人类历史上从来没有普世的宗教自由（中英文版）

由于美国宪法的不设立国教的示范作用，以及洛克《论宗教宽容》的理性魅力，所造成广泛的影响，美国革命之后不久的，法国大革命诞生的《人权宣言》，以及之后的《世界人权宣言》，以及之后所有的政治教科书，都将宗教自由定义为基本人权之一，但是所有人都忽视了，当时美国立宪时的实际情况，以及洛克的《论宗教宽容》的本意。

美国独立时北美殖民地只有基督教，几乎百分百的人口是基督徒，只有不同教派之分，但是他们都信奉同一本《圣经》，偶尔几个不是基督徒的，也是自然神论者，他们即使不相信圣经的神迹，但也同样相信上帝的存在。而此时基督教与伊斯兰教还在波兰一带激战，那是关乎信仰的生死之战，当时殖民地根本就没有伊斯兰教徒，这些国父再怎样伟大，也不可能将死敌伊斯兰教，纳入宗教宽容之列。而且美国宪法使用的是不妨碍行使宗教自由，不设立国教这样的字句，这很明显是针对安立甘宗作为英国国教，享有国家资源而设立的条款，也很明显说明制宪时，考虑的是基督教内各教派的事。因为伊斯兰世界没有国教的概念，他们是政教合一的，国家就是教会，教会就是国家，所有的其他教派与异教一样，都是必须消灭的敌人，没有享有国家资源的国教，与不享有国家资源的非国教之分，所以使用国教字句，很明显就是国父们，没有将伊斯兰教考虑在第一修正案之列，如果将伊斯兰教，也考虑入宗教宽容范围的话，就不会使用国教这样的字句，很难想象国父们，会对一个没有国教概念的宗教说，你不能成为我们的国教。当然这样论述目的，不是认为今天的美国伊斯兰教不能存在，或者不能自由传教，这样论述的目的只是想说，不要忘了宪法第一修正案的根本目的，它是为不同基督教派而设立的，同样也不能忘记，所有基督教派都承认的基督教的根本，兄弟之爱，兄弟之爱才是宪法第一修正案的根基，宗教自由不能违背兄弟之爱的这个根本，不能以宗教自由的名义伤害兄弟之爱，伤害到建立在上帝之下的真正的爱。无论是第一修正案还是基督教，兄弟之爱才是第一根本，所以任何一个将兄弟之爱放在首位的宗教，都应在第一修正案保护范围内，同理，第一修正案不保护伤害兄弟之爱的宗教，所以可以得出，并不是任何宗教都受到第一修正案的保护，第一修正案并不保护邪教，与没有兄弟之爱的宗教。不保护邪教这个人所共知就不说了，我论述这么多想要说的是，第一修正案同样不保护，没有兄弟之爱的宗教，兄弟之爱才是宪法第一修正案的根基，因为这就是历史基础。

同时洛克的《论宗教宽容》，这本影响了许多美国国父的著作，原本也是为了基督教不同教派的纷争所写的，不是为了所有宗教的宽容，论据也很明显。

其一，该书开篇第一句就是，“蒙您向我询问关于不同信仰的，各教派的基督徒之间互相宽容的想法,我必须坦率地回答您，我把那种宽容誉为纯正的教会基本特征的标志。①

其二，再接下来的论述中，洛克马上提到，实行宗教宽容的最主要原因是，作为基督徒最基本条件就是必须有一颗兄弟之爱之心，（洛克此处也使用兄弟之爱，与我经常使用兄弟之爱的原因相同，并不希望有博爱），他说道，“任何人尽可以郑重其事地以此相标榜，然而，倘若他缺乏仁爱、温顺以及对全人类乃至对非基督徒的普遍的友善，他自己当然也就不配为一个真正的基督徒了。”他从兄弟之爱之心出发，认为那些使用刀剑、火刑对自己的教友凌辱、折磨，摧残至死的人心中是否还有半分兄弟之爱之心，是否还算是个基督徒。洛克甚至得出这些人是反基督的，他们以基督的名义掩饰他们反基督教的残忍与迫害他人的真意。②

其三，洛克明确地对不适用宗教宽容的情况作了说明，他写道，“其次，如下的教会无权得到官长的宽容，即：它赖以建立的基础是，凡入会者事实上就把他们自己托付于另一个君王的保护和役使之下。因为这就意味着官长在自己的国家内承认一个外国管辖权的存在，并且看起来是容许招募他自己的属民参加外国的军队，来反对他自己的政府。这种在国家与教会之间所作的轻率而荒谬的区分，不可能对这个问题提供任何解决的办法。尤其在二者都同样从属于同一个人的绝对权威之下时更是如此。这个人无论在纯宗教事务还是在与此有关的其他事务方面，不仅有权说服他的教会的成员按照他的所好行事，而且能够以永遭炼狱的痛苦相威胁来发号施令。下述说法显然是荒诞无稽的，即，某人宣称，他仅在宗教方面是穆斯林，而在所有其他方面则是基督教官长治下忠实的臣民，与此同时，他又承认自己要盲目服从君士坦丁堡的穆夫提，而后者又完全服从于奥斯曼帝国苏丹，并随心所欲地编造伊斯兰伪神谕。这个生活在基督徒中间的穆斯林，如果承认国家的最高官长同时也是他的教会首领，他就是更加明确地背弃了他们的政府。”洛克这段很明显地指出了，政教合一的宗教不在宽容之列，因为这些教徒不可能忠诚于这个国家，而只是忠诚于自己的教主，几百年前洛克的思想，可以甩现在这些左派政治家几条街，他已经明确看出，政教合一的宗教对国家，对其他宗教的宗教自由，可能造成的伤害，明确提出不将政教合一的宗教，包含在宗教宽容之列。

“最后，那些否认上帝存在的人，是根本谈不上被宽容的，诺言、契约和誓言这些人类社会的约制对无神论者是不可能具有约束力的，虽然他们只是在头脑里摈除了上帝，但却使一切化为乌有。此外，那些以无神论来破坏和毁灭一切宗教的人，也便不可能以宗教为借口，来向宽容的特权进行挑战。至于其他实践性的见解，虽然没有绝对地摆脱一切谬误，但只要他们不试图建立对他人的辖治，不对曾经教育过他们的教会要求民法豁免权，也就没有任何理由不对他们实行宽容。”③

从以上三点可以看出洛克是非常清醒、锐利的，不愧为影响世界几百年的大思想家，不知那些认为第一修正案的，“不设立国教，不得妨碍宗教自由”，是针对所有宗教的最高法院法官们，有没有看过洛克的《论宗教宽容》。④

从这些论述推理开来，我们可以根据洛克的思想认为，并不是非基督教不能在美国传教，而是政教合一的宗教不能在美国传教，因为它对其他宗教，对国家都可能造成巨大的伤害，所以政教合一的宗教，不应在宪法第一修正案保护之列。而且这里洛克也明确指出，伊斯兰教就是政教合一的宗教，不在宗教宽容的范围内，因为他们要求教徒服从教会，而不是行政长官。我们前几个章节也有论述过，伊斯兰教没有任何宗教自由的概念，他们的教义是国家与教会的统一，国家就是教会，教会就是国家，根本就不允许其他宗教存在，所以伊斯兰教，根本就不在洛克的宗教宽容之列，所以人类历史上，从来没有普世的宗教自由。

在现实生活中我们可以看到，默克尔等左派政治家，为了彰显自己的仁慈、伟大，追求宗教自由，国家的多元化，他们认为能够体现更多的博爱，融合了更多宗教与文化的国家，才是伟大的国家，他们所要建立的也就是这种国家，这当然也是一种“政治正确”，很伟大、崇高，但是在目前条件下同样无法实现，因为至目前为止，人类并没有普世的宗教自由。于是当他们强行引入大量的伊斯兰难民，实践自己的理念时，由于没有考虑到，伊斯兰教根本就没有宗教自由的概念、没有任何兄弟之爱的内容、甚至还有许多攻击基督徒的教义，给德国社会带来巨大的灾难。伊斯兰教徒在少数时隐忍不发，当人口逐渐占据多数时，就越来越要求以自己的教义行事，肆意攻击异教徒——普通德国人，强奸、杀人等犯罪比例飙升，圣诞节也是在戒备森严中渡过，许多人痛苦不堪，可是默克尔等人根本就不考虑这些，他们为了凸显自己的伟大、政治正确，宁愿让德国陷入灾难中。

而且，同样，德国最高法院法官出于“政治正确”，出于所谓的宗教自由，保护少数非基督教的权利，竟然认为伊斯兰教中，允许少女婚姻的教义符合宪法，这些德国最高院的法官，只能以混蛋来形容，他们是一些非常自私的人，他们为了彰显自己的所谓公平公正，贡献出自己少女同胞的命运，这些德国少女也就成为他们走上神坛的祭品。可他们的行为公平正义吗？他们公平正义的标准是什么？其实他们的标准就是空洞、空乏的理性，就是所谓的“政治正确”，可是这是明显违反人伦常理的，不知正确在何处，只能证明一点，这种“政治正确”绝对是错误的，宗教自由不可能针对任何宗教，因为宗教中也有邪教，目前没有普世宗教自由的条件，根本就不可能实现这个“政治正确”，允许未成年的少女嫁给大胡子大叔的，绝对是个邪教，只能说这些德国法官被政治正确糊涂的脑袋。其实这些德国法官的行为，已经不是公平正义的问题了，而是彻头彻尾的犯罪，他们将被永远钉在人类的耻辱柱上，他们如果继续这样下去的话，只能造成德国的分裂与混乱，甚至物极必反产生一个希特勒式的强人，这些绝非危言耸听。

德国这个民族，我也一直强调它处于基督教的边缘地带，信仰稀薄，所以德国人很容易被“政治正确”的耀眼光芒，闪烁得不敢异议，于是一而再，再而三地选择默克尔，选择这些左派政治家。这就与美国沉默的大多数坚定地选择川普，形成鲜明的对比，美国人有着虔诚的信仰，深厚的基督教根基，不会轻易被“政治正确”空洞、空乏的概念所迷惑，因为政治正确中的大多数内容，与圣经是相违背的，真正的基督徒根本无法容忍，让非基督徒来侵占自己的家园，凌辱自己的子女，这在圣经中是根本不允许的事，。

由于宗教信仰是人类生活中最重要的事，宗教信仰的冲突经常是寸土必争、你死我活，所以目前这种条件下，实现完全彻底的宗教自由，是根本不可能的事，也许是非常多个千年之后的事。不顾现实情况，强行推行多宗教共存的多元化社会，必将给普通人带来巨大的灾难，宗教自由、多元化将使整个国家处于混乱、撕裂中，失去了原有的宁静与安宁、和平与幸福，使我们长期处于动荡不安之中，随时可能失去生命，这样国家又有何用？一个国家的存在的意义，不是宗教自由、多元化之类的“政治正确”，而是首先要保证稳定与秩序，和平安宁，人们能够自由自在地幸福生活，这是几千年来人类社会的首要目标，若这些无法做到，那么国家的存在也就失去了意义，社会最基本的要求都无法保证，那么我们要这个国家何用？

其实我们这个时代所要做的事，并不是什么宗教自由，而是每一个宗教都反思自己，是不是将兄弟之爱作为教义的根本，如何使自己的宗教体现兄弟之爱。例如上面的例子，允许未成年少女与大胡子大叔的婚姻，是否是兄弟之爱？是否会给少女带来终生的伤害？这样的教义合理吗？其次，我们每一个人要坚信自己原有的信仰，遵循基本的人伦常理，不要被“政治正确”的伟大光环闪耀得迷失了方向，至少不能如这些德国最高法院法官一般，以宗教自由的名义，将罪恶引入一个正常的社会。一种宗教要让别人接受，首先要自问自己的教义，是否充满着兄弟之爱，自己生活的国家，是否是一个充满兄弟之爱的和平国度，自己的国家由于教义纷争，时常处于战争状态，而且不承认宗教自由，不允许基督教等异教的存在，那你有何理由要求基督教国家允许你的存在？你有何理由将战争带到基督教国家？难道基督教国家就是个傻子？任由你索取，不能质疑，任由你伤害，不能自卫，天下有这种好事吗？所以说基督教社会，在这些白左政治家的领导下，极有可能物极必反，给人类社会带来巨大灾难。

这些左派政治家，鼓吹宗教自由这个“政治正确”的另一个目的就是，通过“政治正确”这个伟大的幌子，通过普世的宗教自由，来打压基督教的影响力，使世俗政府可以彻底压制基督教会，成为国家的真正主人。在他们眼里基督教的巨大影响力，是世俗政府的最大阻碍，他们认为只要打压了基督教，使基督教与其他宗教类似，或者更为弱势，才能有真正的宗教自由。但是这些左派政治家想法是极其幼稚的，只能害人害己，人类不可能为了理性而活着，理性不可能带给人类永生、永恒的终极世界。打压基督教的结果，只能造成非基督教的快速发展，因为人类的灵魂需要信仰来填充，基督教的弱势只能造成非基督教的强势。于是在西方社会，非基督教，特别是伊斯兰教，在左派政治家这些愚蠢政策的支持下，利用“政治正确”这个概念，快速发展壮大。伊斯兰教可不是基督教，基督教以兄弟之爱作为基本教义，以平等、自由、人权作为进入天堂的条件，而伊斯兰教的教义是以刀剑传教，以国家与教会统一，国家即教会，教会即国家，作为进入天堂的条件。这些伊斯兰教徒达到一定程度后，虽然还远未达到国家人口的大多数，就开始迫不及待在聚居地实行教会法，而且根据教义，教会即国家、国家即教会，他们拥有了自己的警察，甚至军队，随时准备发动圣战。这岂不是与国中之国无异，可现实就是如此，在许多欧洲国家，伊斯兰教徒的聚集地已经是国中之国。可想而知，如果他们的人口达到大多数后，这些国家会是什么样的状况，那时所有的基督徒与这些左派政治家，以及左派政治家的拥鳖们，都将成为这些伊斯兰教徒的祭品，成为他们进入天国的祭品。这些左派政治家建立所谓普世价值的新社会的梦想，纯属白日梦，只能给人类带来无穷无尽的灾难，因为根本就没有什么普世的价值，普世的宗教自由，这些都是基督教世界独有的，目前宗教自由只能在基督教内各教派之间实现，盲目向外扩展，只能带来巨大的灾难。

如果我告诉美国最高法院的法官，康德的二律背反证明了理性是有缺陷，您不能以理性来解释美国宪法，这些法官会反驳说，康德也是有缺陷的，康德对理性的认识未必绝对正确。实际上我从未见有人，能批驳倒康德的二律背反，不过再说下去，这些法官也未必听得懂。如果我跟这些法官说，宗教是人类生活的本质，那么这些法官必然会说，你让上帝现身给他们看，他们就相信我说的话，反正这些都是人类历史上几千年来扯来扯去，谁也理不清，也永远不可能理清的事情。唯一能够说清楚的就是历史事实、历史基础，这也是大陆会议上美国国父们的根本原则，不是从理性的、抽象的角度讨论殖民地人民的权利，而是从历史事实，也就是在英格兰人权利这个历史基础上，展开讨论问题，不是将殖民地人民的权利，建立在空泛的，抽象的理性基础上，而是建立在历史基础上。所以在论述完美国的历史基础，马萨诸塞清教徒治理的大部分之后，我离开主题接连写了五篇有关美国宪政的文章，就是希望将美国宪政的讨论，美国宪法的解释建立在历史基础上，我认为这是正确解释美国宪法的唯一方式，也许鬼使神差，将来有一天，能够为美国基督教会的权利进行辩护，那么这些清教徒治理的内容，就是很好的素材，很真实的历史基础。

注：

①引用自《论宗教宽容》商务印书馆，洛克著，吴云贵译1页

②引用自《论宗教宽容》商务印书馆，洛克著，吴云贵译1页-3页

③引用自《论宗教宽容》商务印书馆，洛克著，吴云贵译41页

④引用自《论宗教宽容》商务印书馆，洛克著，吴云贵译41页

Because of the exemplary role of non-establishment of the United States Constitution and the rational charm of Locke on religious tolerance, all the political textbooks defined religious freedom as one of the basic human rights, including “the declaration of human rights,” which was born in the French Revolution shortly after the American Revolution, and “the Universal Declaration of human rights”. However, they all ignored the actual environment of the United States’ constitution and the original meaning of Locke’s on religious tolerance.

When the United States became independent, the North American colonies were Christian, with almost 100 % of the population being Christians and only of different denominations. Still, they all believed in the same Bible. Occasionally, some were not Christians but naturalists who believed in God even if they did not believe in the miracles of the Bible. At this time, Christianity and Islam were fighting in Poland, a war of life and death related to faith. There was no Islamist in the colonies at all. No matter how great these founding fathers were, it was impossible to put the deadly enemy Islam into the list of religious tolerance.

Moreover, the constitution of the United States uses the words, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. “. This is obviously aimed at the Anglican church as the British state religion enjoyed national resources and clearly stated that the constitution was about the various sects within Christianity. Because there is no state religion concept in the Islamic world, they are political and religious unity. The state is the church; the church is the state. All other sects, like paganism, are enemies that must be eliminated. There is no concept of state religion and no state religion in the Islamic world. Therefore, using the word ” state religion ” proved that the founding fathers excluded Islam in the First Amendment. If Islam is taken into account religious tolerance, the words such as “state religion” would be given up. It was hard to believe the founding fathers used the word “state religion” to a religion that does not have the concept, stipulating that “you cannot become our “state religion””. Of course, the purpose of this discussion does not to argue that Islam cannot exist or preach freely in the United States. It only wants to say that the fundamental of the first amendment and the constitution should not be forgotten; it is set up for different Christian sects. It also can not be forgotten that all Christian sects recognize brotherly love as a Christian fundament. The love of brothers is fundamental to the first amendment and the constitution. Religious freedom cannot violate the foundation of brotherly love, nor trample on the love of brothers in the name of religious freedom, and hurt the real love under God. Whether it is the first amendment or Christianity, brotherhood is the first fundamental. Therefore, any religion that puts brotherly love first should be within the scope of the first amendment.

Similarly, the first amendment does not protect the religion that hurts the love of brothers. Therefore, it can conclude that the first amendment doesn’t protect any religion, and the first amendment cannot defend cults and religions without brotherhood. Saying so much, I would like to say that the first amendment does not protect religion without brotherhood love, which is the foundation of the first amendment and the constitution because this is the base of history.

At the same time, Locke’s ” A Letter Concerning Tolerance “, which has affected many of the United States’ founding fathers, was originally written for the disputes between different Christian sects, not for the tolerance of all religions, and the argument is also obvious.

First, the book’s first sentence is, “.Since you are pleased to inquire what are my thoughts about the mutual toleration of Christians in their different professions of religion, I must needs answer you freely that I esteem that toleration to be the chief characteristic mark of the true Church.” ①

Secondly, in the following discussion, Locke immediately mentioned that the main reason for religious tolerance is that as a Christian, the most basic condition is to have a heart of brotherly love. (Locke also uses brotherly love here for the same reason that I often use brotherly love, and I don’t want fraternity), he said, ” Let Anyone never have so true a claim to all these things, yet if he be destitute of charity, meekness, and good-will in general towards all mankind, even to those that are not Christians, he is certainly yet short of being a true Christian himself.” Starting from the love of brothers, he thought those who used swords and torments to abuse, torture and destroy their religious friends to death, whether they had a little brotherly love in their hearts and whether they were still Christians. Locke even came to the conclusion that these people were Antichrist, and they disguised their true intention of anti-Christian cruelty and persecution of others in the name of Christ. ②

Thirdly, Locke clearly explained the situation that religious tolerance was not applicable. He wrote, ” Again: That Church can have no right to be tolerated by the magistrate which is constituted upon such a bottom that all those who enter into it do there by ipso facto deliver themselves up to the protection and service of another prince. For by this means the magistrate would give way to the settling of a foreign jurisdiction in his own country and suffer his own people to be listed, as it were, for soldiers against his own Government. Nor does the frivolous and fallacious distinction between the Court and the Church afford any remedy to this inconvenience; especially when both the one and the other are equally subject to the absolute authority of the same person, who has not only power to persuade the members of his Church to whatsoever he lists,either as purely religious, or in order thereunto, but can also enjoin it them on pain of eternal fire. It is ridiculous for any one to profess himself to be a “Toleration” — John Locke 42Mahometan only in his religion, but in everything else a faithful subject to a Christian magistrate, whilst at the same time he acknowledges himself bound to yield blind obedience to the Mufti of Constantinople, who himself is entirely obedient to the Ottoman Emperor and frames the feigned oracles of that religion according to his pleasure. But this Mahometan living amongst Christians would yet more apparently renounce their government if he acknowledged the same person to be head of his Church who is the supreme magistrate inthe state” Locke clearly pointed out in this paragraph that the religion of the integration of politics and religion is not in the list of tolerance, because these believers cannot be loyal to this country, but only to their own religious masters. Locke’s thoughts hundreds of years ago can be streets ahead of these leftist politicians. He had clearly discerned that the religion of politics and religious unity might cause harm to the country and the religious freedom of other religions. He proposed that the religion of integrating politics and religion can’t be included in religious tolerance.

“Lastly, those are not at all to be tolerated who deny the being of a God. Promises, covenants, and oaths, which are the bonds of human society, can have nohold upon an atheist. The taking away of God, though but even in thought, dissolves all; besides also, those that by their atheism undermine and destroy all religion, can have no pretence of religion whereupon to challenge the privilege of a toleration. As for other practical opinions, though not absolutely free from all error, if they do not tend to establish domination over others, or civil impunity to the Church in which theyare taught, there can be no reason why they should notbe tolerated.” ③

From the above three points, we can see that Locke is very sober and sharp. He is worthy of being a great thinker who has influenced the world for hundreds of years. I wonder if those who believe that the first amendment “does not establish a state religion, and do not hinder religious freedom” aim at all religions. Have you seen Locke’s “A Letter Concerning Tolerance”? ④

From these arguments, we can see, according to Locke’s theory, it is not that non-Christians cannot preach in the United States, but the Theocracy cannot spread in the United States. Because it may cause great harm to other religions and the country, the Theocracy should not be protected by the constitution’s first amendment. And here, Locke also clearly points out that Islam is a Theocracy and can not be put in the scope of religious tolerance because they ask the believers to obey the church, not the chief executive. We have also discussed in the previous chapters that Islam has no concept of religious freedom. Their doctrine is the unity of the state and the church. The state is the church; the church is the state; no other religions are allowed to exist at all. Therefore, Islam is not among Locke’s religious tolerance, so there has never been universal religious freedom in human history.

In real life, we can see that left-wing politicians such as Merkel pursue religious freedom and diversify their country to show their kindness and greatness. They believe that a country that embodies more philanthropy and integrates more religions and cultures is great. What they want to establish is such a country. This idea is a “political correctness” and is fabulous and noble. Still, it cannot be realized under the current conditions because human beings have no universal religious freedom so far. When they forcibly introduced a large number of Islamic refugees to practice their ideas, it brought great disaster to German society because Islam had no concept of religious freedom, no content of brotherhood love, and even had many doctrines of attacking Christians. Islamists can bear when they are in the minority, but when the population gradually becomes the majority, they increasingly act on their own doctrines and wantonly attack infidels–ordinary Germans. The crimes such as rape and homicide soared. Christmas was also in vigilance. Many people suffer, but Merkel and others do not consider this at all. In order to highlight their greatness and political correctness, they would rather let Germany fall into disaster.

And similarly, out of “political correctness,” the so-called freedom of religion, and protecting the rights of a few non-Christians, the judges of the German Supreme Court ruled that the doctrine of girls’ marriage in Islam is in accordance with the constitution. These judges can only be described as bastards. They were very selfish people who wanted to show their so-called fairness and justice. And they contributed to the fate of young girls of compatriots, and these German girls became sacrifices for their going to the altar. However, are their actions fair and just? What is the standard of their fairness and justice? In fact, their standard is empty and void of rationality, namely “political correctness,” but it is obviously contrary to the common sense of human ethics. I don’t know why the judgment is right; it can only prove that this “political correctness” is absolutely wrong. Religious freedom cannot contain any religion because there are also cults in religion. And there exists no condition of universal religious freedom at present; It is impossible to realize this “political correctness” at all. It is a cult that allows young girls to marry uncles with ample beards. They can only say that these German judges are confused by “political correctness.” In fact, these German judges’ actions are no longer a matter of fairness and justice but a complete crime. They will be forever nailed to the pillar of shame of humans. If they continue to do so, they can only cause division and chaos in Germany and even produce a Hitler-type strong man in extreme circumstances. These are not alarmists.

As a nation, I have always emphasized that Germany is on the brink of Christianity, and its Christian faith is thin. Therefore, it is easy for Germany to be dazzled by the shining light of “political correctness”. So once and again, they choose Merkel and other left politicians. This contrasts sharply with the silent majority of the United States who firmly chose trump. Americans have a pious faith and a deep Christian foundation and will not be easily confused by the concept of empty and void political correctness. Most political correctness contents are contrary to the Bible, and real Christians are intolerable. The Bible does not allow to let non-Christians to encroach on Christian homes and insult their children.

Since religious belief is the most important matter in human life, the conflict of faith always lets people fight tooth and nail and to death. Therefore, it is impossible to achieve complete religious freedom; perhaps it can be realized many thousands of years later. However, regardless of the reality, the forcible implementation of a pluralistic society of multi-religious coexistence will inevitably bring massive disasters to ordinary people. Religious freedom and pluralism will cause the entire country chaos and tear it to pieces, losing its original tranquility and serenity, peace and happiness, throwing ordinary people into turmoil permanently, and anyone could lose their life at any time. So what is the role of a country? The essence of a country is not “political correctness,” such as religious freedom and pluralism, but first of all, to ensure stability and order, peace and tranquility, and people can live freely and happily. It has been the primary goal of human society for thousands of years. If these cannot be fulfilled, then the existence of a country will be meaningless; the most basic requirements of society cannot be guaranteed, so what use is this country?

In fact, what we need to do in this era is not religious freedom, but every religion reflects on itself, whether it regards brotherly love as the foundation of its doctrine or makes its own religion realize brotherly love. For example, how should brotherly love allow the marriage of an underage girl and the bearded uncle in the above example? Will it bring harm to girls for life? Is this doctrine reasonable? Secondly, each of us must firmly believe in our original beliefs, follow basic human ethics, and not lose ourselves in the great halo of “political correctness”. At least we are unlike these German Supreme Court judges, introducing evil into normal society in the name of religious freedom. Whether or not people accept your religion? You must first ask yourself whether your doctrine is full of brotherly love, whether the country you live in is a peaceful country full of brotherly love, or if your country is often at war due to doctrinal disputes. Moreover, your country denies religious freedom, and pagan religions such as Christianity are not allowed. Then what reason do you have to ask the Christian country to enable your existence? What reason do you have to bring the war to a Christian country? Is the Christian country a fool? Let you ask for; they can’t question you, let you hurt, and they can’t defend themself. Is there such a good thing in the world? Therefore, under the leadership of these left politicians in the Christian society, it is highly likely that everything will reverse, bringing large disasters to human society.

These leftist politicians advocate the “political correctness” of religious freedom. Their other purpose is to suppress the influence of Christianity under the great guise of “political correctness” and universal religious freedom. Then The secular government can completely suppress the Christian Church and become the real master of the country. In their eyes, the significant influence of Christianity is the biggest obstacle to the secular government. They believe that true religious freedom can only be realized by suppressing Christianity, making them balanced to other religions or more vulnerable. However, the ideas of these leftist politicians are extremely naive and can only harm others and themselves. Human beings can not live for rationality, and rationality can not bring human beings an eternal and immortal ultimate world. Suppressing Christianity can only make for the rapid development of non-Christianity because the human soul needs faith to fill. The weakness of Christianity can only lead to the strength of non-Christianity. Therefore, in western society, non-Christianity, with the support of the foolish policies and their leftist politicians, especially Islam, exploits the concept of “political correctness” to grow rapidly.

Islam is unlike Christianity. Christianity takes brotherly love as the basic doctrine and equality, freedom, and human rights as the conditions for entering heaven. The doctrine of Islam is to spread with the sword and the unification of the state and the church. The conditions for accessing heaven are the state is the church, and the church is the state. After reaching a certain level, although they are far from reaching the majority of the country’s population, these Islamists can’t wait to perform church law in their settlements. According to the doctrine, the church is the state, and the state is the church; they have their own police and even the army and are ready to launch Jihad at any time. This is no different from a state within a state, but it is a fact. In many European countries, the gathering place of Islamists is already a state within a state. It can be imagined that if their population reaches the majority, what will be the situation in these countries? At that time, all Christians, these leftist politicians, and the supporters of leftist politicians will become sacrifices for these Islamists to get into heaven. The dream of these leftist politicians to establish a new society of so-called universal values is purely a daydream and can only bring endless disasters to humans because there is no universal value, no universal religious freedom at all. All these are unique to the Christian world. At present, religious freedom can only be realized among various sects in Christianity; blind expansion can only bring about great disaster.

Note:

① Locke， “A Letter Concerning Toleration”, trans,wuyungui, p1

② Locke， “A Letter Concerning Toleration”, trans,wuyungui, p1-3

③ Locke， “A Letter Concerning Toleration”, trans,wuyungui, p41

④ Locke， “A Letter Concerning Toleration”, trans,wuyungui, p41