While there are many things we can discuss from this week's reading (specifically the first three chapters of On Liberty), the most striking thing I have found thus far is just how adequately Mill summarizes religious intolerance even amongst the most progressive societies. (The section in question is on pages 8-12).
To preface, Mill discusses earlier in the chapter how in a democratic society, public opinion can hold sway over individual liberty because, via the democratic system, the desires of the majority are enacted by the government. This concept, as he suggests repeatedly, is incompatible with his belief that you cannot interfere with an individual's liberty except for the self-protection of another individual or society as a whole.
But as he points on pages 11 and 12, people are outrageously stubborn when it comes to their religious beliefs; either they are highly intolerant towards the beliefs or they are so indifferent that they abhor the discussion of religion. What is true in Mill's era is true today, as this is a common characteristic of both American society and our democratic government, for conservative states often use Christian values as the basis for policy decisions even though their constituents are not universally of their religion. (You can go further and state that extreme secularism is being pushed by some liberal governments in order to infringe on the rights of the religious.)
Is it possible for a society to completely progress to a point where we suppress our desire to limit the rights of those that disagree strongly with the majority, especially when it comes to religion? I personally believe not, and therefore we can never reach a stage where the only liberties infringed upon by the lawmaking body are those which cause harm to others.
I post this purely to provoke discussion.
No comments:
Post a Comment