What do you think great thinkers 150 years ago would have considered, in the words of their contemporary, John Stuart Mill, “the vital question of the future” (that’s NOW !) ? For some it might be how far we would have advanced beyond the Industrial Revolution, and whether we would be able to cope with expected progress in engineering and science. For others, realizing the implications of Charles Darwin’s copernican revolution concerning the Origin of Species, the question might have been whether religion could possibly survive in the 21st century. For John Stuart Mill himself, a rare combination of philosopher and politician, the question that most worried him was whether a democratic majority might force its will on a minority. Even in 1859 this idea was considered controversial and dangerous. Today it would be heresy in some Western countries where many consider it their God-given mission to offer, and to impose if necessary, their values on the nations of the world, just as Islamists are dedicated to imposing charia worldwide. For Mill, freedom of thought, freedom of action and freedom to join together with other like-minded individuals, are necessary to avoid society itself becoming a tyrant, “a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression”.
The subject is close to the very essence of this Blog. The Catholic Church, for centuries, succeeded in silencing dissenters. Today it is powerless to do so. (Our very own Catholic spokesman, Jim, has said in this Blog that he and his friends have decided “to starve” me “of oxygen” (see his comment on “Rise and Shine”, August 18). If this were to be taken literally, it would be a threat to murder. Of course it isn’t. It’s just an expression of frustration that they cannot silence me. Before and since Galileo, the Church has tried and often succeeded in silencing dissenters, depriving, for example, Giordano Bruno at the stake not only of Mill’s three freedoms but of … oxygen.)
Roman Catholicism would prefer that we forget its fascist, fanatical, terrorist past and appreciate its new-found ecumenism and “tolerance”. Thanks to Mill and other defenders of the hard-won right to dissent, minorities are free to express their opinions. Voltaire may or may not have said : “I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”. Mill did express the lapidary principle which must govern the discussion of different opinions : “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”. 150 years from now, and for as long as humans inhabit this world, the principle remains a self-evident truth we must never again forget.
(A handy summary of Mill’s thought, including the right to self-protection as well as the right and duty to prevent or punish action that causes harm, can be found in Andrew Taylor’s “Books That Changed the World”, Quercus, London, 2014.)
RIDENDA RELIGIO
Blind Faith: Blind Folly 
As I have, once again been misquoted by Frank above, I must correct the claim that I said that I have decided to starve Frank from oxygen. Readers will see that I allow Frank plenty, probably too much of God’s oxygen.
Frank will realise that it is only by the most remarkable act of God’s providence that oxygen and carbon exist. This incredible act influenced Fred Hoyle, and others, to abandon atheism and belief in Frank’s chance or luck, that paved the way for life on this planet, incredibly fashioned in so many details, defying the slightest possibility of chance. So, who would I be,Frank, to deny you this incredible gift by our Creator.
Readers can also easily read what I actually said, and see why others feel it dangerous to supply the oxygen that supports the distortions, insults and mockery.
Yes, Frank, you continually misquote and exaggerate what I plainly say, so how can you be credible on other matters? Readers can easily go back and check what I say.
Why, then, do I continue in our dialogue of the deaf, as Frank names it?
It’s just that I can’t bear unchallenged distortions and mockery of truth, by someone who, for some reason, has become bitter with the Faith of his parents and sibblings and seems to seek revenge, hitting out blindly and constantly.
I just add that rights and values, apart from rights of the natural law, are meaningless terms, often used to suit a personal view.
Frank, in quoting Voltaire, should remember the French revolution, whose head- lopping of Catholics by rationalists is only rivalled by the barbarism of modern Islamic militants.
He should also remember his beloved Charles Darwin, coming from Erasmus and a line of atheists, and whose teachings, followed by his son into the eugenics movement, which influenced Hitler’s genocide is hardly a glowing model of righteousness compared with one 13th century burning of a heretic and the comfortable house arrest of Galileo, the favourite old chestnut.
One death and one inconvenience is regrettable but little in comparison.Maybe stone throwing should stop, in the interest of glass houses in France and Darwin.
When we consider the 2000 years of Christianity in every culture and corner of the earth, compared with short lived godless, murderous regimes in specific regions, a comparison of capital sins per person year would be very interesting(1/10,000?).
Of course, there is also tolerated the annual slaughter of tens of millions of innocents in our own secular society, with only the one united voice of Catholicism, largely unheeded, defending the unborn human lives.
We should concentrate on present crimes and their eradication, of which we all share guilt, rather than point scoring from past times.
Frank knows that Christ has said that the Church would always comprise wheat and weeds, until the harvest. Christians, unlike their founder, are not perfect and there will always be scandals, which ‘perfect’ opponents like to seize upon and magnify..
So, Frank, please start justifying your atheist core beliefs, and less diversions.
Please justify how nothing became something at the big bang, for a start. There was no self to become self organisation, there were no atoms to bump together, there were no forces or laws of physics, there was no luck. I would claim a source outside of the then non existent space, time or matter, which had no origin, caused nothing to become a point of something. Science is then able to take over with something to work on.
LikeLike
Jim, as usual. merely asserts. “……I would claim a source outside of ………” etc etc etc.
What Jim is really saying is that he lacks the imagination to think for himself – preferring to slavishly adhere to the doctrinal line of the Catholic Church. That’s his right.
But Jim should has never and in fact is unable to present one iota of credible evidence for his “source”.
LikeLike