"What other nations call religious toleration, we call religious rights. They are not exercised in virtue of governmental indulgence, but as rights, of which government cannot deprive any portion of citizens, however small"

Richard Mentor Johnson’s assertion draws a firm distinction between a government’s discretionary allowance and fundamental rights. He challenges the notion that freedom of religion is merely a grant bestowed by the state at its own convenience, drawing attention to a deeper principle anchored in individual liberty. Where some countries may pride themselves on being tolerant, suggesting that they choose, out of benevolence or pragmatism, to permit the existence of divergent religious practices, Johnson insists that this permissiveness falls short of true justice.

By calling religious toleration a “right” rather than a “virtue of governmental indulgence,” Johnson reinforces the idea that religious freedom is an inherent entitlement of all individuals, not something that can be conferred or withdrawn by rulers or legislatures. It belongs not to the majority or a favored sect but to “any portion of citizens, however small,” stressing that even the most marginal or unpopular groups possess an unassailable claim to the free exercise of their beliefs. The government’s role, therefore, is not to dispense charity or favor to minority faiths, but to recognize and protect a pre-existing liberty that transcends and limits state authority.

Underlying Johnson’s statement is the conviction that rights exist prior to and independent of political institutions. The legitimacy of government itself is bounded by its obligation to uphold these rights. To construe religious freedom as a privilege granted by the state would open the door for its arbitrary limitation or revocation, undermining the very concept of justice. Johnson’s perspective insists upon an equality of conscience, rejecting any system wherein the government positions itself as a gracious overseer, presiding over what beliefs citizens may hold or practices they may observe. Instead, his rhetoric demands acknowledgement of religion as a sphere beyond governmental reach, one in which each person’s liberty is absolute, and protection is owed regardless of numbers or popularity.