The intolerant can be viewed as free-riders, as persons who seek the advantages of just institutions while not doing their share to uphold them.

An intolerant sect has no right to complain when it is denied an equal liberty... A person's right to complain is limited to principles he acknowledges himself.

If you compare the United States with Europe, my view is that what happened in Europe is that the church became deeply distrusted by people, because it sided with the monarchs. It instituted the Inquisition and became part of the repressive state apparatus. That never happened here. We don't have that history.

Ideal legislators do not vote their interests.

The claims of existing social arrangements and of self interest have been duly allowed for. We cannot at the end count them a second time because we do not like the result.

Thus I assume that to each according to his threat advantage is not a conception of justice.

The idea of public reason isn't about the right answers to all these questions, but about the kinds of reasons that they ought to be answered by.