Religious toleration only came about when religion ceased to be a threat to the state.
|
|||||
|
We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people. Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house] Authors
Arts, Tech & CultureCivil LibertiesCommentary
Economics |
Samizdata thought for the dayFebruary 4th, 2025 |
 23 comments to Samizdata thought for the dayLeave a Reply |
Who Are We?The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling. We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe. CategoriesArchivesFeed This PageLink Icons   |
|||
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||
Elizabeth I started the road to religious toleration when she stated she didn’t care if someone was Catholic or Protestant, only that they be a good Englishman, at a time when her very life was at risk by order of the Pope and Spain was threatening the Armada of 1588. She was the State.
When Constantine made Christianity a state religion in the latter days of the Roman Empire, and ceased to have an adversarial relationship to religion, I don’t recall reading that it was a force for toleration of different viewpoints. In fact there is an argument to be had that in its early incarnations, Christianity was pretty nasty.
In fact, Constantine was probably an early exemplar of what one might call Christian Imperialism, and fused the church to the instruments of power. I guess that there was an element of toleration provided people did not piss off the ruling class, paid their dues and so on.
The point of the OP does seem correct, though. Consider even secular belief systems, if they are not seen as a threat, are tolerated. The whole Green mania seems to be tolerated – for the moment – because it is not a direct threat to the power of government, and in fact it may strengthen it, in fact.
Elizabeth wasn’t that tolerant. I believe she had a priest executed at one point simply for being a priest.
Also, the Gunpowder Plot of 1605 (Elizabeth died in 1603). AIUI, the conspirators were angry that the new king had failed to abolish Elizabeth’s anti-Catholic laws.
My understanding is that the various anti-Catholic laws – being barred from Parliament and the legal profession – did not end until the era of Daniel O’Connell in the 1820s.
It may have been rather worse than I thought.
https://www.elizabethi.org/contents/elizabethanchurch/catholics.html
The State is on a collision course with Islam in that case.
Only kinda sorta… some folks want Islam to be the state.
Only kinda sorta… some folks want Islam to be the state.
I agree, but therein lies the problem.
It goes both ways. The state tolerates religion as long as religion tolerates the state and doesn’t fight it. There may be more that one religion involved.
Philip Aggrey, In my opinion Islam has already won in the UK; that’s why the government goes out of its way not to rile it up. It would rather clamp down on regular Brits than face the wrath of the invaders because it knows what they are capable of, even as a minority.
The state’s view of religion is that it is a tool they can use. Religion is a powerful force to ensure voluntary compliance and to justify various power structures. Even today the British monarch supposedly derives his authority from God even though there is nothing in the Christian Bible to support such a notion. But it dresses up the raw exercise of power with a plausible justification. It is why they have all that pomp and circumstance at various royal events — it is window dressing to offer a reason why this man should be “in charge” (insofar as he is, anyway.) In the past power was derived from the point of the sword, but even then, dressed up with religious stuff to make it seem legitimate and moral.
The law in itself cannot force universal compliance with whatever the government wants. So religion is used as a tool to have people self enforce. To have them imagine a God watching over them that will punish them even if the authorities do not find their crime, strongly disincentivizing people from “sinning’. Religion is often co-opted to conflate loyalty to God to loyalty to the state. Armies march in the believe that God is on their side.
But in the middle of last century religion became far less important to people, really as the consequences of the enlightenment and public education, and so became a lot less of a powerful tool. So, it was, that the government put down that sword (and so no longer cared if you were Catholic, Hindu or Zorastrian) and picked up other tools to control and manage the population. This was seen really writ large during the madness and panic of 2020 when the people’s fear gave very powerful tools to governments all over the world.
Of course in strongly religious countries religion is still very much used in this way. Islam being a strong example. I suppose that is why education in those countries is often quite dreadful — don’t want to peons smart enough to question the religious dogma. And FWIW, it depends a lot on the species of religion. Some religions offer the government very little power, so aren’t useful in that way.
Brendan brought up great point. Elizabeth I wasn’t that tolerant. But it wasn’t a switch that was flipped where we have religious intoleration or a free-for-all. It took time. But she did allow Catholics to more or less be unmolested, unlike Mary I and her Marian Persecutions. Even on this side of the Pond, it took a long time to get to that point. The Pilgrims rather famously left for religious freedom, but the unspoken part was they left England and then Holland because they couldn’t force their brand of Christianity down everyone else’s throat and even with Charles I and then Cromwell and the Puritans in charge, they still objected to just how Catholic they thought England was and that was a good 25+ years after Bessie snuffed it.* We finally eject the French from North America in 1763, Parliament passes laws to protect the Catholics in what is now Canada, and it was one of the things that pissed a majority Protestant American colonists into revolt (Catholic Maryland aside) (The Quebec Act of 1774 for those playing along at home.) And, of course there was the tacit suppression of native religions in the Americas by the English and later Americans and Canadians. But Elizabeth didn’t simply say “you have three choices: convert to some brand of Protestant, leave England, or die.”
*Fun fact: Ben Franklin was noted before the war as writing that he can go to a play in London on a Sunday or whistle or play cards or do any number of things that would get him arrested in New England in a heartbeat and God’s judgement was not to be seen. The English people were happy and healthy, there was food on the table, people had money in their pockets, and nobody seemed to mind what their neighbors were doing while in New England busibodies abounded.
Not always.
For example, the Emperor Valentinian (NOT a nice man – for example he burned draft dodgers alive, and sometimes fed opponents to his pet bear) was religiously tolerant – he allowed pagans to worship, and he also urged (oddly enough politely) the different sects of Christian to be tolerant of each other.
Much later on other rulers (much nicer people than Valentinian) were known for their religious tolerance – the Holy Roman Emperor Maximilian II was religiously tolerant – at the very time when Protestants and Catholics were killing each in most of Europe, including England.
Then there is the flip side – when a religion clearly is a threat to the state, yet governments do nothing.
Islamic preachers and activists make no secret of their plans for Europe and elsewhere – but most Western governments do not fight back, on the contrary they regard “Islamophobia” NOT Islam as their enemy – it is opponents of Islam who many Western governments persecute.
For example, a man in England, whose daughter was murdered in the October 7th 2023 was further upset by the murder of a man (an ex Muslim) for burning a copy of the Koran – to protest the murders the man burnt a copy of the Koran himself.
The Blairite English judge was merciless – if the man had burned a Bible she would not have cared, but to burn a Koran! And just because of a few murders – what a disgusting Islamophobe the man was, throw-the-book-at-him.
Also in Britain praying silently, in your head, is a crime – if you are anywhere near a baby killing facility, not obstructing the facility, not even on the same side of the road, not carrying a sign or even saying a word – if you are praying silently you are criminal in Britain, if-you-are-Christian.
So the post gets things upside down – if a religion is peaceful, like modern Christianity, the state persecutes its followers, but if the religion is strong and its followers have a reputation for violence, then the state crawls and begs for mercy – and persecutes those who are critical of the violent religion.
Remember the state is not just vicious – it is also cowardly.
Today on France 24 Television they interviewed a Muslim in Gaza – bored with the lies, I randomly changed the station and there was Al Jazeera interviewing the same Muslim, the same camera angle, the same words….
In short it was the same interview broadcast on two television stations that are supposed to be different – and this is NOT an isolated case.
Islam is still a minority faith in France – but the French establishment elite seems to be preparing for when France (if it is still called that) is an Islamic country, already critics of Islam are punished in France (as they are in many Western countries – governments that do NOT punish critics of Christianity), and France 24 is basically wall-to-wall hate of Jews (sorry I mean “Zionists”) – and hate of “Trump” (who even before his recent comments was treated as if he was a Jew by French television – they almost froth at the mouth whenever they mention his name).
“Trump” appointed judges who allowed States to try and stop baby killing – burn him alive! “Trump” is against censorship – cut his tongue out! All very “liberal” and “tolerant”.
Of course Islam is not keen on baby killing (at least not the children of believers) and it is not keen on homosexuality (which France 24 adores), but that is different because….. well because….. you evil Islamophobe!
For an Orthodox Jew, Christian or socially conservative atheist to be against baby killing or “Trans Rights” for children, or whatever, is unacceptable (indeed such a critic must be savagely punished) – but for a Muslim to oppose these things is just fine.
And it is not just France – it is the “liberal” or “Progressive” elite all over the Western world.
They enjoy persecuting Christians or Jews (because they know that Christians and Jews are “harmless” – i.e. are not going to kill them) – but they do not dare persecute Muslims.
Again remember the state is not just vicious – it is also cowardly.
So – no.
Religious tolerance comes, at least in the modern West, when a religion does become a threat to the state – due to the number of its followers (both by natural increase and conversion) and by its reputation for violence.
The more the state is scared of a religion – the more “tolerant” the state will be, but if a religion is followed by peaceful people (who are not going to kill the Blairite judges and so on) – then the state enjoys persecuting them.
Sometimes the ruling class is intolerant because it perceives one or more religions as threats to its own totalitarian belief system: all in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State.
Sometimes the ruling class is intolerant because it is aligned with one religion and sees other religions, or belief systems, as threats.
Perhaps less often, the ruling class is intolerant because it (reasonably or not) sees one religion as a threat to social cohesion, not just to the ruling class. That includes Spain after the Reconquista, and Japan after first contact with Christianity.
Paul,
Yes, the state is cowardly towards Islam because Muslims fight and should not be provoked. It is cowardly and it is also spectacularly ignorant – hence the repeated attempts to conflate “Islamophobia” with “racism” which is farcical not least because any imam would tell you that Islam is the only true faith for all humans, everywhere for all time. It is a central principle of Islam. Jesus (Isa) and all the prophets (going back to Adam) were muslim.
Perhaps Snorri – perhaps, in spite of their peacefulness, the state sees Christians as some sort of philosophical threat – and that is the reason it (in many Western countries) persecutes Christians – or (as I suspect) it may just be cowardly sadism by the state.
NickM – and we must not confuse fear of Islam with compassion for individual Muslims. The Corporate State, the “rules based international order” or “international community” or whatever the Corporate State establishment calls itself, does NOT care about the lives of individual Muslim men, woman and children.
Look at the establishment attitude towards President Trump’s plan to save the lives of the Muslims in Gaza – the “international community” (the Corporate State) do not support the idea, they condemn it – in the strongest possible terms.
I found this out years ago (long before October 7th 2023) – the Economist magazine was pretending to care about Muslim civilians in Gaza who were at risk when Israel fired back after suffering endless rocket attacks from the Gaza Salient (and it is a Salient – look at a map), stupidly I thought the Economist magazine really did care about the lives of Muslim men, women and children – so I suggested evacuating them to Islamic countries, in order to save their lives.
My comment was deleted – and I was threatened by the Economist magazine that I would be banned from commenting if I made such a suggestion again. In short they did NOT care about the lives of ordinary Muslim men, women and children, they had no compassion – none.
They had no respect for the lives of ordinary Muslims – they only respected Islam, NOT ordinary Muslims. And the respect was based on FEAR (not respect based on anything positive – not true respect).
Remember the international establishment, the Corporate State, does NOT have any sincere belief in any Islamic doctrines (after all France 24, the BBC, and so on are atheist – and “socially liberal” i.e. Critical Theory Marxist) – they do not really respect Islam at all, they fear it (a very different thing than true respect).
The Gaza Salient can not be left there – that was understood even in the First World War, more than a century ago. So should the ordinary Muslim men, women and children be left in this battle space to be killed?
The vicious answer of the “international community” (the United Nations, the governments of many Western countries, the media – and so on) is YES – they really do want ordinary Muslims, men, women and children, to stay in the Gaza Salient, the Gaza battle space. They do not care about ordinary Muslim men, women and children being killed or maimed – which is inevitable if they stay in the Gaza Salient – the Gaza combat area.
The international establishment has no compassion for ordinary Muslims at all – none. It only cares about Islam, not individual Muslim men, women and children, and it only “cares” about Islam because it fears it.
Fear of Islam leads to submission by the establishment (which is NOT Muslim – has no sincere belief in any Islamic beliefs and has no compassion, none, for ordinary Muslims), and to the establishment persecuting peaceful critics and dissenters. Although the persecution of dissenters (Christian, Jewish or conservative atheist) is also based on state (establishment) sadism.
“But the two state solution”.
Gaza was the “two state solution” – there were no Jews there, they had all been removed (years ago) by the IDF. On October 7th 2023 (indeed long before – as this was just the largest of many attacks from the Gaza Salient) the “two state solution” was REJECTED by Islam.
And the attitude in the “West Bank” (much of which is closer to the sea than to the Jordan river – it almost cuts Israel in two) is the same – Islam has a right to all the land “from the river to the sea”, because Allah created the world – and, therefore, the world belongs to His followers. The land “between the river and the sea” is NOT special to Islam – yes Islam claims Tel Aviv and so on (as was made clear between 1948 and 1967 – indeed long before 1948, Jewish communities in the land were often slaughtered over the centuries), but it also claims everywhere else in the world (because Allah made the world) – and if one accepts Islamic doctrines (which are logical – if one accepts their starting assumptions) these claims claims make sense.
To make things clear – Tel Aviv (which did not even exist, as a city, till the 20th century) is no more special to Islam than Birmingham or London or Paris or Rotterdam is.
The claim to Tel Aviv is based on Allah creating the world – just as the claim to Birmingham or London or Paris or Rotterdam is. It is quite logical – it makes sense if (if) one accepts the starting assumptions.
If one truly respects Islam – one takes its claims seriously, one does NOT make the patronizing claim that all religions teach the same things.
To claim that all religions teach the same things is NOT to show respect for Islam – it shows patronizing contempt for Islam.
I should have made it clear that the international establishment, the Corporate State in many Western countries, persecutes believing Christians, it is quite happy with FAKE Christians – “Christians” who do not believe any real Christian doctrines, and (instead) preach the political and cultural doctrines of the Corporate State.
For example, there is an oft repeated story (it may be true – or it may NOT be true) that before Pope Benedict XVI resigned the electronic money systems in the Vatican stopped working – and after he resigned, the systems started to work again. Whether this story is true or not, the international Corporate State had made it clear (very clear) that it did not want someone in that position who actually believed in Catholic doctrines.
I should have expressed myself more clearly. It’s not just that Christianity is a philosophical threat to the Establishment. Christianity, or indeed any religion (eg Falun Gong) is also an alternative center of power, and so are traditional families (whether nuclear or extended). Any alternative center of power is a threat to the State.
That the Church can be an effective check+balance to the State, could be seen in Poland at the time of John Paul II. (It could also be seen in much of Europe at the time of Gregory VII.)
But sometimes, church and state have been joined at the hip; kind of like academia, MSM, and deep state today.
It’s a Machiavellian play of shifting alliances, much like Game of Thrones.
Snorri – yes indeed Sir.
For some time I have thought the religious freedom guaranteed in our First Amendment was to protect the state from religion back then. The individual states were still permitted to have an established church. It was only the Federal government that was prohibited from imposing a single church.
Gradually, we have morphed into a sensibility in which it is necessary to protect religion from the state.
I would never have dreamed we might go full circle into a time when the first amendment might be employed to protect the state from religion (in this case, Islam) once again.
Steven Wilson – Thomas Jefferson (not a mainstream Christian) and the other Founding Fathers made it clear that the purpose of the 1st Amendment was to protect freedom of religion from the Federal Government, the question was whether or not it protected religion from State Governments. It was never about “protecting the state from religion”.
The 14th Amendment settles the matter – the restrictions of the Bill of Rights also protect people from State governments not just the Federal government. For example, State and local governments may not restrict Freedom of Speech – as Slave States tended to do before the Civil War, forbidding anti slavery publications, and anti slavery speeches.
Even after the Civil War there were efforts at “Gun Control” aimed at free blacks – the 14th Amendment made it clear that the 2nd Amendment (the right to keep and bear arms) also applied to State and local governments – they had no constitutional power to violate the liberties of United States citizens.
Which means that the Covid lockdowns (“shelter in place” orders) were UNCONSTITUTIONAL – whatever panic stricken judges may have said. That they were issued by State governments (not the Federal government) was not relevant – the 14th Amendment ends that dodge.
As for the First Amendment “protecting the state from Islam” – I mean no insult to you Steven Wilson, but your comment is very badly worded.
Hopefully you mean “protects people from any legal restriction on their criticism of Islam, its doctrines, its Founder, its history, its current followers, or whatever”.
I must remind readers that the United Kingdom does NOT have a First Amendment (or any other Constitutional protections).
There is no right to Freedom of Speech here, and such things as the Common Law Double Jeopardy rule or the Right to Silence if asked questions by the police, have been undermined.
“Rights” do exist in the United Kingdom – but they are rights to benefits and services from the state (for certain people), rights in the sense of limits on state power are mocked by the British establishment – who agree with Jeremy Bentham that rights, in the sense of limits on state power, are “nonsense” indeed “nonsense on stilts”.