be discharged with speed and punctuality; and let not the people be deceived, by having the funds, established for that purpose, put to other uses.

If government can answer for individuals at the day of judgment, let men be controlled by it in religious matters; otherwise let men be free.

It is not possible in the nature of things to establish religion by human laws without perverting the design of civil law and oppressing the people.

Is it the duty of a deist to support that which he believes to be a cheat and imposition? Is it the duty of the Jew to support the religion of Jesus Christ, when he really believes that he was an imposter? Must the papist be forced to pay men for preaching down the supremacy of the pope, whom they are sure is the head of the church? Government has no more to do with the religious opinions of men than it has with the principles of mathematics

This article would read much better in a catechism than in a state constitution, and sound more concordant in a pulpit than in a statehouse.

That every man’s speak freely without fear, maintain the principles that he believes, worship according to his own faith, either one God, three Gods, no God, or 20 Gods; and let government protect him in doing so.

Ministers should share the same protection of the law that other men do, and no more. To proscribe [prohibit] them from seats of legislation, etc., is cruel. To indulge them with an exemption from taxes and bearing arms is a tempting emolument [benefit]. The law should be silent about them; protect them as citizens, not as sacred officers, for the civil law knows no sacred religious officers.

Law should rule over rulers, and not rulers over the law

May our exports be so great, and our imports so small, that the balance of trade may be in our favor.

May the debt of the United States be discharged with speed and punctuality; and let not the people be deceived, by having the funds, established for that purpose, put to other uses.

The liberty I contend for is more than toleration. The very idea of toleration is despicable; it supposes that some have a pre-eminence above the rest to grant indulgence; whereas all should be equally free, Jews, Turks, Pagans and Christians. Test Oaths and established creeds should be avoided as the worst of evils.

This article would read much better in a catechism than in a state constitution, and sound more concordant in a pulpit than in a statehouse.

To say that religion cannot stand without a state establishment is not only contrary to fact (as has been proved already) but is a contradiction in phrase.

If government can answer for individuals at the day of judgment, let men be controlled by it in religious matters; otherwise let men be free.

It is not possible in the nature of things to establish religion by human laws without perverting the design of civil law and oppressing the people.

Is it the duty of a deist to support that which he believes to be a cheat and imposition? Is it the duty of the Jew to support the religion of Jesus Christ, when he really believes that he was an imposter? Must the papist be forced to pay men for preaching down the supremacy of the pope, whom they are sure is the head of the church? Government has no more to do with the religious opinions of men than it has with the principles of mathematics