"As for the Pope, I am too old to be frightened by his shadow, and am quite sure his shadow or Substance will do less harm to the liberties of my country than will a party, who seek to acquire political power by exciting religious bigotry in the minds of their duped followers"

Ezra Cornell's quote provides a pointed review of the interplay in between religious beliefs, politics, and power. At its core, the declaration underscores his skepticism about the impact of religious authority on political freedom. Cornell begins by attending to the symbol of the Pope, a figure often traditionally related to substantial religious and political power, particularly in predominantly Catholic areas. By saying he is "too old to be terrified by his shadow", Cornell suggests a dismissal of the viewed risk of religious authority as something overstated or dated. The "shadow" of the Pope here likely represents the impact and control that the Catholic Church historically put in, especially in political matters.

Cornell suggests a belief that the concrete influence ("shadow or Substance") of the Pope is less of a threat to the liberties of his country than internal political machinations. He criticizes a specific political faction in his country that uses spiritual bigotry as a tool to acquire power. By mentioning those who "excite religious bigotry" to gain power, Cornell condemns the control of religious sentiments and prejudices to accomplish political ends. This reflects a more comprehensive review of demagoguery, where leaders exploit popular prejudices and emotions rather than objective realities and reasonable discourse to rally assistance.

Cornell's use of the term "duped followers" shows his belief that those who support such a party are being misinformed. It highlights a conviction that spiritual intolerance is not just morally remiss however also a potent threat to democratic freedoms and social harmony. Cornell presumes that the genuine risk originates from within-- a political faction going to divide the people along religious lines, not an external religious authority. Hence, Cornell supporters for vigilance versus domestic forces that threaten to erode liberties by making use of religious divisions, hinting at a preference for logical governance over sectarian interests.