Skip to content
quotesby

We think ourselves possessed, or, at least, we boast that we are so, of liberty of conscience on all subjects, and of the right of free inquiry and private judgment in all cases, and yet how far are we from these exalted privileges in fact! There exists, I believe, throughout the whole Christian world, a law which makes it blasphemy to deny or doubt the divine inspiration of all the books of the Old and New Testaments, from Genesis to Revelations. In most countries of Europe it is punished by fire at the stake, or the rack, or the wheel. In England itself it is punished by boring through the tongue with a poker. In America it is not better; even in our own Massachusetts, which I believe, upon the whole, is as temperate and moderate in religious zeal as most of the States, a law was made in the latter end of the last century, repealing the cruel punishments of the former laws, but substituting fine and imprisonment upon all those blasphemers upon any book of the Old Testament or New. Now, what free inquiry, when a writer must surely encounter the risk of fine or imprisonment for adducing any argument for investigating into the divine authority of those books? Who would run the risk of translating Dupuis? But I cannot enlarge upon this subject, though I have it much at heart. I think such laws a great embarrassment, great obstructions to the improvement of the human mind. Books that cannot bear examination, certainly ought not to be established as divine inspiration by penal laws. It is true, few persons appear desirous to put such laws in execution, and it is also true that some few persons are hardy enough to venture to depart from them. But as long as they continue in force as laws, the human mind must make an awkward and clumsy progress in its investigations. I wish they were repealed. The substance and essence of Christianity, as I understand it, is eternal and unchangeable, and will bear examination forever, but it has been mixed with extraneous ingredients, which I think will not bear examination, and they ought to be separated.

John Adams#52

HistoryFreedomReligionLaw

About this quote

What does it mean?
The author criticizes the gap between proclaimed liberty of conscience and the reality of religious persecution across history.
In plain terms
He points out that claimed freedoms often clash with actual oppression.
What can you take from it?
Align stated freedoms with real protections.

Where it applies

  • humanrights advocacy
  • historical review

Putting it to work

  • legal reform
  • education on tolerance

Questions to consider

  • How can societies bridge the gap between ideals and practice?
  • What mechanisms prevent religious oppression?

Another view

The passage mixes historical anecdotes with broad generalizations.

More from John Adams

  1. Can a free government possibly exist with the Roman Catholic religion?

    Permalink to quote #51
  2. No man who ever held the office of president would congratulate a friend on obtaining it. He will make one man ungrateful, and a hundred men his enemies, for e…

    Permalink to quote #53
  3. Abuse of words has been the great instrument of sophistry and chicanery, of party, faction, and division of society.

    Permalink to quote #50

Related quotes

  1. I am an Iranian. A descendent of Cyrus The Great. The very emperor who proclaimed at the pinnacle of power 2500 years ago that...he would not reign over the pe…

    Shirin EbadiShirin Ebadi quote #1
  2. Enforced uniformity confounds civil and religious liberty and denies the principles of Christianity and civility. No man shall be required to worship or mainta…

    Roger WilliamsRoger Williams quote #2
  3. All persons shall have full and free liberty of religious opinion; nor shall any be compelled to frequent or maintain any religious institution.

    Thomas JeffersonThomas Jefferson quote #5