Freedom of Religion/Philosophical Origins/Tradition contributions/Hobbesian Thought - Revision history

Jkochan1 at 12:22, 27 February 2023

2023-02-27T12:22:54Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:22, 27 February 2023
Line 4:		Line 4:
	\|question=Tradition contributions		\|question=Tradition contributions
	\|questionHeading=What have religious and philosophical traditions contributed to our understanding of this right?		\|questionHeading=What have religious and philosophical traditions contributed to our understanding of this right?
			\|breakout=Hobbesian Thought
	\|pageLevel=Breakout		\|pageLevel=Breakout
	~~\|breakout=Hobbesian Thought~~		\|contents=Despite Hobbes’ often totalitarian views, Hobbes advocates at least some liberty of expression, religion, and association. Hobbes only supported restrictions on liberty when it would have a tangible benefit to the state. In Elements of Law, he argues “that there be no restraint of natural liberty, but what is necessary for the good of the commonwealth” (1640, 9-4). In Behemoth, he even argues that “suppression of doctrines does but unite and exasperate, that is, increase both the malice and power of them that have already believed them” (Hobbes 1681). Although Hobbes’ preference is liberty, he does not seem to have a particularly high standard for classifying ideas as seditious. He considered Christian views that violating conscience is a sin and that sanctity and faith are achieved through relations with the supernatural, not reason, to be seditious (Curley 1). One can see how these views would hurt a state - the idea about violating conscience could promote disobedience. Still, these views are nowhere near problematic to meet the standards for censorship employed by most modern Western governments.
	\|contents=Despite Hobbes’ often totalitarian views, Hobbes advocates at least some liberty of expression, religion, and association. Hobbes only supported restrictions on liberty when it would have a tangible benefit to the state. In ~~Elements~~ of ~~Law~~, he argues “that there be no restraint of natural liberty, but what is necessary for the good of the commonwealth” (~~[[Probable year::~~ 1640]], 9-4). In ~~Behemoth~~, he even argues that ~~“suppression~~ of doctrines does but unite and exasperate, that is, increase both the malice and power of them that have already believed them” (Hobbes ~~[[Probable year::~~ 1681]]) .
	Although Hobbes’ preference is liberty, he does not seem to have a particularly high standard for classifying ideas as seditious. He considered Christian views that violating conscience is a sin and that sanctity and faith are achieved through relations with the supernatural, not reason, to be seditious (Curley 1). One can see how these views would hurt a state - the idea about violating conscience could promote disobedience. Still, these views are nowhere near problematic to meet the standards for censorship employed by most modern Western governments.		References:
	Leviathan:~~ https~~://www.fulltextarchive.com/pdfs/Leviathan.pdf
	Curley: https://sites01.lsu.edu/faculty/voegelin/wp-content/uploads/sites/80/~~[[Probable year::~~ 2015]]/ 09/Edwin-Curley.pdf ~~Elements of Law: http://library.um.edu.mo/ebooks/b1360[[Probable year:: 2317]]. pdf~~		Leviathan: https://www.fulltextarchive.com/pdfs/Leviathan.pdf
	~~Behemoth:~~		Curley: https://sites01.lsu.edu/faculty/voegelin/wp-content/uploads/sites/80/2015/09/Edwin-Curley.pdf
	~~https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/hobbes-the-english-works-vol-vi-dialogue-behemoth-rhetoric~~

			Elements of Law: http://library.um.edu.mo/ebooks/b13602317.pdf

			Behemoth: https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/hobbes-the-english-works-vol-vi-dialogue-behemoth-rhetoric
	}}		}}

Import-sysop: transformed

2022-12-28T22:08:45Z

transformed

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:08, 28 December 2022
Line 6:		Line 6:
	\|pageLevel=Breakout		\|pageLevel=Breakout
	\|breakout=Hobbesian Thought		\|breakout=Hobbesian Thought
	\|contents=Despite Hobbes’ often totalitarian views, Hobbes advocates at least some liberty of expression, religion, and association. Hobbes only supported restrictions on liberty when it would have a tangible benefit to the state. In Elements of Law, he argues “that there be no restraint of natural liberty, but what is necessary for the good of the commonwealth” ([[Probable year::1640]], 9-4). In Behemoth, he even argues that “suppression of doctrines does but unite and exasperate, that is, increase both the malice and power of them that have already believed them” (Hobbes [[Probable year::1681]]) .		\|contents=Despite Hobbes’ often totalitarian views, Hobbes advocates at least some liberty of expression, religion, and association. Hobbes only supported restrictions on liberty when it would have a tangible benefit to the state. In Elements of Law, he argues “that there be no restraint of natural liberty, but what is necessary for the good of the commonwealth” ([[Probable year:: 1640]], 9-4). In Behemoth, he even argues that “suppression of doctrines does but unite and exasperate, that is, increase both the malice and power of them that have already believed them” (Hobbes [[Probable year:: 1681]]) .
	Although Hobbes’ preference is liberty, he does not seem to have a particularly high standard for classifying ideas as seditious. He considered Christian views that violating conscience is a sin and that sanctity and faith are achieved through relations with the supernatural, not reason, to be seditious (Curley 1). One can see how these views would hurt a state - the idea about violating conscience could promote disobedience. Still, these views are nowhere near problematic to meet the standards for censorship employed by most modern Western governments.		Although Hobbes’ preference is liberty, he does not seem to have a particularly high standard for classifying ideas as seditious. He considered Christian views that violating conscience is a sin and that sanctity and faith are achieved through relations with the supernatural, not reason, to be seditious (Curley 1). One can see how these views would hurt a state - the idea about violating conscience could promote disobedience. Still, these views are nowhere near problematic to meet the standards for censorship employed by most modern Western governments.
	Leviathan: https://www.fulltextarchive.com/pdfs/Leviathan.pdf		Leviathan: https://www.fulltextarchive.com/pdfs/Leviathan.pdf
	Curley: https://sites01.lsu.edu/faculty/voegelin/wp-content/uploads/sites/80/[[Probable year::2015]]/ 09/Edwin-Curley.pdf Elements of Law: http://library.um.edu.mo/ebooks/b1360[[Probable year::2317]]. pdf		Curley: https://sites01.lsu.edu/faculty/voegelin/wp-content/uploads/sites/80/[[Probable year:: 2015]]/ 09/Edwin-Curley.pdf Elements of Law: http://library.um.edu.mo/ebooks/b1360[[Probable year:: 2317]]. pdf
	Behemoth:		Behemoth:
	https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/hobbes-the-english-works-vol-vi-dialogue-behemoth-rhetoric		https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/hobbes-the-english-works-vol-vi-dialogue-behemoth-rhetoric

Import-sysop: transformed

2022-11-25T19:51:52Z

transformed

New page

{{Right section
|right=Freedom of Religion
|section=Philosophical Origins
|question=Tradition contributions
|questionHeading=What have religious and philosophical traditions contributed to our understanding of this right?
|pageLevel=Breakout
|breakout=Hobbesian Thought
|contents=Despite Hobbes’ often totalitarian views, Hobbes advocates at least some liberty of expression, religion, and association. Hobbes only supported restrictions on liberty when it would have a tangible benefit to the state. In Elements of Law, he argues “that there be no restraint of natural liberty, but what is necessary for the good of the commonwealth” ([[Probable year::1640]], 9-4). In Behemoth, he even argues that “suppression of doctrines does but unite and exasperate, that is, increase both the malice and power of them that have already believed them” (Hobbes [[Probable year::1681]]) .
Although Hobbes’ preference is liberty, he does not seem to have a particularly high standard for classifying ideas as seditious. He considered Christian views that violating conscience is a sin and that sanctity and faith are achieved through relations with the supernatural, not reason, to be seditious (Curley 1). One can see how these views would hurt a state - the idea about violating conscience could promote disobedience. Still, these views are nowhere near problematic to meet the standards for censorship employed by most modern Western governments.
Leviathan: https://www.fulltextarchive.com/pdfs/Leviathan.pdf
Curley: https://sites01.lsu.edu/faculty/voegelin/wp-content/uploads/sites/80/[[Probable year::2015]]/ 09/Edwin-Curley.pdf Elements of Law: http://library.um.edu.mo/ebooks/b1360[[Probable year::2317]]. pdf
Behemoth:
https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/hobbes-the-english-works-vol-vi-dialogue-behemoth-rhetoric

}}