There has never been universal religious freedom in human history
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.
If I tell the judges of the U.S. Supreme Court that Kant’s antinomy proves the flaw of rationality, they can’t interpret the U.S. Constitution with rationality. These judges will retort that Kant is also flawed, and Kant’s understanding of rationality may not be absolutely correct. In fact, I have never seen whoever can refute Kant’s antinomy, but these judges may not understand it. If I tell these judges that religion is the essence of human life, then these judges will definitely say that they will believe what I said if I let God show up to them. Anyway, these are things that have been dragged around for thousands of years in human history, and no one can and will be able to sort them out. The only thing we can make clear is the historical facts and historical basis; it is also the fundamental principle of the founding fathers of the United States at the Continental Congress. They didn’t discuss the rights of the colonial people from rationality and abstraction but from the historical facts, that is, the historical basis of England’s rights. The rights of the colonial people weren’t established on an empty basis, abstract rationality but based on the facts of history. Therefore, after discussing the historical basis of the United States and most of the Puritan governance in Massachusetts, I left the subject and wrote five articles on American constitutionalism in succession. I hoped that the discussion of American constitutionalism and the American constitution’s interpretation would base on historic facts. I think that this is the only way to interpret the U.S. Constitution correctly. Maybe it will be a ghost that one day I will defend the rights of the Christian Church in the United States. Then the content of this Puritan governance is the perfect material and an authentic historical basis.
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
Welcome to donate and support. Your support is the biggest driving force for the author’s writing. I believe it is also support for God and God’s cause. Friends with WeChat and Alipay can click on the QR code below to donate.
Friends without them can use the following PayPal account to donate, https:/ /www.paypal.me/readjoyinc.
Share the post "no universal religious freedom in human history"