Neither Pagan nor Mahamedan nor Jew ought to be excluded from the civil rights of the Commonwealth because of his religion. -quoting John Locke's argument.

Our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions any more than our opinions in physics or geometry...

Nay, if we may openly speak the truth, and as becomes one man to another, neither Pagan nor Mahometan, nor Jew, ought to be excluded from the civil rights of the commonwealth because of his religion.

The constitution of a country should not violate the constitutions of its citizens.

No man shall be blamed in the maintenance of his own religion.

We have no right to prejudice another in his civil enjoyments because he is of another church.

We maintain therefore that in matters of Religion, no man’s right is abridged by the institution of Civil Society, and that <b>Religion is wholly exempt from its cognizance</b>. True it is, that no other rule exists, by which any question which may divide a Society, can be ultimately determined, but the will of the majority; but it is also true, that the majority may trespass on the rights of the minority.

...Because it is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. We hold this prudent jealousy to be the first duty of Citizens, and one of the noblest characteristics of the late Revolution. The free men of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents. They saw all the consequences in the principle, and they avoided the consequences by denying the principle. We revere this lesson too much soon to forget it. <b>Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects? that the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of any one establishment, may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever</b>?

...Because experience witnesseth that ecclesiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of Religion, have had a contrary operation. <b>During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution</b>.

...What influence in fact have ecclesiastical establishments had on Civil Society? <b>In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the Civil authority; in many instances they have

The constitution shall never be construed...to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.

...legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' <b>thus building a wall of separation between Church & State</b>. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

It may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the Civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on unessential points. The tendency to usurpation on one side or the other, or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them, <b>will be best guarded agst. by an entire abstinence of the Govt. from interference in any way whatsoever</b>, beyond the necessity of preserving public order, and protecting each sect agst. trespasses on its legal rights by others.

[<i>Letter to the Reverend Jasper Adams, January 1, 1832</i>]

Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of production and trade...

Equal rights for all, special privileges for none.

Government in our democracy, state and national, must be neutral in matters of religious theory, doctrine, and practice. It may not be hostile to any religion or to the advocacy of no-religion; and it may not aid, foster, or promote one religion or religious theory against another or even against the militant opposite. The First Amendment mandates governmental neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion.

[Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97, 1968.]

I know no religion that destroys courtesy, civility, and kindness.