设万维读者为首页 万维读者网 -- 全球华人的精神家园 广告服务 联系我们 关于万维
 
首  页 新  闻 视  频 博  客 论  坛 分类广告 购  物
搜索>> 发表日志 控制面板 个人相册 给我留言
帮助 退出
俞先生的博客  
俞先生创造了一个宏大社会科学理论体系,无论学术界是否鉴定,可确信此理论体系成立。  
https://blog.creaders.net/u/6944/ > 复制 > 收藏本页
网络日志正文
论自由 2018-12-13 20:02:20

本人写的书Language and State: A Theory of the Progress of Civilization, Revised and Updated Edition于2018年11月在美国出版。此书论述语言如何为人类构造自己的文明共同体--国家创造了最基本的条件。全书共分三部分。第一部分论述语言如何为国家的形成创造条件。第二部分论述语言怎样成为国家组织的唯一基础。第三部分论述为什么语言是人类实现国家合理化的唯一最终条件。在第三部分内,最前面的一章,即第十章,论述自由。其论述意图是证明语言怎样成为人类国家内实现自由的唯一基础。过去有很多哲学家论述过自由,比如黑格尔、密尔和柏林写有专著论述自由。本人的观点是,没有人类使用的语言,人类社会就永远也不会实现自由。人类开始使用语言后,人类开始创造和利用媒介,正是语言与媒介的结合才令人类开始享受各种各样的自由。本人的论述独树一格,绝不与其他学者的论述雷同。其特点就是具有独特性。读者可以读一读本人写的第十章全文。看看本人的说明是否属实。 

 

 

 

 

Chapter Ten

Freedom

 

1. Speech

 

I would like to discuss freedom first. Freedom is the opposite of the state in which humans are not free. If a human being is not free, his movement is impeded. If we assume that sometimes humans may be in a stateless society or in the state of anarchy, we may find that a person’s movement may be really impeded in that case. That is, in that case freedom is only enjoyed by the one who is stronger. In other words, if the freedom of one is impeded by the other, the strength of one may overwhelm that of the other. Thus only the stronger one may have freedom. Under these circumstances the freedom had by humans is wild. That is, people may have complete freedom, but they may also lose it. People may have freedom, but temporarily. Such freedom reflects the predominance of violence and the untamed natural impulse of humans. If people must interact with each other in order to form a society, wild freedom is repugnant to the formation of the society. That is, wild freedom is the one outside the normal mutual interaction between one person and another. If people enter the process of the related mutual interaction, such freedom vanishes immediately because such freedom of anyone will end immediately when he interacts with the other who also has such freedom. If people have such wild freedom, they will feel pleasant indeed, but they usually soon feel displeased because it is very likely for one to be in conflict with the other. Thus, people, forming their society, yearn for freedom acceptable by all. This freedom is by no means wild freedom. This freedom is first endorsed by morality in the society. For example, morality may require everyone to respect any other one’s freedom of act if that act is committed in a moral way. Then, people form their society. As the society needs to be governed, people build their state. Then under these circumstances a law, made by the state, usually does not contradict morality. Morality needs support from law and law protects morality. Law and morality perform the same duty, but they function in different ways and in different domains. The result is that the freedom of people is ensured by both morality and law. Freedom is ensured by the alliance of morality and law. Thus, G. W. F. Hegel said that to the ideal of freedom, morality and law “are indispensably requisite.”1 In the meantime, as morality is often protected by the law backed by coercion and the law is implemented by the government by using coercion when necessary in order that lawful freedom can be surely enjoyed by people, they are sometimes even required to cooperate with the law and the government.  Thus, John Stuart Mill wrote that “a people must be considered unfit for more than a limited and qualified freedom, who will not co-operate actively with the law and the public authorities in the repression of evil-doers.”2 Only under the guarantee of the government becomes the freedom had by people one of the right bases of the mutual interaction between one another. Then we see that as this freedom, had by people, is ensured by the government, it is recognized and respected by each other in their mutual interaction. Freedom becomes sustainable, civilized and wholesome. This means that after the end of the state of anarchy, the freedom of the individual person must be both approved and guaranteed by the government. If two people are in a conflict because the freedom of one side is impeded by the other, the stronger one may be just. If the stronger one is just, he may use his own strength to ensure justice. If two people are in the conflict and the weaker is just, justice must be ensured by the government. Suppose that there are two people in a conflict because the freedom of one is impeded, and the one who is weak is just, this one cannot realize justice because he is weak. He has no alternative but to repose his hope on the government. The government must be just in order that people have freedom acceptable by all others. Because of this, freedom, discussed by us here, should be the freedom ensured by the government.

In other words, without a government, any freedom enjoyed by one will be likely to be in conflict with the freedom of all others. Without a just government, any freedom, enjoyed by one, may not be real. As Hegel wrote,

        The idea which people most commonly have of freedom is that it is

        arbitrariness—the mean, chosen by abstract reflection, between the will wholly

        determined by natural impulse, and the will free absolutely. If we hear it said

        that the definition of freedom is ability to do what we please, such an idea can

        only be taken to reveal an utter immaturity of thought, for it contains not even

        an inkling of the absolutely free will, of right, ethical life, and so forth.

        Reflection, the formal universality and unity of self-consciousness, is the will’s

        abstract certainty of its freedom, but it is not yet the truth of freedom, because it

        has not yet got itself as its content and aim, and consequently the subjective

        side is still other than the objective.3

 

In other words, when we discuss freedom, we must ascertain what freedom denotes. Freedom in reality must be defined by people jointly in order that everyone enjoys freedom. People need to act in unison as an entity to define such freedom. An authority is needed to ensure that the freedom enjoyed by any individual person is the one agreed to by all other people. Freedom is not anarchy. Freedom in reality, or the objective, rather than subjective, freedom, must be ensured under the supervision of the government. The freedom we talk about here is freedom in reality. Thus I conclude that people are not free unless they submit to the authority of the state governed in the principle, or according to the scheme, formulated in the process in which they participate directly or indirectly. The method, adopted by them to participate in formulating the said principle or the scheme, is to make a speech. If a person, like any other person, is able to make freely a speech in order to express his opinion on how the state should be governed, his opinion is likely to be reflected in the process of formulating that principle or scheme in the governance of the state to a varying extent. People are unlikely to be free unless they are in a state in which the authorities protect the freedom of speech. Without a state protecting the freedom of speech, people are unlikely to be free. If people do not form the state, freedom cannot be guaranteed. If there is no state, freedom, enjoyed by a person because he is born free, may be in conflict with the freedom enjoyed by all others for the same reason. If the freedom, enjoyed by one, is encroached by the freedom enjoyed by the other, there will be no freedom for anyone because people are likely to be involved in a conflict and even in a war at anytime. In the state of conflict, though each enjoys his freedom because no one is supposed to restrict his freedom legitimately, such freedom is not sustainable. Such freedom is precarious, discontinuous, short-lived and violent. Such freedom is wild. The conflict will result in the termination of the freedom of a certain side and the hegemony of the other side. This is the reason that people form the state. Then, as the state is built to prevent any conflict or war, the only way for people to seek their freedom is that they submit to the authority of the state governed in the principle, or according to the scheme, formulated in the process in which they participate directly or indirectly. In other words, if freedom is not defined by the authorities as agreed to by all, freedom is not real. The key is that the will of people should be known by the government. How can the will of people be known by the government? The will of people cannot be known by the government unless people can articulate their will. Thus, freedom is guaranteed by free articulation. Free articulation is just the freedom of speech.

Then the freedom of speech becomes crucial. This is because the only way for people to ensure that the state is organized in the principle, or according to the scheme, formulated in the process in which they participate directly or indirectly is that they enjoy the freedom of speech. This means that opinions, expressed by them freely in their speech, can be finally reflected in the process of formulating the principle or the scheme in the organization of the state. If some citizens keep on expressing their opinions, the government cannot ignore them. As those citizens can express their opinions freely, they are free. Conversely, if people do not enjoy the freedom of speech, it may not be likely for them to agree to the principle, or the scheme, formulated by others for the organization of the state. Thus they may not be free. In this sense, language is essential. 

Specifically, freedom, enjoyed by people in the state, is in relation to the language used by them. This is precisely because people enjoy the freedom of speech by using language as their tool. Language is the totality they can technically depend on. The building of the state is contingent on the use of language, and language supports freedom enjoyed by people building the state. The freedom of speech is enjoyed by people using language. If people make a speech, they often express their views to the authorities. As all are able to express their views to the authorities, their views may be reflected in the policies or the laws made by the state. This is due to the balance of linguistic communication that goes on in the state. Language always supports balanced communication. By “balanced communication,” I mean the linguistic communication through which each end of linguistic communication can take initiative to communicate with the other. Each end can function as both the sender of information and the receiver of information. Besides, using language is using a medium. Using a medium enables all to express their views. Language does not discriminate against anyone. We know that people advocate the freedom of speech. In doing so, they advocate the right used by all to speak. If the freedom of speech is not enjoyed by people in a state, this does not mean that all are unable to speak in the public. This situation only means that only a small portion of people have the right to speak in the public. People, advocating the freedom of speech, advocate that all have the right to speak in the public. The freedom of speech is significant of the fact that all are enabled to speak in the public. This means that anyone can speak in the public. Linguistic communication can be freely performed by one to present a view, or to express an opinion, to the other or to the authorities. Thus, it is possible for the interest of all to be considered by the authorities. Conversely, if all people are not allowed to speak in the public, reasonable opinions or views from the masses cannot be considered or accepted fully. If some people are disallowed to express their opinions or views, opinions or views cannot be compared with one another fully. Then reasonable opinions or views may not spread. All useful opinions or views cannot be drawn on. Thus the state may not be organized according to the will of the people. Thus people may not be free. For example, sometimes we see in history that a state turns despotic and then people no longer enjoy the freedom of speech. Ordinary people are kept from expressing their opinions or views to the authorities.  Opinions or views expressed to the authorities may be only those expressed by some influential social groups or the ruling class formed by the minority. Thus other people are often not free. For example, in a feudal state in medieval times opinions, expressed to the authorities, were more often the ones expressed by the nobles or clergymen because they kept close relationship with the power holder. In modern times mass media facilitate ordinary people to express their opinions to the authorities. Then the state tends to be democratic or at least tend to pay attention to public opinion.  Another case in point is that in medieval times people held no regular election in European states. This does not mean that ordinary people did not express their opinions at all. Sometimes peasants revolted against the authorities. The revolts of the peasants might serve as a method of expressing an opinion to the authorities. But peasants seldom expressed their opinions. Normally, those who expressed opinions were nobles and clergymen. They expressed opinions different from those opinions expressed by the peasants. Thus peasants suffered under the feudal yoke. This situation has changed since voting right was granted to ordinary citizens. Then election is regularly held in modern times. This is because election is, in some sense, a method used by ordinary people, forming the majority of the population, to express to the government their opinions about the affairs of the state. Similarly, if the state holds a referendum, all the citizens are invited to express to the authorities their opinions concerning an important affair of the state. If the state holds no referendum, a decision may be merely made by a few people holding the power of the state. They may reflect opinions from a small portion of people only. At least we cannot guarantee that they reflect opinions from the majority. Yet if the state holds a referendum, we can be sure that opinions from the majority can be known to the authorities. Perhaps opinions from the minority may also be known. Then the state can be governed in the principle, or according to the scheme, formulated by the people themselves or at least agreed to by them. Thus all are free though they submit to the governance of the state.

That means that the freedom of expressing an opinion belongs to all. That opinion is expressed freely. People may express different opinions. If there are the opinion of the majority and the opinion of the minority, these opinions take shape naturally. As noted earlier, there will be no majority without the minority. The opinion of the majority and the opinion of the minority appear in the free argument. People express different opinions simply because they need to give different opinions to display their inclinations. Some people give the opinion of the minority in order to assist other people in expressing the opinion of the majority. If certain opinions are deliberately suppressed and other opinions are deliberately allowed to be expressed, opinions, allowed to be expressed, tend to be the opinions of the authorities. These opinions are the ones of the minority because if the authorities intend to accept the opinions of the majority, it will often allow different opinions to compete against each other and the opinions of the majority will naturally prevail. So if the authorities adopt the opinions of the minority, theoretically speaking, the opinions of the minority must prevail due to the use of coercion. The freedom of speech is suppressed as a result. In this case, the opinion expressed by the citizens is always the opinion of the minority. The opinion of the majority and the opinion of the minority cannot coexist and the opinion of the majority is suppressed. If the opinion of the majority is suppressed, some cases often occur as follows. The first case is that the authorities may prevent those citizens, expressing their opinions against the authorities, from meeting the reporters of the mass media. The authorities may even detain those reporters. Consequently, their opinions are never known by the public. The second case is that the authorities may imprison those people. The authorities may even restrict their freedom permanently. The third case is that the authorities may prevent citizens from uniting in order to express their opinions against the government. For example, sometimes a mass demonstration is put down by the authorities. The fourth case is that public opinion is steered by the authorities. Though there is public opinion, this public opinion is the one relished by the authorities. The authorities suppress the public opinion that opposes them. In the meantime, their mouthpiece manipulates public opinion. The authorities actually permit no freedom of speech. The fifth case is that the authorities force the citizens to express the opinions of the authorities. The citizens are prevented from expressing their own independent opinions. For example, in some despotic states the delegates of the citizens are arranged for by the authorities to attend a mass rally to make a speech in support of the government. Those who oppose the government are not allowed to make a speech at that rally. If ordinary people hope to express their opinions, the authorities may use the tool of coercion of this kind or that kind to prevent them from expressing their own opinions. Ordinary people are even forced to express the opinions that are not their own. Linguistic communication is not performed in a balanced way. A speech is made to express the opinions of the minority only. In this case people often complain that they are not free. The state is governed in the principle, or according to a scheme, they do not agree to. Thus the state imposes its will on them. People may regard the governance of the state as oppression. Conversely, the freedom of speech means that all can express their opinions as a result of their own initiative. They are motivated by themselves to express their opinions.

All in all, the freedom of speech presupposes a system operated by language in the formation of a constructive interaction between the authorities and the citizens. Citizens are particularly allowed to speak in the public. The authorities are cooperative. They do not confront. Thus, the authorities are not the oppressors, and the citizens are not the insurgents. In this case people avoid a conflict between the citizens and the authorities. They build a system in which the citizens are particularly allowed to communicate. The result is that the authorities obey an invisible rule that allows for the citizens to express their opinions freely. Then we see the following circumstances.

First, people, enjoying the freedom of speech, often express different opinions. Since the principle of the freedom of speech requires that the freedom of speech be given to all, not a portion of people only, the opinions given by the citizens may be divided into the opinion of the majority and the opinion of the minority. Both the opinion of the majority and the opinion of the minority have their grounds. The authorities show the attitude of neutrality. The authorities do not suppress any opinion. The authorities do not give any support to any opinion in the public either. Conversely, if only a portion of people enjoy the freedom of speech, this is not the real meaning of the freedom of speech advocated by people. If people argue that whenever the opinion of the majority prevails, the voice of the minority should be silenced, the minority may also silence the voice of the majority whenever they are in power. As Mill warned,

 

        If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person were of

        the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one

        person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.4

 

This means that although sometimes an opinion is supported by the majority, this opinion may not absolutely correct or rational. Sometimes an opinion given by the minority is correct or rational. Although the society usually accepts the opinion of the majority as the legitimate one, the opinion of the minority may still be respected. At least, the authorities will not prohibit the minority from expressing their opinion. The authorities will not express their attitude on this issue. In this case, the authorities do not oppose any opinion expressed by the citizens. Then we find no reason to believe that the authorities support any side. Citizens will not enter into any conflict with the authorities. Each side will not prevail over the other side by using coercion. The freedom of speech tends to lead up to the diversification of the opinions and the authorities do not disagree thereto. That is, though the authorities may demonstrate their inclination in making their policies, they do not make any statement in support of any opinion expressed by the citizens and they do not argue with the citizens either. The government is not an ally of any opinion. It does not stand with any opinion expressed by a certain citizen in the public.

Second, since the citizens enjoy the freedom of speech, they often present their opinions. These opinions are often concerned with the management of public affairs or the governance of the state. While they express their opinions, they often put pressure on the authorities. Or even if they do not pressure the authorities, the society may pressure the authorities. The citizens, however, will not abuse language. They will present their constructive opinions using language because they, enjoying the freedom of speech, often present their opinions in the public. While they present their opinions in the public, their opinions have to meet the expectation from the public. The public will not support the opinion that advances the narrow interest of a small portion of people. As a result, the citizens, enjoying the freedom of speech, always put forward the constructive opinions. Then we see that if a person presents a petition, requesting the government to pay attention to the poverty of some people residing in a certain town and to grant subsidies to those townspeople, his petition may be reasonable. The government may accept his petition and decide to grant subsidies to those people because his petition meets the expectation from the public. Then, the related petition may actually function as a proposal for the management of a public affair. That is, some constructive opinions can become the suggestions of public policies of the state because they are reasonable or valuable. In this case the related opinion is constructive. Any speech which is not constructive will not be protected by law. The speech that harms the public interest or the security of the state may be banned by law. The speech, intentionally made to slander an innocent person, may be prohibited by law. The speech, deliberately made and proved to be a rumor, may not be protected by law. The speech, made to humiliate or swear at an innocent person, may not be regarded as the speech to be protected by law. Some materials of pornography, regarded as a speech polluting public morals, are usually banned by law. As such, the freedom of speech usually encourages all constructive speeches. Making constructive speeches, people only put forward constructive opinions. They will become the proposals for the organization or governance of the state or the management of public affairs. Some of them may even become the policies of the government. In other words, while the government adopts the opinion of the citizens, the citizens will be free. As they are free, they are free to give their opinions.

Third, so long as the citizens enjoy the freedom of speech, any opinion expressed by the citizens will not pose a threat to the ruling status of the government because what the government does is usually identical with the opinions expressed by the citizens. Conversely, if the government is formed against public opinion, public opinion, given by people having the freedom of speech, must pose a threat to the authorities. This concerns the distribution of the interest within the state. Public opinion takes shape often because of the necessity of distributing interest fairly. This is often because the government, formed not on the basis of the support of public opinion, tends to implement a scheme of distributing the interest of the ruling class or the minority. Public opinion, given by people who have freedom of speech, tends to reflect the opinion of all the citizens or at least the majority and hence represents a call for the fair distribution of interest. The recognition of the freedom of speech actually leads to the formation of the government that pays attention to the fair distribution of the interest of all. Language allows all rather than a portion of people to speak. The freedom of speech guards against the tyranny of the authorities or the social tyranny. Then, guaranteeing the freedom of speech means that the government will no longer be oppressive. All are free. The result is that as the citizens are allowed to advance their opinions freely, they will advance different opinions because they often have different views. The government will no longer ensure that only one opinion is expressed by the citizens. Then different opinions will compete. Reasonable, correct and valuable opinions will prevail through a discussion or a debate. As Mill argued, the best proposal will come from the discussion and debate that reinvigorate the views of people. The limit to the freedom of speech should be the point at which harm to the other is instigated. That is, according to Mill, “on every subject on which difference of opinion is possible, the truth depends on a balance to be struck between two sets of conflicting reasons.”5 Likewise, as Nigel Warburton interpreted, assuming that we possess the truth having gagged or avoided dissenting voices is very different from holding a view that has been contested openly and emerged unscathed or even strengthened. The process of subjecting a view to critical scrutiny is a necessary part of its validation.6 In this case, an opinion upheld by people in the long run is also regularly challenged in order to prove that such an opinion is still valid or correct. Any act of suppressing a different opinion without a discussion or a debate will damage the interest of the public.

In sum, the freedom of speech means the freedom of speech for all. While the citizens enjoy the freedom of speech, all enjoy it no matter whether the opinion advanced by them is the one of the majority or that of the minority or no matter whether the opinion advanced by them is correct or incorrect. Even if a person presents an obviously incorrect opinion, he may also enjoy the freedom of speech because all know that if he is prevented from presenting his opinion by depriving him of his freedom of speech, the public may not know why he is wrong. He is then permitted to present his opinion and other people are also permitted to present their opinions so as to allow the public to compare these different opinions to the effect that the public gets to know why one opinion is wrong and why all other opinions are correct. Without a discussion or a debate, one cannot know whether an opinion is really incorrect or correct. When people have a dispute, all are allowed to express their own opinions freely. The authorities will not come forward to rule on this dispute. The authorities will not prohibit anyone from expressing his opinion in the public unless his opinion harms the other. All interact with all linguistically. No one is going to interact with any other one by using coercion. All opinions compete against each other freely. Though no one is going to guide or supervise the competition of different opinions, all opinions obey reason. Linguistic interaction is an essential guarantee for the prevalence of reason. No opinion obeys the command from the authorities. The reason is that if a citizen adheres to his freedom of speech and the authorities insist on using coercion, it is difficult for reason to take precedence. People, advocating the freedom of speech, concede that all sides enjoy the freedom of speech. If they are involved in a dispute or an argument, the exchange of words is subject to the ruling of reason. Reason is usually the idea or the principle all sides accept or embrace. Such an idea must be presented by someone or such a principle must be formulated by someone though we do not know who is such a person. If all sides agree to be subject to the judgment of reason, they agree to be subject to the ruling of a third party. When a dispute or an argument is ruled on by a third party, justice is realized just like the judgment made by a judge in court. A judge, making a judgment, fulfills his duty according to law. A law is often or usually made by the lawmaker who is absent. Reason is to that third party which rules on the arguments presented by those who argue because they enjoy the freedom of speech what law is to the judge who makes a judgment because he fulfills his duty. The freedom of speech means the realization of justice under the auspices of a third party. Without the ruling of a third party, the state will always be in the potential or actual state of injustice. As a result, it is tantamount to the fact that the authorities, suppressing the freedom of speech enjoyed by the citizens, refuse to be subject to the ruling of a third party, albeit an unseen one. The freedom of speech does not contradict the rule of law simply because both the freedom of speech and law mean the ruling of a third party. The freedom of speech is aimed at justice. So I argue that people have built a natural relationship between the freedom of speech and the rule of law. Wherever there is the freedom of speech in a state, there is the rule of law. Wherever there is the rule of law in a state, there is the freedom of speech. We never see a state in which the freedom of speech is given, but the rule of law is not established; or the rule of law is established, but the freedom of speech is not given. People, ensuring the freedom of speech, carry out the principle that any dispute among them is ruled on by a third party because reason can act as an unseen third party. When a case is heard by a judge, such a judge acts as a third party. When he acts as a third party to deliver a judgment, he also submits to reason. Thus the ruling, awarded by a third party, is actually the one awarded as required by reason. Thus the freedom of speech reflects human reason.

In other words, the freedom of speech allows for people to present a variety of different opinions on the governance of the state or the management of public affairs. The freedom of speech normally allows for all to communicate with all. Both the argument from the majority and the argument from the minority are allowed to be put forward. Even the argument from an individual person is also allowed to be put forward. As the government is prevented by the constitution from interfering with the arguments among different opinions, the opinion that prevails is usually embraced by the majority of the people and the people obey reason. Therefore, any argument put forward in a discussion or a debate is subject to the judgment of reason. Reason plays a part in the organization of the state so long as the freedom of speech is guaranteed. So if the government deprives a portion of the citizens of their freedom of speech, it acts to rule on any dispute without being subject to the judgment of reason. The freedom of speech allows for the competition of different opinions so as to allow for reason to play a role. While people insist on the freedom of speech, they actually struggle for a right to guide the formulation of a principle or the scheme in the organization of the state. In this regard, they are free if they succeed. Yet, in view of a role played by language, the freedom of speech means an approach of using language to present the proposals for the governance of the state or the management of public affairs, and people, enjoying the freedom of speech, rely on the strength of reason and insist on the supremacy of reason. Using coercion does not necessarily mean reason. By contract, using language always means reason. The freedom of speech proves this logic.

 

 

2. Thought

 

The state is built over the society. As people, forming the state, are the members of the society, the interaction between the society and the state is also characterized by the interaction between people on behalf of the society and the state. For example, people’s freedom originates from the society, but it is essential for the state to respect and protect such freedom. This is because people’s freedom needs support from the state. This freedom also includes the freedom of thought. The freedom of thought is also realized in linguistic communication. If human thought comes from the process of production, the governance of the society, the development of education, the activities of culture, the cultivation of morality and others in the society, people are free because they realize directly or indirectly every objective they desire without any impediment. The state ought to respect this kind of thought. The reason is that thought must be disseminated in the mutual interaction of people. People interact with each other in two ways. One way of interaction is linguistic communication. Another way of interaction is the use of coercion. Thought is spread in the process of linguistic communication. The use of coercion relies on physical force. But in an ultimate sense the use of coercion restricts human freedom, whereas language supports it. A person cannot use language to restrict the freedom of any other person in an ultimate sense. Therefore, people disseminate and propagate thought by using language and have freedom in contrast to the fact that people coerce each other by applying physical force and hence force themselves to give up freedom. Normally, one cannot coerce the other into embracing a thought. Each holds the inborn sovereignty of mind that cannot be alienated. This is because people are free to come up with their thoughts in their brains. External intervention finally fails. As a person’s thought is his will, he cannot be coerced into accepting the will of another person unless he lets his will be coerced. As Hegel wrote,

        As a living thing man may be coerced, i.e. his body or anything else external

        about him may be brought under the power of others; but the free will cannot

        be coerced at all, except in so far as it fails to withdraw itself out of the

        external object in which it is held fast, or rather out of its idea of that object.

        Only the will which allows itself to be coerced can in any way be coerced.7

 

As thought is a person’s subjective will, this subjective will must be based on freedom. As this subjective will is actually a person’s spirit, this spirit must also be based on freedom. As Hegel wrote,

        All will readily assent to the doctrine that spirit, among other properties, is also   

        endowed with freedom; but philosophy teaches that all the qualities of spirit

        exist only through freedom; that all are but means for attaining freedom; that all

        seek and produce this and this alone. It is a result of speculative philosophy,

        that freedom is the sole truth of spirit.8

 

To put it differently, if we look at the nature of thought or the nature of spirit, the continuity of thought in another form, we can find that, at least, thought itself spreads from one to the other whenever and wherever a person interacts with another person and no one is able to keep people from developing their own thoughts in their brains or embracing the thoughts from others that they think fit. Mentioning the freedom of thought, we actually consider it the freedom of spreading thought. People, discussing any subject matter freely, can realize the freedom of thought in a certain form. As early as the times of ancient Greece, Socrates, a sage, already vindicated the freedom of discussion in seeking truth.9 I mean that the freedom of discussion can be regarded as a form of the freedom of thought because people, discussing any subject matter, exchange thoughts. In the meantime we see that whenever people discuss a subject matter, thought, like water, flows in a process of linguistic communication. People, building their community in which all can cooperate with all in production, are in a situation that creates a condition for their own preservation. They must have certain impressions given by the related objective environment. They must master certain common sense. They must create certain knowledge. Then they must come up with certain ideas. These ideas may develop into thoughts. Then people may share certain thoughts because they can use language at any time to spread a thought. Not all thoughts may be shared, of course. But certain thoughts must be shared precisely because people tend to embrace proactively thoughts through linguistic communication. People are the animals of thinking. The competence of thinking varies from one to another. The competence of thinking of certain people cannot be completely used up by themselves. There may be some surplus competence of thinking among people. As people communicate by using language and some of them disseminate their thoughts, others may utilize such surplus competence of thinking later. Such surplus competence of thinking is a medium in support of linguistic communication. People communicate because they need thought. A person’s thought may then become the thought of the masses. The thought of the masses is usually very powerful. People build up the strength of the collective being in the domain of the subjective world of mankind. Describing the strength of the collective being, Aristotle wrote that:

        For the many, each of whom is not a serious man, nevertheless could, when

        they have come together, be better than those few best—not, indeed,

        individually but as a whole, just as meals furnished collectively are better than

        meals furnished at one person’s expense. For each of them, though many, could

        have a part of virtue and prudence, and just as they could, when joined together

        in a multitude, become one human being with many feet, hands, and senses, so

        also could they become one in character and thought. That is why the many are

        better judges of the works of music and the [poetry], for one of them judges one

        part and another another and all of them the whole.10

 

This argument should more or less point out the superiority of a collective being in the process of judgment. Judgment needs thought. The thought of the collective being takes shape in one or many processes of linguistic communication.

So I argue that people, using language, are free to communicate with each other. People, who are free to communicate with each other, are able to spread thoughts freely. Thoughts serve as a spiritual basis for them to build their society. Then they have a society designed and needed by them. If coercion is not used in this case, the society, built by them, is what they choose freely. Thus, they are free. Since people can communicate with one another using language, some thoughts are finally embraced by all or at least the majority. No one can use language to stop the process of linguistic communication that spreads thoughts. Whenever or wherever language is used by people, it tends to disseminate information. If a piece of information is a secret, it tends to be divulged to the public if no effort is made to keep it confidential. Therefore, thought is disseminated in linguistic communication. A thought attaches itself to linguistic communication. Thus, whenever or wherever a thought is offered by a person without any impediment, it will be embraced by many or even by all, provided that this thought is absolutely rational and applicable. People will judge if a certain thought is rational and applicable. If they consider that thought rational and applicable, they usually embrace, uphold and even propagate it. People are unable to impede the spread of a thought because in the civilized society people are the animals of reason and any thought may carry the power of reason. People, debating the correctness of a thought, show their reason. If different thoughts compete, the most reasonable thought will prevail as it is embraced, upheld and propagated. The only one method that can be used by people to stop or impede the dissemination of a thought is the use of coercion. Any thought that insists on the use of coercion to ban other different thoughts is usually not acceptable by all. As a result, we find that whenever or wherever a thought takes shape in the community, language, in the ultimate sense, always supports it. Thus, whenever or wherever the authorities, holding another thought, insist that coercion should be used to ban this thought, these authorities are usually unable to use language to suppress the spread of this thought. What can be used by the authorities under these circumstances is coercion. This tells us that, in some sense, whenever or wherever the authorities use coercion to stop the dissemination of a thought that insists on the free competition of thoughts on the market of ideas, this thought at least tends to be rational. This thought may also be applicable. This is because if this thought is irrational or is inapplicable, the authorities will be able to use a rational thought or an applicable thought to defeat it. That the authorities use coercion to stop the spread of this thought is indicative of the fact that the authorities, armed with no rational or applicable thought, are unable to defeat the related thought on the market of ideas. They have no choice but to adopt some other approaches. For example, in  history the authorities of certain despotic states in Europe or Asia used to ban the publishing of, or even used to burn, certain books because those authorities deemed those books, spreading various thoughts, as a threat to their rule. In modern times the authorities of many despotic states are unable to impede effectively or thoroughly the spread of rational or applicable thoughts within the state. But they are sometimes able to use coercion to stop the application of those rational and applicable thoughts though those rational and applicable thoughts have been spread. For example, in the former Soviet Union the idea of democracy that originated from the West was spread at least in the academic circle, but democracy could not be immediately established because the authorities announced that they would not follow the democracy of Western model and the authorities used coercion to keep their despotic rule characterized by one single-party system. The authorities were largely unable to refute the idea of democracy by using language in the ultimate sense because the people of the Soviet Union were likely to embrace the idea of democracy. What could be used by them was, in the ultimate sense, coercion. On the other hand, the authorities usually propagated a thought gradually regarded by people as irrational or inapplicable.  The authorities were unable to protect this thought without using coercion. So in history thinkers, advocating the freedom of thought, called on the authorities not to use coercion to suppress the competition of different thoughts. They believed that the competition of different thoughts would enable the society to embrace a correct one. The society would advance on a correct track. Likewise, I also argue that if people propagate freely a thought by using language across the society, different thoughts will compete against each other and a rational and applicable thought will prevail over other irrational and inapplicable thoughts.  If some people propagate a thought, other people should be allowed to refute it by using another different thought. Then people will single out and embrace the rational and applicable thought. The rational and applicable thought will prevail. So, describing his idea about liberty, Mill wrote that:

 

        There is the greatest difference between presuming an opinion to be true,

        because, with every opportunity for contesting it, it has not been refuted, and

        assuming its truth for the purpose of not permitting its refutation. Complete

        liberty of contradicting and disproving our opinion is the very condition which

        justifies us in assuming its truth for purposes of action; and on no other terms

        can a being with human faculties have any rational assurance of being right.11

 

This case should also apply to thoughts. If the authorities protect linguistic communication performed freely to let different thoughts compete, a rational and applicable thought will prevail. It is possible for the prevalence of a rational and applicable thought to be reflected in the process of building a society. As such, it is possible for people to be free in the society built by them.

This situation mentioned above actually confirms again that thought represents a force and power represents another one. The way thinkers think differs from the way coercion is used in the organization of the state. When thinkers think, they obey logic, or reason, or follow their intellect. As Mill wrote, “No one can be a great thinker who does not recognize, that as a thinker it is his first duty to follow his intellect to whatever conclusions it may lead.”12 The logic, or reason, or their intellect is usually used for the public good because thinkers cannot use the logic, or reason, or their intellect, for their own good only. Thinkers will not be thinkers if they do not work for the public good.  In contrast, the way the government organizes the state by using coercion is different. Coercion relies on physical strength. Physical strength cannot judge whether or not an act is reasonable. In the meantime, we find that thought is supported by language while power is supported by coercion. Sometimes a thought is protected by power. Sometimes power comes under the influence of a thought. Thought and power can cooperate with each other. However, thought cannot replace power, and power cannot replace thought. If a thought does not support power or power refuses to be left under the influence of the thought, the thought may become a weapon used by people in their struggle for freedom while power cannot be used to get freedom for people, supposing that power is merely used for the operation of the government in its governance of the state. This is precisely because thought is usually embraced by people on voluntary basis while power can impose its own will on people. Thought is spread through the use of language to which everyone has access. All have the freedom of using language. So people are able to choose to embrace a thought. In contrast, the will, imposed by power, cannot be easily resisted. The will of power may not be what is selected by people. This means that people, accepting a thought on voluntary basis, are free. In contrast, the rule of the ruler is often arbitrary. The rule is despotic. The ruler is also despotic. People build the state as a despotic state. The state is governed in a despotic way. If there is a thought prevailing in the state, this thought is usually propagated by the ruler unilaterally. Ordinary people may not accept this thought. If ordinary people accept it, it may not be in their own interest in an ultimate sense. But if people build the state on the basis of democracy because the democratic constitution is carried out indeed as indicated by modern history, different thoughts may compete against each other. All different thinkers become attractive. Now, as coercion is prevented from being used to curb the competition of thoughts, thinkers, reflecting the wishes of the masses, try their best to offer their particular thoughts. Then, the best thought, chosen by the majority of people, becomes the mainstream thought of the state. Then people become free. Of course, the state is governed with power. But power may be prevented from being used to suppress the competition of thoughts. Power, used in the governance of the state, may not step in to influence the competition of thoughts unless there is a thought advocating banning the dissemination of all other thoughts. In this case, the mainstream thought is selected by people freely. People are free if they submit to a thought embraced by them of their own wills in the governance of the state.

In other words, prohibiting the competition of thoughts will lead to the outbreak of a conflict between thought and power. Power is normally held by the authorities. The authorities usually propagate one thought and suppress all other thoughts if the authorities do not come under the influence of a reasonable thought. Thus coercion gains dominance. The authorities are unable to use a thought to oppress people. The authorities are almost unlikely to impose a thought on people in the long run if people consciously oppose, or refuse to accept, that thought. A thought is usually a weapon used by the people if the thought, upheld by the people, opposes the thought adhered to by the authorities. If two camps of thought coexist, the thought, had by the people, is usually powerful because a thought, protected by the ruler’s coercion, is comparatively weak. In this case, the thought, advocated by the people, tends to reflect the trend of social progress while coercion may not. This is mainly because a human thought always precedes a human act. A thought may reflect reason while coercion may not. Thus in many cases a thought is progressive, whereas coercion represents the conservative force. When religion was not free in history, the development of science was impeded because any scientific thought repugnant to the dogma of the Church was suppressed. A scientific thought was disseminated by using language. If the regime banned the dissemination of the scientific thought, it used coercion. One case in point is that the Renaissance age witnessed the signs of the rise of modern science, yet the inquiry into nature did not unfold smoothly. The history of modern astronomy begins in 1543, with the publication of the work of Copernicus revealing the truth about the motions of the earth. The publication of his work, however, raised an issue between science and Scripture. The related theory was denounced by the Church. The discoveries of the Italian astronomer Galieo de’ Galilei, who demonstrated the Copernican theory, were condemned. He was silenced by the Holy Office that announced that Copernican system was absurd and, in respect of Scripture, heretical. The publication of one of his treatises on the two systems (the Ptolemaic and the Copernican) in the form of Dialogues was disapproved by the Pope. He was summoned before the Inquisition and threatened with torture.13

As scientific thought is usually offered by scientists on individual basis, scientists are isolated individuals. They usually do not belong to any organization. They disseminate scientific thoughts in the process of linguistic communication only. They act on individual basis. They are independent as individuals. In contrast, the authorities act on the basis of an organization such as a religious establishment or an administrative organ. If unreasonable coercion is prevented from being used, human thoughts will flourish. Thus the phenomenon, that some scientists who disclosed the principle of science against the dogma of the Church were burned or persecuted, disappeared over the period of time between the sixteenth and the nineteenth century. In modern times, since people adopted the principle of religious freedom, the religious organization has been no longer the original one that suppressed the development of science.

That means that no tool of coercion is under the control of the isolated individuals in the civilized society unless those people are organized and unite. Normally, there is no competition between coercion under the control of the regime and coercion under the control of ordinary people. In peaceful times isolated individuals of the civilized society are not armed as a group. But those people may have a thought. The thought, had by those people, is potentially more powerful than the thought had by the authorities. This is because a thought is a medium. The authorities may not simply organize the state with a thought. It may sometimes simply depend on coercion placed at its disposal in organizing the state. But a thought, spread to ordinary people, may be used as a medium to organize ordinary people. By contrast, coercion is usually at the disposal of a few people. It is usually under the control of the regime. If it is under the control of the majority of people, the majority of people will be unable to use coercion because the majority of people are usually not organized to use coercion unless they stay under special circumstances. In other words, the use of coercion relies on the power of organization. Personnel, sent out by the regime to force ordinary people to obey the decree, are organized. They obey the order issued by their supervisor. The order may be issued level by level, involving human-chain linguistic communication. Officials of each level function as media. They are personnel used by the official of the upper level. The regime may be involved in the conflict of interest. By contrast, a thought, mastered by a single person or a few people, should not be powerful. A thought becomes powerful when it is mastered by the majority of people or all within the state. The spread of a thought may not rely on any organization. Although ordinary people are isolated individuals, a thought spread to them may be embraced by them. A thought is duplicated repetitively when it is spread. A thought is usually not involved in the conflict of interest because it cannot play a prominent role in the organization of the state unless it is embraced by many or the majority or all. To put it another way, a thought, embraced and upheld by many, or the majority, or all, tends not to be involved in any conflict of interest because now such a thought does not serve a small portion of people only but a large portion of people or the majority or all. Thought is antithetical to coercion or power backed by coercion. A despotic regime relies mainly on the use of coercion to keep its rule though sometimes this regime also tries to indoctrinate the masses with the thought promoted by it. By contrast, a thought is spread gradually and continuously. If such a thought spreads widely, the thought may become a medium through which ordinary people unite. A thought may become a force. Ordinary people may be temporarily organized. The organization of ordinary people enables them to have a tool of coercion. This tool of coercion may override the tool of coercion had by the regime if a revolt or revolution erupts. The old regime may rely chiefly on the use of coercion to resist the revolt or the revolution of the masses if the masses decide to revolt or initiate a revolution. The use of coercion largely denotes the use of an army or a police force. The army or the police force is well organized according to a code. The hierarchy of the army, or the police organization within the administrative branch, ensures that an order can be effectively issued from the upper level to the lower level. The military personnel or policemen are strictly disciplined. But the powerful thought belongs to the masses. Though people may be the crowds of the masses without any strict discipline and hence may not be well organized, they may be strongly motivated by a thought. They may be temporarily organized. They owe their victory to the power of the thought to a greater extent. This means that a thought can be used to mobilize the masses. The masses may revolt against the regime and even overthrow the regime in a revolution if the masses confront the regime. Then it follows that a thought becomes a weapon used by people for self-emancipation. If that thought is later kept as the guiding thought in the governance of the society, people can finally have freedom. Although power is used in the governance of the society all the time, a thought gives freedom to people. If a thought, embraced by people, prevails, the governance of the state must satisfy the condition that freedom is given to people. For example, in early modern times the traditional rule of many despotic countries collapsed because of the triumph of liberalism. Liberalism is a kind of thought. It is not the tool of coercion, but it triumphs over the tool of coercion in the evolution of history. The reason is that a thought cannot be defeated by the tool of coercion but another thought that proves more advanced. When describing how liberalism prevailed over the traditional rule of the ruling class in Europe, Ludwig von Mises wrote that:

        When liberal ideas began to spread to central and eastern Europe from their

        homeland in western Europe, the traditional powers—the monarchy, the

        nobility, and the clergy—trusting in the instruments of repression that were at

        their disposal, felt completely safe. They did not consider it necessary to

        combat liberalism and the mentality of the Enlightenment with intellectual

        weapons. Suppression, persecution, and imprisonment of the malcontents

        seemed to them to be more serviceable. They boasted of the violent and

        coercive machinery of the army and the police. Too late they realized with

        horror that new ideology snatched these weapons from their hands by

        conquering the minds of officials and soldiers. It took the defeat suffered by

        the old regime in the battle against liberalism to teach its adherents the truth

        that there is nothing in the world more powerful than ideologies and ideologists

        and that only with ideas can one fight against ideas. They realized that it is

        foolish to rely on arms, since one can deploy armed men only if they are

        prepared to obey, and that the basis of all power and domination is, in the last

        analysis, ideological.14

 

Thus, it is arguable that if the power of a thought, embraced and upheld by people, prevails over the power of the tool of coercion in the governance of the state, people should be free.

In pre-modern times, such as medieval times, the regime relied mainly on the use of coercion in the governance of the state indeed. If a thought played a part in the governance of the state, that thought was unilaterally propagated by the regime. For example, the regime propagated the idea of divine right. That thought was not freely selected by the masses because there was scarcely the competition of different thoughts. In modern times a thought can play a significant role in the governance of the state due to the fact that different thoughts can be chosen by people and one thought can figure prominently. There appears a process in which linguistic communication is widely performed to disseminate one thought to the masses; the masses compel the regime to adopt this thought in the governance of the state; and the regime adopts this thought in the governance of the state finally. That is, the nature of language makes it possible that, in the interaction between action and thought, a thought almost always precedes the action because people always seek the improvement of their living or social conditions no matter whether certain necessary conditions are fulfilled or not. If a person takes action without any idea, he may be blamed by all others as without a second thought. This means that the most cases seen by people are that when a new thought is disseminated in the process of linguistic communication, the old social or political system is still adhered to. The new thought clashes with the old social or political system because the thought is advanced and wholesome while the existing social or political system seems backward or corrupt. Thus, the freedom of thought is always requested by those who keep on engaging in speculation. The freedom of thought has never been advocated by the power holder. The freedom of thought is usually requested by those without power. To put it another way, the flag of the freedom of thought is always hoisted by those who have no power either in ancient or medieval or modern times. To make a social progress, people have to accept the freedom of thought. All wholesome thoughts should be allowed to compete. As J. B. Bury wrote,

        n order to readjust social customs, institutions, and methods to new needs

        and circumstances, there must be unlimited freedom of canvassing and

        criticizing them, or expressing the most unpopular opinions, no matter how

        offensive to prevailing sentiment they may be. If the history of civilization has

        any lesson to teach it is this: there is one supreme condition of mental and

        moral progress which it is completely within the power of man himself to

        secure, and that is perfect liberty of thought and discussion. The establishment

        of this liberty may be considered the more valuable achievement of modern

        civilization, and as a condition of social progress it should be deemed

        fundamental. The considerations of permanent utility on which it rests must

        outweigh any calculations of present advantage which from time to time might

        be thought to demand its violation.15

 

Thus although people submit to the regime in the governance of the state, one of the rationalities of the state sought by people is the very fact that people have the freedom of thought and the objective of the freedom of thought is that the regime governs the state in the principle formulated on the basis of the thought embraced and upheld by them. The progress of civilization, made particularly in modern times in this aspect, bears testimony to this case. There are various cases supporting this argument.

First, many education institutions are established in modern times. They form an education system. These institutions include schools, colleges and universities and other similar institutions. They disseminate knowledge. They also spread thoughts. This means that the process of disseminating thoughts is accelerated, strengthened and supported as the teachers, those who are most capable of disseminating thoughts, are recruited and the students, those who are in the most urgent need of gaining knowledge and thoughts, cluster at one location for going through this process. The regime can no longer ignore the role played by a thought in the governance of the society or state. As now people have their thoughts because of education, the regime may adopt one thought embraced by most of people. Thus people become free. The teaching program may be determined by the regime. A thought may be propagated by the teachers to the students as required and entrusted by the regime. However, in the society or the state in which the main value or the guiding thought is chosen freely by people, that value or thought is expected to be embraced by people freely. As people are able to change the value or the thought they embrace at anytime, they can embrace freely the thought disseminated by the teachers. Thus people are free. In the society or the state in which the main value or the guiding thought is not chosen by people freely, the regime needs to interpret the thought disseminated to ordinary people. Ordinary people can make their judgment. As a thought needs to be accepted and embraced by ordinary people, the regime needs to interpret successfully the main value or the guiding thought. The regime faces the pressure that it needs to adopt the thought that can be embraced by ordinary people. The regime cannot deprive ordinary people of their freedom of thought. The common interest of people within the state also takes shape when people insist on the freedom of thought because the freedom of thought results in the fact that all or the majority embrace the same thought and that all or the majority embrace the same thought means that all or the majority has reached a consensus. If people do not have common interest, they will not reach that consensus.

Second, the use of language in the long run creates a condition for extending the distance of linguistic communication. People gradually communicate on a large scale. Such a situation leads, in some sense, to the birth of a mass society. Mass media develop in support of linguistic communication on a large scale. Though mass media disseminate knowledge, they also spread thoughts. The operation of mass media accelerates and strengthens the process of disseminating thoughts to ordinary people. Thinkers offer many different thoughts to ordinary people. Ordinary people choose to embrace one thought and put it into practice. As now plenty of people are likely to embrace one thought, this thought will gradually become the mainstream thought of the society or the state. The society or the state will function in the way desired by all. Thus people may become free. This indicates that those mass media can propagate a thought to the masses in the public and that thought can prevail. It is impossible for the society or the state not to be influenced by any powerful thought. Thus, the society or the state adopts a mechanism through which the masses embrace a thought as the guiding thought in the building of the society or the state. This ensures that people can have their freedom. One can corroborate this situation in any process of transition in which a traditional society becomes a modern one. In a traditional society people are fettered by many thoughts that prove obsolete and no longer applicable. People may feel that they are oppressed by the old society. They usually believe that they are not free. Yet after a new thought is successfully propagated in the society, people embrace this thought. Then people reform the society. People rebuild the society according to the new thought embraced by them. A modern society is born. People become free as a result.

Third, people, communicating by using language, build a civil society. Language is a medium used to disseminate a thought to many people on a large scale and a thought can also be regarded as a medium used by language in communication on a large scale. Thus, that thought plays a part in the building of the society. Cultural development in ancient or modern times may illustrate this situation. In ancientGreeceliterature spread thought when writers engaged in the criticism of life. J. B. Bury, when describing the civilization of ancient Greeks, wrote that “Their literature . . .could not have been what it is if they had been debarred from free criticism of life.”16 They, engaging in the critique of life, must disseminate a thought. In modern times the prosperity of literature and art allows for many writers and artists to disseminate their humanistic thoughts to the great masses of the people. Writers and artists are more capable of communicating with the great masses of the people, and they actually function as media. They are the media used by the great masses of the people to communicate with themselves. In the meantime, as writers and artists are those who are more capable of disseminating thoughts and the success of disseminating their thoughts usually depends on how the great masses of the people select a thought, the thoughts that prevail in the society are usually upheld by the great masses of the people. These thoughts must be reflected in the governance of the society or the state to a varying extent. In this case, people are free. In other words, the society or the state is governed under the influence of a certain thought upheld and cherished by the great masses of the people. Thus the people are free. For example, writers and artists who emerged in Great Britain, France, Germany and Russia as well as other European countries, such as Voltaire (Francois-Marie Arouet), Victor Hugo, Johann Wolfgang von Gothe, Johann Christoph Friedrich von Shiller, and Fyodor Dostoyevsky, in early modern times almost invariably disseminated liberal or progressive thoughts. Later the peoples of those countries established democracy or called for the establishment of democracy in all those countries in succession. The governance of the society or the state came gradually under the influence of those writers and artists. The thoughts, propagated by those writers and artists, are now the thoughts upheld by ordinary people in those countries. Now there is the free society in each of those countries.

Thus, in fact, the freedom of thought, enjoyed by people, keeps the government from using coercion in the political domain except in the legal domain. Thus, the people enjoy the freedom of thought and maintain the legal order of the state. The legal order of the state does not impede the freedom of thought.

 

 

3. Religious Belief

 

The freedom of thought, discussed by us in the previous section, is the freedom of the spiritual activity of humans. Religious belief is also a spiritual activity of humans. Disseminating a thought, people enjoy the freedom of thought. Spreading a religious belief, people enjoy the freedom of religious belief. A thought exists in the process of linguistic communication. A religious belief also exists in the process of linguistic communication. While in the secular society the spread of a thought is the quest for reason, in the religious society people stick to faith.  Although people in the religious community obey the categorical commandment from the church or temple and stick to faith insulated from evidence, people in the religious community submit to moral commandment and seek the mutual love of brothers and sisters. A religious society and a secular society may cooperate in the building of the state. Particularly, under the circumstances that some basic social values are suppressed by a despotic government, the religious society and the secular society may unite. The reason is that the religious community is capable of mobilizing religious believers, and its commitment may be salutary to the building of the state. This is because some values, upheld by religious believers, may be shared by laymen. For example, the moral idea of the religious community may be analogous to the secular moral idea in some aspects. The religious idea, embedded in the tradition and folk custom, may not be repugnant to the social idea shared by all. Thus Brian Leiter stated that the combination of categorical demands on action and insulation from evidence seems a frightening one, but it has often been responsible for laudatory and courageous behavior, such as resistance to Nazism and to apartheid.17

That means that religious believers also seek freedom. There is a similar case in the interaction between them and the organizer of the state in relation to religion. This similar case is that in the interaction between religious believers and the organizer of the state, religious believers engage mainly in linguistic interaction. They seek their own development. They uphold their religious belief. They always need to manifest their belief. In this case, language plays a role. To put it differently, in any state in the world there is almost at least one kind of religion. In many states there are different religions. People spread religion chiefly in linguistic communication. Unlike the case that coercion is used in the governance of the state or the society, language supports freedom in the spiritual life of humans needed by religious believers. This is precisely because a religious belief is spread by using language mainly. The community always needs governance and coercion is often used. The use of coercion suppresses people’s freedom. Then people may feel that they are oppressed. Language in nature does not support coercion. Language is a tool distinct from any tool of coercion. Language is used to disseminate an idea. That is, some people disseminate an idea and some other people embrace this idea. This idea may be reflected in the governance of the community. People, agreeing to this idea, will submit to the governance of the state on voluntary basis. Coercion is not needed to be used. Thus, people become free. This is a case for religion, too. That is, religion involves the religious activities of upholding, propagating and manifesting a religious belief, and people often hold different religious beliefs. They may believe that there is a supreme being. In the meantime, the supporters of a certain religion are tempted to think of their own religion as being superior to other religions and may support the dominance of their own religious faith. Without the guarantee to the freedom of religion provided by the government, religions or religious sects cannot always guarantee the freedom of religion by themselves. In history some religious groups persecuted some other religious groups. One of the reasons that some religious groups persecuted other religious groups was that some of them were strong while others weak. Religious groups are not always equally strong. Sometimes a group of people, holding a particular religious faith, are intolerant of another group of people upholding another religious faith, and a religious conflict or persecution unfortunately breaks out. In this case, people resort to violence. Then some people may be coerced into relinquishing their own religious belief or embracing a religious belief they do not want to embrace. The role of language in the spread of religion is absent. By contrast, if language is used by people to play a role in the spread of religion, people may avoid using coercion. People may advocate and encourage the tolerance of different religions or religious sects. In this case a ruler or a power holder of the state may intend to win support from the masses that embrace a religion and he may promise to recognize religious freedom. As early as the times of ancient Rome, religions were tolerated. As J. B. Bury wrote, “The general rule of Roman policy was to tolerate throughout the Empire all religions and all opinions.”18 InEngland, the ruler might also tolerate religion. Hobbes used to write that William the Conqueror used to take an oath not to infringe the liberty of the Church.19 InGermany, before the formation of the new Empire (1870), the freedom of religion was ensured because Frederick the Great meant that every one should be allowed to get to heaven in his own way. He guaranteed the unrestricted liberty of conscience in his policy and principles formulated in the Prussian Territorial Code of 1794 and placed the three chief religions, namely, the Lutheran, the Reformed, and the Catholic, on the same footing and let them enjoy the same privileges.20 This means that coercion was prevented from being used by any religion to push aside any other religion. People supported the flourishing of the spiritual world only in the processes of linguistic communication.

Based on the abovementioned analysis, we find that any person, advocating religious freedom against the use of coercion in support, or for the protection, of any religion, almost always advocates the freedom of religious belief that directly or indirectly confirms the role of language in the spread of religion. Religion grows in the processes of linguistic communication rather than in the use of coercion. All religions grow in linguistic interaction. In contrast, supporting the growth of one religion by using force is no more justifiable than suppressing another religion. A religious sect, persecuted in the past, may even persecute another sect, for example. According to J. B. Bury, “The Puritans who fled from the intolerance of the English Church and State and founded colonies in New England, were themselves equally intolerant, not only to Anglicans and Catholics, but to Baptists and Quakers.”21 People, upholding the principle of the freedom of religion, insist that one should be free not to embrace the religion of another group of people in order to adhere to his own religion. Roger Williams, a clergyman advocating the freedom of religion in theUnited   Statesin the seventeenth century, upheld that “Christ does not endorse violent defense of religion.”22 He continued that “Religious persecution is inconsistent with Christ’s way and a desire for civil peace.” 23 He insisted that:

        To batter down idolatry, false worship, heresy, schism, blindness, or hardness,

        out of the soul and spirit, it is vain, improper, and unsuitable to bring those

        weapons which are used by prosecutors—stocks, whips, prisons, swords,

        gibbets, stakes.24

 

Then he concluded that:

        t is not the will of the Father of Spirits that all the consciences and spirits of

        this nation should violently . . . be forced into one way of worship, or that any

        town or so-called parish inEngland,Scotland, orIrelandbe disturbed in their

        worship by the civil sword ([whatever] worship [that might be]).25  

 

In this case we also insist that stopping resort to violence will create a condition for language to play a role. Conversely, using coercion often prevents language from playing a role. Religion cannot be prohibited by using language. If people are allowed to use freely language to propagate their religious faith, there should be no coercion. If people embrace and obey a religious doctrine because they have been convinced by a religious thought, language will play a part. In this case people are free. Religious freedom is linguistic freedom.

The freedom of religion is actually a state of the activities performed by people in their own mind for the purpose of maintaining a kind of belief without any external obstruction. These activities are performed in mind. All perform the similar activities. All share the same belief because all communicate with all by using language. Coercion cannot be applied inside the brain. Thus a belief is upheld by people often as a result of a kind of the activities performed through linguistic communication. Language and religious freedom always go hand in hand while language and coercion may not. A person cannot be coerced into accepting a belief. John Locke explained this logic most directly. He wrote that:

        The care of Souls cannot belong to the Civil Magistrate, because his Power

        consists only in outward force; but true and saving Religion consists in the

        inward perswasion of the Mind, without which nothing can be acceptable to

        God. And such is the nature of the Understanding, that it cannot be compell’d

        to the belief of any thing by outward force. Confiscation of Estate,

        Imprisonment, Torments, nothing of that nature can have any such Efficacy as

        to make Men change the inward Judgment that they have framed of things.26

 

It is true that in history some religious groups used coercion to prevent the development of other religious groups. This indicates that people try to end the process of linguistic communication that spreads religion. Whenever coercion is used by a religious group to stop the growth of another religious group, language will stop playing its essential role in support of religious freedom. Thus, to allow for language to play that role, people ought to resist the use of coercion by any religious group in an attempt to curb the growth of any other religious group. This is the requirement for the administration of religion in the state if the state should be a secular organization. The reason is that the organization of the society instead of the state sometimes relies on religion. The society can be fragmented. Different religious groups can co-exist. The state should be monolithic. If the state needs to differentiate itself from the society, the state should ensure religious toleration.  The state should even tolerate different ideas so long as they are not against law. So, Locke wrote that:

        The Sum of all we drive at is, that every man may enjoy the same Rights that

        are granted to others. Is it permitted to worship God in the Roman manner? Let

        it be permitted to do it in the Geneva Form also. Is it permitted to speak Latin

        in the Market-place? Let those that have a mind to it, be permitted to do it also

        in the Church. Is it lawfull for any man in his own House, to kneel, stand, sit,

        or use any other Posture; and to cloath himself in White or Black, in short or in

        long Garments? Let it not be made unlawful to eat Bread, drink Wine, or wash

        with Water, in the Church. In a Word: Whatsoever things are left free by Law

        in the common occasions of Life, let them remain free unto every Church in

        Divine Worship. Let no Man’s Life, or Body, or House, or Estate, suffer any

        manner of Prejudice upon these Accounts. Can you allow of the Presbyterian

        Discipline? Why should not the Episcopal also have what they like?

        Ecclesiastical Authority, whether it be administered by the Hands of a Single

        Person, or many, is every where the same; and neither has any Jurisdiction in

        things Civil, nor any manner of Power of Compulsion, nor any thing at all to do

        with Riches and Revenues.27

 

This means that the governance of the state differs from the governance of the society. The governance of the society may not rely on the use of coercion. The governance of the society relies on morality. Morality is based on a moral idea and that idea guilds the operation of the society. Likewise, the society may be guided by a thought. It may also be guided by a belief. Thus a belief in the society may be very influential and powerful. By contrast, the governance of the state relies on the use of coercion though the person, in control of the state, may also come under the guidance of a thought. It is difficult to control the spread of a thought in the society. Similarly, it is difficult to control the spread of a religious belief in the society. The reason is that people use language and language is used to spread a religious belief. People use language every day. The strength of religion derives from language.  If a religion suppresses another religion, the religion that suppresses another religion functions as an authority in the governance of the state. This is because sometimes some people use coercion to suppress a religion. Coercion always fails in the long run. The reason is that people use language every day. But people cannot use coercion every day. It is easier to use language to spread a religious belief than to use coercion to suppress a religion. In the long run religion grows though in history it is occasionally suppressed. The reason is that the use of language underlies the growth of the state. A religion cannot be easily suppressed by another religion or the authorities supported by another religion because the use of coercion is doomed to fail in the long run. So Mill wrote that:

        [T]he Reformation broke out at least twenty times before Luther, and was put

        down. Arnold of Brescia was put down. Fra Dolcino was put down. Savonarola

        was put down. The Albigeois were put down. The Vaudois were put down.

        The Lollards were put down. The Hussites were put down. Even after the era

        of Luther, wherever persecution was persisted in, it was successful. InSpain,

        Italy, Flanders, the Austrian empire, Protestantism was rooted out; and most

        likely, would have been so inEngland, had Queen Mary lived, or Queen

        Elizabeth died. Persecution has always succeeded, save where the heretics

        were too strong a party to be effectually persecuted. No reasonable person can

        doubt that Christianity might have been extirpated in the Roman Empire. It

        spread, and became predominant, because the persecutions were only

        occasional, lasting but a short time, and separated by long intervals of almost

        undisturbed propagandism.28

 

The state should be governed under the guidance of a secular idea. In this case people can enjoy the freedom of religion. The spring of religious freedom will be coming if a secular idea guides the governance of the state rather than the society. One case in point is that people accentuated the value of mankind throughout the period of Renaissance in Europe. An increase in knowledge motivated people to embrace new ideas. The thought of science gained momentum in defiance of the authority of the conservative church. Religious believers adhered to the faith that did not change over time. Laymen sought knowledge that was increasing and changing. Along with the passage of time scientific knowledge increased while religious faith remained unchanged. As Owen Chadwick said, “A revelation from God is absolute. It can brook no change, no modification, no improvement. But knowledge is always growing, always modifying opinion, always in movement. Faith is stationary, science progressive.”29 Along with the struggle for the spiritual emancipation of mankind, the development of capitalist economy and the growth of nation-state in early modern times, liberalism, a secular thought, began underpinning the building of the state in place of the original idea of divine right. The alliance between the church and the state ended. This piece of history leads to the separation of state and church.

Some trends indicate the separation of state and church. People make a great progress in this respect particularly in modern times.

First, there appeared the movement for the revocation of religious tax imposed in support of the established church, a tradition existing widely in Europe and North America in early times. For example, in North America dissenters had to pay mandatory tax to support the established church, namely, the Anglican Church and then had to contribute to the maintenance of their own parish. They did not use the church and they might think that they were not responsible for the development of the related religion. The non-religious people were also required to pay mandatory tax in support of the established church. Thus, this movement was a step toward religious freedom. For example, in Massachusetts mandatory religious taxation ended in 1832.30 In other colonies mandatory religious tax if any were also revoked because of pressure put by the society on the established church. In the past the dominance of the established church restricted the liberty of all others that had the faith different from the faith of the established church. The end of mandatory religious taxation symbolized a decline of influence enjoyed by the established church. As the established church was usually supported by the government or the law, such a decline of influence, had by the established church, meant that the established church could no longer rely on the power of the government to push aside the other religions or other religious sects. The freedom of religion became possible.

Second, there appeared a trend that different religious denominations, or different religious sects, or different religions, were gradually tolerated. The Act of Toleration made in 1689 inBritainmarked a significant step toward the gradual implementation of religious liberty.31 Though religious life was traditionally characteristic of the dominance of the Church of England in history, from the nineteenth century onward the church establishment had been gradually declining. Religious pluralism developed. In 1829 came Catholic Emancipation. In 1858 Jews were admitted to Parliament. From the nineteenth to the early twentieth century religious dissenters gradually gained equal status in the respect of education as endowed grammar schools began to be open to dissenters.32 In France, the Declaration of Rights (1789) also laid down that no one was to be vexed on account of his religious opinions, provided he did not thereby trouble public order.33 Though Robespierre established a state religion that required the worship of the Supreme Being and atheism was regarded as a vice at that time, the policy was made to hinter the preponderance of any one religious group.34 The Constitution of 1795 affirmed the liberty of all worship.35  In North America the tradition of impartiality between Christian denominations had taken form in the New England colonies except Rhode Island by the time when the Declaration of Independence was signed. Religious organizations other than the Anglican Church, such as Catholic Church, were gradually tolerated.

Third, religious organizations were announced as private organizations. In theUnited States, everywhere ameliorative legislation was removing the most galling of the exclusive rights of the state churchmen after the Decaration of Independence was signed. Church gradually lost the direct support from the state in the nineteenth century. In this aspect Great Britain followed the United States. In the first half of the twentieth century the church establishment finally ended though the Sovereign is still obliged to be a member of the Church of England and the Church of Scotland and the bishops still sit in the House of Lords as spiritual peers and are still appointed by the Crown.36 Today the Church of England or the Church of Scotland is distinguished from the state. According to Rex Ahdar and Ian Leigh, in Aston Cantlow and Wilmcote with Billesley Parochial Church Council v. Wallbank, the House of Lord held that a Parochial Church Council of the Church of England was not a “public authority” under the Human Rights Act 1998. And Lord Hope of Craighead stated that such a parish council:

        plainly has nothing whatever to do with the process of either central or local

        government. It is not accountable to the general public for what it does. It

        receives no public funding, apart from occasional grants from English Heritage

        for the preservation of its historic buildings. In that respect it is in a position

        which is no different from that of any private individual.37   

 

This situation implies that the church is distinguished from the state, and the tool of coercion, usually provided by the state, will not be used to curb or support the development of any religion so long as or even though such religion causes no harm to the other religion or the public good. Thus, religion cannot grow in any process but in the process of linguistic communication. People only gain their freedom in the process of linguistic communication.

The result is that today the method, adopted by people to ensure that people have freedom to spread and put into practice their faith, is that any religious group is prevented from using the power of the secular authorities to promote itself. As it is not enabled to use the coercion of the secular authorities to promote itself against any other religious group or as no religious group is supposed to use coercion to curb the development of any other religious group, the growth of any religious group merely relies on the interpretative power of their religious doctrine. The interpretative power of their religious doctrine may be enhanced in the process of linguistic communication. But it is never enhanced in the use of coercion. Therefore, the principle of the separation of state and church is usually the guarantee that people enjoy their freedom when they uphold and put into practice their religious faith. The reason that people enjoy their freedom when they uphold and put into practice their religious faith is that people are free to communicate to spread that religious faith. If any religious group uses the physical coercion of the authorities directly or indirectly, using that physical coercion will affect the communication performed by using language to spread the religious faith. Then religious freedom enjoyed by people vanishes. So it follows that, for example, in a modern state sometimes a strife between one religion and another arises. In the face of this strife, the best way to solve this strife is to let different religions to compete against each other in the process of linguistic communication or let them run separately without any possibility of using the coercion of the secular authorities, provided that no religion causes harm to the public good. Thus people, believing in any religious doctrine, may enjoy their freedom. For the role played by the government in the protection of religious freedom, I argue that people are not free unless they submit to the governance of the government that recognizes the principle of the freedom of religion they agree to on voluntary basis. Without a government that recognizes the principle of the freedom of religion agreed to by religious believers, the freedom of religious belief is unsustainable or impossible. That is, without a government that ensures the freedom of religion, religious groups may be in conflict with each other at any time. As a result, the freedom of religion cannot be sustainable. In this aspect I argue that religious believers are free only if they submit to the governance of the government that ensures religious freedom in the principle agreed to by them.

In terms of the relationship between religion and the government, if there is any conflict between the religion and the state governed by the secular authorities, the controversial issue is often how to deal with the issue of religious freedom. The key to resolving this issue is actually to prevent religious practice from being affected by any coercion used by the secular authorities if religious practice, as a special case, can be exempted from being subject to the governance of a general law or administration. That is, under the precondition that the public security and public good is not affected, the secular authorities are required to try its best to refrain from intervening in the religious practice to the effect that no coercion can be used to hamper the growth of religion.

There are several cases showing this tendency.

First, one kind of religious activities is the manifestation of religious symbols. Some symbols of religion are used by religious believers and they need to manifest the religion or the belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance in public or private. These symbols are also media used in support of the underlying religious discourse. This religious discourse should involve a process of linguistic communication spreading the religious belief. For example, a 2006 Canadian Supreme Court case Multani v. Commission scolaire Marguerite-Bourgeoys affirmed the right of a Sikh child to carry his ceremonial knife, the kirpan, in the school in accordance with his religion. The dispute is that those who sought to bar the carrying of the kirpan argued that this religious practice posed too great a risk of harm, which was why there was a general ban of weapons in school while those who defending the exception for the Sikh child argued that the risk of harm was very slight and that a kirpan had never been used to attack anyone in a school previously. Although Canadian Supreme Court admitted that the kirpan undeniably has characteristics of a bladed weapon capable of wounding or killing a person, and that carrying kirpans is, probably, prohibited in courts and on airplanes, the court nevertheless held that the student in question could carry the most dangerous kind of kirpan as long as “his personal and subjective belief in the religious significance of the kirpan is sincere.”38  

Demonstrating those symbols of religions symbolizes the existence of a kind of freedom enjoyed by people in their spiritual life. So today in some countries that absorb immigrants with different religious backgrounds, the government often finds that it needs to deal with the issue that while the public authorities need to regulate the related religious practice in order to govern the state, the right of showing religious symbols also needs to be respected.

Second, in terms of religious practice, if religious observance conflicts with the state or the society governed by the secular authorities, the secular authorities may consider giving concession. Whether or not a citizen can enjoy weekend, such as Sunday, is a case in point. That is, there was the identification of the Christian Sunday with the Jewish Sabbath in the eighth century and an edict of Charlemagne in 789 forbade all Sunday labor. Church councils from this time onward, and in the Catholic Church long after the Reformation, regulated Sunday behavior, especially in the matter of games and dancing.39 In modern times the court obviously tends to consider protecting such religious observance so long as public safety and public good are not seriously affected.

For example, since the end of World War Two the courts of theUnited Stateshave clearly paid attention to protecting such free religious exercise. This situation is exemplified by a case shown in Sherbert v. Verner (S.CT.1963). That is, Mrs. Sherbert, a Seventh-Day Adventist, for whom it was religiously forbidden to work on Saturday, her Sabbath day, was required to work six-day weeks. She resigned and sought unemployment compensation. She was denied by the state of South Carolina on the grounds that she had refused “suitable work.” She went to court, arguing that the state had impermissibly impeded her free exercise of religion. In a famous judgment in 1963, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed. They held that benefits could not be made conditional on a violation of a person’s religious scruples: this was just like fining someone for Saturday worship.40 

Third, sometimes the religious faith, held by religious believers, prohibits those religious believers from combating. As a result, pacifism, adhered to by those religious believers, becomes a ground presented by some of the citizens that they should not be drafted to join the army even though their own nation-state may be soon involved in a war against another nation-state. If the law, made by the state, supports the religious cause or is in favor of religion and if the conscription is unlikely to be seriously affected, those citizens, holding the pacifist view for religious reason, may be exempted from providing military service to the state. Sometimes religious freedom is considered by the secular government to the greatest extent. In the United States, according to Stephen Nathanson, religiously based pacifism qualified a person for exemption from military service according to the selective service law made in history in the United States because of the generally favorable attitude toward religion in American law and the government’s confidence that few people would qualify for this exemption so long as the objectors were opposed to all wars and their opposition was based on a religious belief. That is, the government believed that few people would qualify for this exemption and the supply of people available for military service would not be threatened.41 This indicates that the American government considers the issue of religious freedom.

On the other hand, we find that religious freedom, enjoyed by religious believers, is also a form that is conducive to the development of the society and the building of the state. There are mainly three aspects needing an explanation.

First, so long as no tool of coercion may be used to suppress or support a religious group, people establish a market of religious faiths. Different religious groups may compete against each other peacefully. The prosperity of a religious group depends on the power of interpretation of the religious doctrine. If a religious doctrine shows the power of interpretation, this situation often means that it is accepted and embraced by people. The reason that people accept and embrace it is that it has utility. In other words, this is because such a religious doctrine satisfies their need. Perhaps such a religious doctrine may make them feel secure in the unsecured world. Perhaps they feel that they can repose their destiny on the protection of God. If a religion can win more believers, it may play a big role in the building of the society. So long as no coercion is used to interfere with any religious affair, the most promising religion may play a due role in the growth of the society. As the state is built on the basis of the existing society, this is conducive to the organization of the state. Competition using the tool of coercion in the religious community only supports the religious group that may not have the biggest power of interpretation. Since the prevalence of religious freedom, competition within the religious community has been guided to letting each religious group demonstrate their power of interpretation. This is needed by the society. This culminates in the fact that people can give the greatest play to religion in the development of the society or the building of the state. Each religious group relies on the power of interpretation, and the development of religion, as a whole, involves various processes of linguistic communication. This indicates that the wholesome development of religion lies in the process of linguistic communication. In contrast, the use of coercion prevents language from playing its due role in the construction of the society and the state. There is a correlation between language and religious freedom. By relying on linguistic communication, religion flourishes.

Second, the freedom of religious belief does not oppose free competition between religious thought and secular thought. Religious freedom includes the freedom of not believing in any religion. People respect atheism. This creates a favorable condition for the development of various thoughts conducive to the development of the society and the building of the state. A reasonable secular thought can thus develop without any impediment. This is beneficial to the social progress. This may even be beneficial to the economic development of the state. This case is particularly salient in modern times. There is such a related trend in our times: a religious dogma remains unchanged over time while a secular thought, particularly, a scientific thought, develops fast. As the cause of science underlies the development of economy and society in modern times and the state takes care of the development of economy and society, the government tends to support the development of science. If the state and the church build an alliance as sometimes seen in history, the development of the scientific cause may be affected. The development of physics, biology, medicine and other branches of learning may be retarded. If a secular thought is more useful, this thought will play an important role in the development of the society and the building of the state. Therefore, religion is prevented from impeding the spread of those useful thoughts including the scientific thought. The economy of the state grows. The society, on the basis of which people organize the state, also develops. Thus, in some sense, the prevalance of religious freedom liberates the productive forces. People realize this goal in the process of linguistic communication.

Third,  the freedom of religion goes hand in hand with the work of establishing the principle of the separation of state and church. The state ensures a degree of  autonomy of the religious community. The regligious community is part of the state, but the government prevents it from directly taking part in the organization of the state. This is because historical experience proves that the religious community is not a reliable basis for the organization of the state  with different religious groups coexsting in a state. The state is organized because all hold a value, and people are able to come up with a mainstream value in support of the building of the state. All, insisting on such a value, may unite. This is because the prevalence of a secular value depends on its rationality. Its rationality can be understood by all because people may reach a consensus through an argument. In the course of an argument people obey reason. People can be persuaded to embrace a secular value. This is why liberalism prevails in modern times. By contrast, religion requires religious believers to adhere to the religious faith. Different religious groups uphold different religious doctrines. They cannot make any compromise. It is difficult to persuade a religious believer to relinquish his religious doctrine and accept another religious doctrine. Thus, the principle of religious freedom enables the secular government to organize the state in a secular principle. Different religious groups take part in the organization of the society because the society can be fragmented. But the state is organzied in another principle. The state should be monolithic. As people form no alliance between a religion and the government, the religious community gains a status of autonomy. The secular government also gains a status of autonomy. Then the state is often  organized without any influence of religion. In this way people ensure the unity of the state.

In short, religious believers enjoy the freedom of religious belief under the condition that religion does not serve as a foundation for the building of the state. Religion only contributes to the building of the society. As such, religious believers are free under the governance of the government that respects their freedom of belief. Such freedom of belief is maintained in the linguistic interaction of people instead of their physical interaction. The result is that religious believers are free in the state governed by the government in the principle that respects religious freedom expected by them.

 

     

Notes

  1.   G. W. F. Hegel, The Philosophy of History, translated by J. Sibree (Chicago: William Benton, 1952), 172.

  2.   John Stuart Mill, Representative Government (Chicago: William Benton, 1952), 329.

  3.   G. W. F. Hegel, The Philosophy of Right, translated by T. M. Knox (Chicago: William Benton, 1952), 16.

  4.   John Stuart Mill, On Liberty (Chicago: William Benton, 1952), 274.

  5.   Ibid., 284.

  6.   See: Nigel Warburton, Free Speech: a Very Short Introduction (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), 27.

  7. Hegel, The Philosophy of Right, 35.

  8. Hegel, The Philosophy of History, 160.

  9. See: J.B. Bury, A History of Freedom of Thought (New York: Henry Holt And Company, 1913), 32.

10. Aristotle, The Politics of Aristotle, translated by Peter L. Phillips Simpson (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1997), 95-96.

11. Mill, On Liberty, 276.

12. Ibid., 283.

13. See: Bury, A History of Freedom of Thought, 8690. 

14. Ludwig von Mises, Free and Prosperous Commonwealth, an Exposition of the Ideas of Classical Liberalism,  translated by Ralph Raico and edited by Arthur Goddard (Princeton, New Jersey: D.Van Nostrand Company, Inc.), 179180.

15. Bury, A History of Freedom of Thought, 240.

16. Ibid., 23. 

17. Brian Leiter, Why Tolerate Religion? (Princeton: Princeton  University Press, 2013), 5960.

18. Bury, A History of Freedom of Thought, 40.

19.  Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, edited with an introduction by C.B Macpherson (New York: Penguin Books, 1985), 364.

20. Bury, A History of Freedom of Thought, 120121. 

21. Ibid., 96.

22. Roger Williams, On Religious Liberty, edited and with an Introduction by James Calvin Davis (Cambridge, Massachusetts: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2008), 79.

23. Ibid. 82.

24. Ibid.115.

25. Ibid. 257.

26. John Locke, A Letter Concerning Toleration (Indianapolis, Indiana: Hackett Publishing Company, 1983), 27.

27. Ibid., 53.

28. Mill, On Liberty, 280.

29. Owen Chadwick, The Secularization of the European Mind in the Nineteenth Century (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975), 161162.

30. Anthony Gill, The Political Origins of Religious Liberty (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008), 101.

31. Ibid., 3.

32. See: E. R. Norman, The Conscience of the State in North America (London: Cambridge University Press, 1968), 1113.

33. Bury, A History of Freedom of Thought, 111. 

34. See: Ibid., 113114. 

35. See: Ibid., 114. 

36. E. R. Norman, The Conscience of the State in North America, 1113.

37. ([2003]UKHL37;[2004]1 AC546. Cited from Rex Ahdar and Ian Leigh, Religious Freedom in the Liberal State (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), 77.

38. Leiter, Why Tolerate Religion?, 25; 6465.

39. Albert Victor Murray, The State and the Church in a Free Society (London: Cambridge University Press, 1958), 166.

40. See: Martha C. Nussbaum, Liberty of Conscience: in Defense of America’s Tradition of Religious Equality (New York: Basic Books, 2008), 1617.

41. Stephen Nathanson, Patriotism, Morality, and Peace (Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 1993), 135.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


浏览(283) (2) 评论(4)
发表评论
文章评论
作者:俞先生 回复 SimonN 留言时间:2018-12-14 10:12:15

谢谢你的评议。我要证明的是,语言与自由的共生关系。开发和利用媒介将让人类更加深入地使用语言,从而获得更多自由。这与霍布斯的观点不同。当然,霍布斯的一些观点没有错。本人还论述了语言与平等、和平、民主及正义的共生关系。就是说,没有语言的介入,人类就无法实现自由、平等、和平、民主和正义,也就无法实现国家的合理化。其中的道理是非常简单的,但是,全书从头到尾都有一个一贯的逻辑和主线,是从事学术的人第一次提出的看法。以前的人从未提出过这个看法。而整个书的篇幅已经很长。

回复 | 0
作者:SimonN 留言时间:2018-12-14 03:18:06

还有,内容有点太浅显。你提及了John Stuart Mill,但是缺乏深度,或者在我看来没有更直接地直奔主题。

回复 | 0
作者:SimonN 留言时间:2018-12-14 03:18:05

还有,内容有点太浅显。你提及了John Stuart Mill,但是缺乏深度,或者在我看来没有更直接地直奔主题。

回复 | 0
作者:SimonN 留言时间:2018-12-14 02:43:47

俞先生:

赞一个!

我还没有来得及阅读全部。但是第一部分让我觉得你有点重复Thomas Hobbes的东西了。不知道你是不是已经研究过他的和John Locke、John Stuard Mill等人有关自由和国家的著作?

回复 | 0
我的名片
俞先生
注册日期: 2012-11-10
访问总量: 910,421 次
点击查看我的个人资料
Calendar
最新发布
· 赵鼎新教授辞职主要责任在浙大
· 独裁的学理化分析:权力私有化
· 中国火箭军的导弹里灌水
· 周汉卿骂人:可耻
· 中国海外民主运动未兴起已衰落毫
· 有些中国人太恐怖
· 俄罗斯的双重标准
分类目录
【政治类】
· 赵鼎新教授辞职主要责任在浙大
· 独裁的学理化分析:权力私有化
· 中国火箭军的导弹里灌水
· 周汉卿骂人:可耻
· 中国海外民主运动未兴起已衰落毫
· 有些中国人太恐怖
· 俄罗斯的双重标准
· 也谈李克强的导师龚祥瑞:我的回
· 邀请学术界鉴定本人创造的理论体
· 盘点历史上哲学家 提出的国家起
存档目录
2024-03-19 - 2024-03-27
2024-01-07 - 2024-01-07
2023-12-16 - 2023-12-30
2023-10-02 - 2023-10-29
2023-09-02 - 2023-09-24
2023-08-04 - 2023-08-31
2023-07-30 - 2023-07-30
2023-06-03 - 2023-06-21
2023-05-03 - 2023-05-14
2023-04-01 - 2023-04-23
2023-03-03 - 2023-03-31
2023-02-01 - 2023-02-28
2023-01-11 - 2023-01-31
2022-12-05 - 2022-12-29
2022-11-01 - 2022-11-25
2022-10-08 - 2022-10-25
2022-09-15 - 2022-09-30
2022-08-03 - 2022-08-30
2022-07-06 - 2022-07-29
2022-06-03 - 2022-06-30
2022-05-21 - 2022-05-24
2022-04-03 - 2022-04-05
2022-03-23 - 2022-03-23
2022-02-06 - 2022-02-19
2022-01-03 - 2022-01-30
2021-12-01 - 2021-12-29
2021-11-30 - 2021-11-30
2021-10-03 - 2021-10-12
2021-09-05 - 2021-09-27
2021-08-11 - 2021-08-16
2021-07-02 - 2021-07-28
2021-06-01 - 2021-06-30
2021-05-04 - 2021-05-31
2021-04-11 - 2021-04-30
2021-03-08 - 2021-03-29
2021-02-16 - 2021-02-16
2021-01-04 - 2021-01-29
2020-12-05 - 2020-12-08
2020-11-09 - 2020-11-16
2020-10-02 - 2020-10-30
2020-09-17 - 2020-09-26
2020-07-02 - 2020-07-27
2020-06-04 - 2020-06-21
2020-05-03 - 2020-05-24
2020-04-02 - 2020-04-28
2020-03-12 - 2020-03-28
2020-02-01 - 2020-02-18
2020-01-15 - 2020-01-31
2019-12-17 - 2019-12-20
2019-11-09 - 2019-11-18
2019-10-27 - 2019-10-27
2019-09-03 - 2019-09-16
2019-08-10 - 2019-08-29
2019-07-08 - 2019-07-16
2019-06-04 - 2019-06-29
2019-05-05 - 2019-05-30
2019-04-02 - 2019-04-26
2019-03-02 - 2019-03-26
2019-02-02 - 2019-02-26
2019-01-05 - 2019-01-22
2018-12-01 - 2018-12-20
2018-11-01 - 2018-11-29
2018-10-05 - 2018-10-30
2018-09-02 - 2018-09-30
2018-08-02 - 2018-08-29
2018-07-09 - 2018-07-30
2018-06-01 - 2018-06-29
2018-05-02 - 2018-05-31
2018-04-18 - 2018-04-18
2018-03-16 - 2018-03-22
2018-02-26 - 2018-02-28
2018-01-17 - 2018-01-17
2017-12-21 - 2017-12-26
2017-11-02 - 2017-11-19
2017-10-10 - 2017-10-21
2017-09-05 - 2017-09-15
2017-08-03 - 2017-08-03
2017-07-02 - 2017-07-12
2017-06-15 - 2017-06-15
2017-05-30 - 2017-05-30
2017-04-17 - 2017-04-20
2016-06-16 - 2016-06-16
2015-12-04 - 2015-12-30
2015-11-09 - 2015-11-28
2015-02-01 - 2015-02-14
2015-01-21 - 2015-01-31
2014-12-09 - 2014-12-29
2014-11-04 - 2014-11-04
2014-10-03 - 2014-10-16
2014-09-03 - 2014-09-28
2014-08-01 - 2014-08-31
2014-07-27 - 2014-07-29
2014-06-03 - 2014-06-27
2014-05-06 - 2014-05-30
2014-04-12 - 2014-04-12
2014-03-01 - 2014-03-28
2014-02-01 - 2014-02-07
2013-12-13 - 2013-12-22
2013-11-07 - 2013-11-29
2013-10-09 - 2013-10-25
2013-09-09 - 2013-09-09
2013-06-04 - 2013-06-04
2013-05-22 - 2013-05-22
2012-12-25 - 2012-12-25
2012-11-09 - 2012-11-12
 
关于本站 | 广告服务 | 联系我们 | 招聘信息 | 网站导航 | 隐私保护
Copyright (C) 1998-2024. CyberMedia Network /Creaders.NET. All Rights Reserved.