"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
About this Quote
Richard Mentor Johnson's quote highlights an essential difference in between two ideas: spiritual toleration and spiritual rights. While these terms may appear similar at a glance, Johnson highlights an extensive difference in their ramifications for governance and individual liberties.
When Johnson refers to "spiritual toleration," he is attending to a principle whereby the federal government allows or allows spiritual practices. This suggests that such tolerance is an act of indulgence or benevolence by those in power, who can select to give or revoke this allowance. In many historical contexts, spiritual toleration has indicated that the state might limit religious expression as considered essential or politically practical, recommending that such flexibility is not inherently safeguarded however is conditional and potentially temporary.
In contrast, Johnson argues that in his view and context, spiritual flexibility is not just a matter of toleration however an intrinsic right. By describing it a "right," he locates spiritual liberty within the framework of essential human rights-- those inalienable and fundamental to the human condition. According to this point of view, religious rights are exempt to governmental whims or concessions. Rather, they are standard liberties that the federal government is obligated to safeguard. This delineation stresses that these rights are beyond the authority of the state to abridge or revoke.
Moreover, by mentioning "federal government can not deprive any portion of citizens, nevertheless small," Johnson addresses the universal and egalitarian nature of these rights. It enhances the concept that these rights are paid for to every individual, despite their minority or bulk status within a society. The protection of spiritual rights is not contingent upon the size or influence of a religious group however upon the inherent dignity and equality of all persons.
In essence, Johnson's assertion champions a vision of governance that focuses on inalienable individual liberties over governmental opportunity or discretion. This difference functions as a fundamental concept for societies valuing liberty and variety, advising us that real liberty is rooted in rights, not tolerances. Such an idea is essential in framing democracy and human rights conversations, where protecting minority rights versus the tyranny of the bulk is frequently a pushing obstacle.
"I have an almost religious zeal... not for technology per se, but for the Internet which is for me, the nervous system of mother Earth, which I see as a living creature, linking up"
"An intellectual is going to have doubts, for example, about a fundamentalist religious doctrine that admits no doubt, about an imposed political system that allows no doubt, about a perfect aesthetic that has no room for doubt"
"I have treated many hundreds of patients. Among those in the second half of life - that is to say, over 35 - there has not been one whose problem in the last resort was not that of finding a religious outlook on life"
"This, it may be said, is no more than a hypothesis... only of that force of precedent which in all times has been so strong to keep alive religious forms of which the original meaning is lost"
"Well, in The Chosen, Danny Saunders, from the heart of his religious reading of the world, encounters an element in the very heart of the secular readings of the world - Freudian psychoanalytic theory"
