![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 14 of 14. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 5, 2004, at 19:06:30
Hi, everyone,
I heard this interesting quote today and added it to the introduction to PB Faith. What do you think?
> Tolerance should be given to all religions that tolerate others, so long as their dogmas contain nothing contrary to the duties of citizenship. But whoever dares to say: Outside the Church is no salvation, ought to be driven from the State.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau, The Social Contract, 1762
http://www.classicreader.com/read.php/sid.1/bookid.615/sec.51Bob
Posted by shar on April 5, 2004, at 21:18:53
In reply to The Social Contract, posted by Dr. Bob on April 5, 2004, at 19:06:30
The quote is slightly reminiscent of Rodney King to me. In the 1700's, religious freedom was a different thing than in 2004. I don't have a big investment, but I think (ideally) we would have a common understanding of "tolerance" and "duties of citizenship." The duties, for example, may be quite different in some religions than others. Like maybe some want to stone people (such as wives) to death on the questionable (in today's world) grounds of adultery (ie, her husband's word and no corroboration). Without a definition, we can't really say what the 'duty of citizenship' is, even if a religion "tolerates" other faiths (that is, ignores it, or doesn't denigrate it).
Oh, those pesky details.
Shar
> Hi, everyone,
>
> I heard this interesting quote today and added it to the introduction to PB Faith. What do you think?
>
> > Tolerance should be given to all religions that tolerate others, so long as their dogmas contain nothing contrary to the duties of citizenship. But whoever dares to say: Outside the Church is no salvation, ought to be driven from the State.
>
> Jean-Jacques Rousseau, The Social Contract, 1762
> http://www.classicreader.com/read.php/sid.1/bookid.615/sec.51
>
> Bob
Posted by Dinah on April 6, 2004, at 8:42:03
In reply to The Social Contract, posted by Dr. Bob on April 5, 2004, at 19:06:30
Ought to be driven from the state?
Perhaps you could soften that a bit. After all, you block for specified times, not banish forever. And it doesn't seem quite... civil... to tell someone their deeply felt religious beliefs make them unfit for society.
Perhaps the current statements about being able to believe whatever, but that Babble is not the place to post certain parts of your belief, is more tolerant in its phrasing.
Although I admit I'm not terribly literary, so I might be misinterpreting the entire thing. And I am interested into this insight into your thought processes.
Posted by noa on April 6, 2004, at 9:35:38
In reply to The Social Contract, posted by Dr. Bob on April 5, 2004, at 19:06:30
It seems a bit too absolute to me. At the time that was written, wasn't the Church also pretty much a major governing power? And I think it leaves too much to be misunderstood in terms of tone.
Perhaps you can paraphrase parts of the quote, with attributions to the author, of course, to emphasize the point of religions tolerating other religions and the point of not making absolute statements about there being no truth/salvation, etc. outside of any specific church or religion.
Posted by tabitha on April 6, 2004, at 9:58:34
In reply to The Social Contract, posted by Dr. Bob on April 5, 2004, at 19:06:30
Well, what with the 'should' and 'ought' and 'duties', it just strikes a tone that's sort of scary/retro/Puritan. And I wonder... what's the point of having it there? Sort of a precedent for the faith board posting policy? Why is it needed? Dr Bob's wording of the policy was better than that.
Posted by rayww on April 6, 2004, at 10:11:39
In reply to The Social Contract, posted by Dr. Bob on April 5, 2004, at 19:06:30
I totally agree with the concept and the thinking behind it, but the wording has a little to be desired. God will save whomever he will in his own due time, and that will include just about all of us to one degree or another (might be another way of wording it) ;)
> Hi, everyone,
>
> I heard this interesting quote today and added it to the introduction to PB Faith. What do you think?
>
> > Tolerance should be given to all religions that tolerate others, so long as their dogmas contain nothing contrary to the duties of citizenship. But whoever dares to say: Outside the Church is no salvation, ought to be driven from the State.
>
> Jean-Jacques Rousseau, The Social Contract, 1762
> http://www.classicreader.com/read.php/sid.1/bookid.615/sec.51
>
> Bob
Posted by Jai Narayan on April 6, 2004, at 19:06:58
In reply to please re-phrase that Dr. Bob » Dr. Bob, posted by rayww on April 6, 2004, at 10:11:39
Posted by karen_kay on April 6, 2004, at 19:32:24
In reply to I may stand alone but I like it..... (nm), posted by Jai Narayan on April 6, 2004, at 19:06:58
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 6, 2004, at 21:13:46
In reply to please re-phrase that Dr. Bob » Dr. Bob, posted by rayww on April 6, 2004, at 10:11:39
> I think (ideally) we would have a common understanding of "tolerance" and "duties of citizenship." The duties, for example, may be quite different in some religions than others.
>
> SharI think "citizenship" refers to the state, not the church...
> Perhaps you could soften that a bit... And it doesn't seem quite... civil... to tell someone their deeply felt religious beliefs make them unfit for society.
>
> Dinah> It seems a bit too absolute to me... I think it leaves too much to be misunderstood in terms of tone.
>
> noa> it just strikes a tone that's sort of scary/retro/Puritan. And I wonder... what's the point of having it there? Sort of a precedent for the faith board posting policy? Why is it needed? Dr Bob's wording of the policy was better than that.
>
> tabitha> I totally agree with the concept and the thinking behind it, but the wording has a little to be desired.
>
> raywwHmm, I know what you all mean about the tone...
I don't think the implication is that they're "unfit", just that those beliefs are less, well, conducive to harmony. Did you notice that the title of that section is Civil Religion?
Right, I thought it supported the posting policy. And support like that is nice, even if the wording could be more civil. What if I added a little apology:
> Sorry about the tone of the above, but I think it does support the posting policy here...
Bob
Posted by Dinah on April 7, 2004, at 0:18:42
In reply to Re: additional phrase, posted by Dr. Bob on April 6, 2004, at 21:13:46
What you've written about your Faith board policy is a much better fit for this time and place than the quote you gave. Although I'm sure it was perfectly adequate for his time and place.
You don't need to quote anyone for support for your policy. It's your board, and your policy.
Now, repeat after me.
"I'm good enough. I'm smart enough. And gosh darn it, people like me."
("With, of course, the obvious exception of when Dinah takes me to task.")
Posted by jay on April 7, 2004, at 13:02:59
In reply to Re: additional phrase, posted by Dr. Bob on April 6, 2004, at 21:13:46
Bob et al.
Maybe to help clarify for people a bit about Rousseau..is that he didn’t believe in natural laws of “good” or “bad”. Your worry about things being “unfit” is him saying that they are not conducive to the betterment of the whole, as he thought along Marxist equality lines in this way. Hence, the Social Contract is a way of letting all citizens (or poster’s, in this case) religious views be heard. (And at the time...various political philosophies.) (i.e. so one can’t tell the other it is superior He was like Marx in that he believed in a strong sense of equality.. ie. rich vs. poor) He believed strongly that things should be done for a man-made “general good will” (i.e. good/bad are not ‘natural’, inborn states.) That is what the Social Contract is for. Does this make sense?
Jay
Posted by 64Bowtie on April 12, 2004, at 13:36:59
In reply to please re-phrase that Dr. Bob » Dr. Bob, posted by rayww on April 6, 2004, at 10:11:39
point 1. Tolerance should be given to all religions that tolerate others,
(meaning a religion that performs and preaches tolerance, best be tolerated in turn by the state)unless....
point 2. so long as their dogmas contain nothing contrary to the duties of citizenship. (as long as their duties of paying taxes and responding to the majority of their neighbors are not subject to the messiness created by conflict of "the word" of the absolute and the shared responsibilities quid pro quo with the state they abide in)
lest...
point 3. But whoever dares to say: "Outside the Church is no salvation", ought to be driven from the State. (as an example of remedy)
Rod
Posted by Voice of Peace on April 23, 2004, at 17:17:28
In reply to Re: The Social Contract, posted by shar on April 5, 2004, at 21:18:53
yes
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 25, 2004, at 8:43:51
In reply to Re: The Social Contract, posted by Voice of Peace on April 23, 2004, at 17:17:28
> yes
When you're blocked, you're not supposed to post, so I'm going to block this posting name, too. FYI, blocks are now capped at a year.
Bob
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Administration | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.