However, it is a fundamental human right, a privilege of nature, that every man should worship according to his own convictions: one man’s religion neither harms nor helps another man. It is assuredly
Tertullian on religious liberty
Tertullian, To Scapula 2Ante-Nicene Fathers 3: Latin Christianity: Its Founder, Tertullian
We are worshippers of one God, of whose existence and character Nature teaches all men; at whose lightnings and thunders you tremble, whose benefits minister to your happiness. You think that others, too, are gods, whom we know to be devils. However, it is a fundamental human right, a privilege of nature, that every man should worship according to his own convictions: one man’s religion neither harms nor helps another man. It is assuredly no part of religion to compel religion—to which free-will
- His argument is interesting. 1. He bases religious freedom upon Natural Law, He likely derived this principle from the scripture, yet seems to argue this principle on philosophic grounds since even his opponents should recognize this principle. 2. He affirms that other so-called gods are demonic in origin. Therefore, all religions, other than Christianity, are equidistant from the true God. 3. The statement "one man's religion neither harms nor helps another man." I understand the consequent of inability to "compel religion." At the most basic level, I disagree that religion neither harms nor helps. For example, the history of the church affirms the good things (and bad0 done in the name of Christ. For example, hospitals, Braille, and the motivations of religious people in disaster relief. Yet, religion can harm - witness radical Islam in our day and the Inquisitions in "Christian" history.
- Well said, professor.