And in People v. Ruggles, 8 Johns. 290, 294,
295, Chancellor KENT, the great commentator
on American law, speaking as chief justice of the
supreme court of New York, said:
'The people of this state, in
common with the people of this
country, profess the general
doctrines of Christianity as the rule
of their faith and practice; and to
scandalize the author of these
doctrines is not only, in a religious
point of view, extremely impious,
but, even in respect to the
obligations due to society, is a
gross violation of decency and
good order. * * * The free, equal,
and undisturbed enjoyment of
religious opinion, whatever it may
be, and free and decent discussions
on any religious [143 U.S. 457, 471]
subject, is granted and secured; but
to revile, with malicious and
blasphemous contempt, the religion
professed by almost the whole
community is an abuse of that right.
Nor are we bound by any
expressions in the constitution, as
some have strangely supposed,
either not to punish at all, or to
panish indiscriminately the like
attacks upon the religion of
Mahomet or of the Grand Lama;
and for this plain reason, that the
case assumes that we are a
Christian people, and the morality
of the country is deeply ingrafted
upon Christianity, and not upon the
doctrines or worship of those
impostors.' |
