Arguing for Freedom of Religion

My title is “Arguing for Freedom of Religion,” not “Toleration,” because I follow the eighteenth-century writer Christoph Martin Wieland in taking “toleration" to connote a gift or indulgence from majority minority, whereas true freedom religion would put everybody on same plane believe and practice as they see fit, at all. consider three historically distinct ways arguing religion: premise held by one that requires others (the strategy Locke, Madison, Mendelssohn); about uncertainty all religious beliefs which calls equal (Bayle Wieland); fundamental requirement all, with no although it entails matters other things (Hutcheson, Meier, Kant). The latter approach may be most appealing purely philosophical point view, but former styles argument have obviously had much recommend them historical contexts, still useful.