Delaware patriot & American watchman. [volume] (Wilmington, Del.) 1828-1828, 1828-03-07
rop THE DELAWARE PATRIOT.

0fleStCratt iHHoCduuo'
~ TOR THE DELAWARE PATRIOT.
Al The following article was sent to Ii. Niles,
40 II seems with all his pretensions to indcpen-
ISnce, and love Of republican principles, shrl nks
Am the duty he owes fellow Citizen, by neglect
IXp to publish a reply to an act OF outrage and in
IEce that his own free press had perhaps mad
Wrtently sanctioned.
III From Niles Register
N. An .atheist-T The testimony of man OF athc-
,stica principles was lately rejected by the supe-
I'm court Of Connecticut. The Judge Oagget
Md he would not sit and hear witness protesting
q testify under the sanction Of an appeal to the
yarcher of hearts when the very eXistance of such
bing was denied by the witness
M fIf there really is such thing as an atheist,
IL hold it right that his testimony should be re-
,ilcted, as would that Of person VIGOROUSLY in
Hnc.T" page s74
n And who is an Atheist That he should be out
Nwed and mark set upon hm Is he not hu-
Nan being possessing civil and religious rights, as
Mar to him as ours arc to us ?-And are they not
&cred can any kind of opinions distranchise a
Nan from those nestimable privileges, when 1t re
ulres an overt act to constitute treason? Is the
xower granted to any auth rity in the United
mates. to take from any individual such invaluable
easure on account OF opinion, let that opinion be
hat it mava If such right does exist, if there
Il any constitutional foundation for such dccs-
bn, Judge Dagget would confer power free
beope by illustrating 1t. II one man is suffered
70 interfere with the conscience OF another in any
Nay whatever, where is the line TO be drawn. For
Iudge Dagget to require a man to believe in
BOD. is the same as to require him to believe in
Inv other Virtual OF his religious creed For one
nan to require another to believe in a God. can
hean nothing else than to require him to believe in
{he same God that he does. Can any man COM
prehend Cod so as to make the idea clear to anoth
Dr.? Ii any man suppose he can comprehend iim
10 as to give a clear image or idea 10 his fellow
creature, then lie must be like something in hea
Ven or in earth, aud Of course iol. according TO
sclpturc where man is expressly forbidden from
baking any Image or likeness Of him and without
In Image or likeness by which we can complc-
hend him, how can uniformity Of belief exist Z? i
hot belief an assent of the mind to propositions we
understand And if Judge Daggct did not make
IN Image or likeness Of God SO that the witness
could understand him. ought he to dlsfranchse
him for not believing what he gave him no means
bl comprehendng. And it he did make any such
image or likeness, then what he required the wit
hess to believe in was an Idol. Is not this the
result of all our futile efforts on this subject; all
mankind believe 10 God, and no one can com
prehenu him, there rs Consciousness OF feeling eX
istng between man and his maker. which we all
Understand but we have not ideas or images on
HE mind, to convey this feeling to others. 1t is
hot subject that free people can ever with
Safety permit the legislature or judiciary to medde
with. 1t is an incontrovertable truth, that civil
@nd religious liberty can never long exist. where
moral conduct is not the standard of accountability
Between man and man. There is charm in liber
~ that leads to TRUTH and il error of opinion may
pc tolerated s. in ecclesiastical affairs why not
in the present case Will not treason be able to
rombat.n lfJudge Daggot could plead any moral
DISABILITY, he had right to reject the evidence;
put what has belief to do i'll court of law? Had
fhe evidence offered his belief or disbelief on any
pher subject, they would suon have told HIM, 6 we
want to know the facts sir. are not a tribunal
10 Judge of belief or opinions. they belong TO your
Self" This rational rebuke of the court, would
4ead to just exposition of the subject. The wit
fess was accountable only to 8. the searchcr OF
hearts" for his belief or opinions; and to the
Nouit or Judge Dagset for his actions or moral
conduct 1t will be found when this subject be
comes rightly investigated that the Judge in ma
Fing this decision, has travelled very much out
pi the record decision which is nothing short Of
Mpatawng a free citizen for his opinion. No overt
@ct IS either expressed or implied, nothing IS I'M
%lers,ood to have existed between the Judge and
pins witness, but difference of opinions. u.
.-~--xs-~.-...g-r-x.v-s<r~x.=