Misplaced Pages

Freedom of thought: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 05:47, 14 June 2007 editPoindexter Propellerhead (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users5,122 edits removing newly-added URL which seemed marginal.← Previous edit Latest revision as of 02:42, 15 December 2024 edit undoFPTI (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,610 edits →External linksTag: 2017 wikitext editor 
(541 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{distinguish|Freethought|Cognitive liberty|Freedom of speech}}
{{Moresources|date=January 2007}}
{{Freedom}} {{Short description|Freedom to hold a thought}}
{{essay-like|date=July 2018}}
], 1722]]


'''Freedom of thought''' (also called '''freedom of conscience''' and '''freedom of ideas''') is the ] of an individual to hold or consider a fact, viewpoint, or ], regardless of anyone else's view. '''Freedom of thought''' is the ] of an individual to hold or consider a fact, viewpoint, or ], independent of others' viewpoints.


== Explanation == == Overview ==
<!-- Note: perhaps something could be mentioned here about the Four Freedoms proposed by Franklin Roosevelt, which also includes freedom from fear and freedom from want -->
To deny a person's freedom of thought is to deny what can be considered one's most basic freedom; to think for one's self.


Every person attempts to have a cognitive proficiency by developing knowledge, concepts, theories and assessing them in the given environment. This cognitive proficiency gives a sense of contentment and replaces the feeling of helplessness. Apart from bringing ease to the ego of a person, new knowledge and ideas also bring a hope for the future.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Main|first=T. F.|date=1967-06-01|title=Knowledge, Learning and Freedom from Thought|url=https://doi.org/10.3109/00048676709159167|journal=Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry|language=en|volume=1|issue=2|pages=64–71|doi=10.3109/00048676709159167|s2cid=144126437|issn=0004-8674}}</ref>
Since the whole concept of 'freedom of thought' rests on the freedom of the individual to believe whatever one thinks is best (freedom of belief), the notion of ']' is closely related and inextricably bound up with these. While in many societies and forms of government, there has been effectively no freedom of religion or belief, this same freedom has been cherished and developed to a great extent in the modern western world, such that it is taken for granted.


Freedom of thought is the precursor and progenitor of—and thus is closely linked to—other liberties, including ], freedom of speech, and freedom of expression.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Swaine|first=Lucas|date=2016-11-09|title=Freedom of Thought as a Basic Liberty|journal=Political Theory|language=en-US|volume=46|issue=3|pages=405–425|doi=10.1177/0090591716676293|s2cid=151827391|issn=0090-5917}}</ref> Though freedom of thought is axiomatic for many other freedoms, they are in no way required for it to operate and exist. The conception of a freedom or a right does not guarantee its inclusion, legality, or protection via a philosophical caveat. It is a very important concept in the Western world and nearly all democratic constitutions protect these freedoms.
This development was enshrined in words in the ] by the ], which contains the famous guarantee in the ] that laws may not be made that interfere with religion "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Today nearly all democratic nations around the world contain similar language within their respective Constitutions.


A US ] later (]) went on to reason in ] (1937) that: For instance, the ] contains the famous guarantee in the ] that laws may not be made that interfere with religion "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". U.S. ] ] reasoned in '']'' (1937):


:''"Freedom of thought... is the matrix, the indispensable condition, of nearly every other form of freedom. With rare aberrations a pervasive recognition of this truth can be traced in our history, political and legal."'' {{quote|Freedom of thought... is the matrix, the indispensable condition, of nearly every other form of freedom. With rare aberrations a pervasive recognition of this truth can be traced in our history, political and legal.<ref>{{cite court
|litigants=Palko v. State of Connecticut
|vol=302
|reporter=U.S.
|opinion=319
|pinpoint=
|court=
|year=1937
|url=http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=302&invol=319
}}</ref>}}


Such ideas are also a vital part of ]. In the ] (UDHR), which is legally binding on member states of the ] (ICCPR), "freedom of thought" is listed under Article 18:
In other words, without the right to freedom of thought, other rights such as the right to ] hold little meaning.


{{quote|Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.}}
Such ideas regarding freedom of thought, as developed over time, ultimately became a vital part of international ] law. In the ] (UDHR), it is listed under Article 18:


:''Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.'' The ]' ] states that this "distinguishes the freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief from the freedom to manifest religion or belief. It does not permit any limitations whatsoever on the freedom of thought and conscience or on the freedom to have or adopt a religion or belief of one's choice. These freedoms are protected unconditionally".<ref>{{cite web
|title=General Comment No. 22: The right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion (Art. 18) : . 30/07/93. CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.4, General Comment No. 22. (General Comments)
|work=United Nations Human Rights Website – Treaty Bodies Database
|publisher=]
|date=1993-07-30
|url=http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/0/9a30112c27d1167cc12563ed004d8f15?Opendocument
|access-date=2007-10-21
}}</ref> Similarly, Article 19 of the UDHR guarantees that "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference".


] of the ] states, "Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion."<ref>{{cite web | title=The European Convention on Human Rights | publisher=]|url=https://www.coe.int/en/web/human-rights-convention/conscience}}</ref>
The ] states that the above Article 18, which became legally binding on member states with the ];


==History of development and suppression==
:''"distinguishes the freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief from the freedom to manifest religion or belief. It does not permit any limitations whatsoever on the freedom of thought and conscience or on the freedom to have or adopt a religion or belief of one's choice. These freedoms are protected unconditionally."''
It is impossible to know with certainty what another person is thinking, making suppression difficult. The concept is developed throughout the Bible, most fully in the writings of ] (e.g., "For why should my freedom be judged by another's conscience ?" ] 10:29).<ref>Eugene J. Cooper, "Man's Basic Freedom and Freedom of Conscience in the Bible : Reflections on 1 Corinthians 8–10", ''Irish Theological Quarterly'' Dec 1975</ref>


] in ]]]
Similarly, Article 19 of the UDHR guarantees that "''Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference...''"
Although Greek philosophers ] and ] had discussed freedom of thought minimally, the edicts of King ] (3rd century BC) have been called the first decree respecting freedom of conscience.<ref>{{cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=a6cL9Jng5okC&q=%22freedom+of+conscience%22+ashoka&pg=PR7|title=Luigi Luzzatti, "The First Decree on Freedom of Conscience" p. 47 in ''God in Freedom''|access-date=15 September 2014|isbn=978-1596054486|last1=Luzzatti|first1=Luigi|date=February 2006|publisher=Cosimo }}</ref> In European tradition, aside from the decree of religious toleration by ] at Milan in 313, the philosophers ], ], ], ], ], ], and ] and the theologians ] and ] have been considered major proponents of the idea of freedom of conscience (or "soul liberty" in the words of Williams).<ref>Luzzatti, p. 91.</ref>


] revoked a thought censorship law in the late sixteenth century, because, according to Sir ], she did "not to make windows into men's souls and secret thoughts".<ref>{{cite book |last=Brimacombe |first=Peter |title=All the Queen's Men: The World of Elizabeth I |publisher=Palgrave Macmillan |year=2000 |pages= |isbn=0312232519 |url-access=registration |url=https://archive.org/details/allqueensmenworl0000brim/page/125 }}</ref> During her reign, however, a number of books published by theorist ] spurred controversy, mentioning topics banned by the Catholic Church such as the possibility of an infinite universe. Unwilling to recant these ideas, Bruno was eventually ] as a ] in Rome by the ], in turn becoming a martyr for free thought.<ref>{{citation |title=Giordano Bruno: Martyrs of free thought no. 1|author=Arturo Labriola}}</ref>
== Drug prohibition ==
{{main|Cognitive liberty|Prohibition (drugs)}}
Despite the many laws concerning freedom of thought, amongst ], there is no consensus on what ] itself actually is. However, the field of ] uses a pragmatic view in linking thoughts to patterns of brain activity - ‘almost everyone now agrees… that the subject of mental properties and events is a physical thing.’


] is described by ] as "the first among the mighty men of the world to set up one special religious principle, and to enforce it so far as in him lay: ... The principle of liberty of conscience and the repudiation of religious coercion".<ref>A.D. Lindsay: ''The Essentials of Democracy'' (2 ed.), 1948.</ref>
Patterns of brain activity can be altered by taking ] – ranging from ] to ] to ]. The ] Office of Drugs and Crime defines a psychoactive substance as "any substance that people take to change either the way they feel, think, or behave."


However, ] can be limited through ], arrests, ], or ], and this tends to discourage freedom of thought. Examples of effective campaigns against freedom of expression are the Soviet suppression of genetics research in favor of a theory known as ], the book-burning campaigns of ], the radical ] enforced in Cambodia under ] and in Nazi Germany under ], the strict limits on freedom of expression imposed by the ] governments of the People's Republic of China and Cuba or by ] dictatorships such as those of ] in Chile and ] in Spain.
Authors such as ], ] and ] have argued that certain psychoactive drugs, or ‘]’, may be used to favorably alter the way we think. Religious groups have also traditionally used specific plants to alter thought, aiding members in worship or helping to put them in touch with ]. Examples of this are the ]’s use of ], Islamic ] mystics' use of ] to be present with the ], indigenous peoples' of the Amazonian Basin ritualistic usage of the ] tea in order to connect with the spirit(s) of the jungle, ] use of ] and the chewing of ] (heralded as a "pipeline to ]" among many ]s in Eastern Africa).


The ], which states that ] can be embedded in ], would support the claim that an effort to limit the use of words of language is actually a form of restricting freedom of thought.{{Citation needed|date=June 2010}} This was explored in ]'s novel'' ]'', with the idea of ], a stripped-down form of the ] alleged to lack the capacity for metaphor and limiting expression of original ideas.
Some ], such as the ], argue that placing limits on the use of certain drugs is akin to placing a limit on thought itself – thus violating the right to ].


More recently, ] technology has raised concerns about entities possibly reading and subsequently suppressing thought. These concerns form the emerging fields of ] and ].{{Citation needed|date=October 2024}}
Constitutional rights-based arguments against blanket ] have featured in US legal history since the 1960s. In ], the ] upheld the right to religious drug use in the ] case ('']'', ]). This case now features in ]. The distinction to be made is that government regulation of drug use is not prohibiting any thought but rather prohibiting conduct.


==See also==
A recent British case involving this line of legal argument is that of ], who is awaiting a hearing at the ] after being refused a final appeal at the ], the highest court in Great Britain. Hardison is currently serving a twenty year sentence for producing a variety of ].
{{Portal|Philosophy}}
{{div col|colwidth=22em}}
* ]
* ]
** ]
** ]
** ], Franklin Roosevelt's speech
** ]
** ]
** ]
** ]
* ]
** ]
** ]
** ]
** ]
** ]
*** ]
** ]


{{div col end}}
==Suppression of freedom of thought==
One obvious impediment to those who would suppress freedom of thought, is that no one human being can possibly even ''know'' what everyone else is really thinking &mdash; let alone successfully regulate it.


==References==
This impossibility of controlling thought is perhaps summarized in the ] context nowhere more succinctly than in ] 8:8: ''"There is no man that hath power over the spirit, to retain it; neither hath he power in the day of death."'' In other words, trying to control the thoughts of others is as futile as trying to control death. A similar sentiment is expressed in the teachings of ] in the ], where he seems to liken those who vainly attempt to control the emotions of their neighbours to "the children in the marketplace" who try to produce dancing with a happy song and mourning with a dirge, and then express frustration at their futility in trying to do so. (Matt. 11:16)
{{Reflist}}


==Further reading==
Laws that attempt to regulate what goes on inside a person’s head have long been regarded with suspicion. ] removed one such law, several hundred years ago, because, according to Sir ], ‘She would not make windows into men’s souls’.
* ], ''Synod on the Freedom of Conscience: A Thorough Examination during the Gathering Held in the Year 1582 in the City of Freetown''
* Richard Joseph Cooke, ''Freedom of thought in religious teaching'' (1913)
* Lucas Swaine, "Freedom of Thought as a Basic Liberty," ''Political Theory'', 46:3 (2018): 405–425. {{doi|10.1177/0090591716676293}}
* Eugene J. Cooper, "Man's Basic Freedom and Freedom of Conscience in the Bible : Reflections on 1 Corinthians 8–10", ''Irish Theological Quarterly'' Dec 1975
* George Botterill and Peter Carruthers, 'The Philosophy of Psychology', Cambridge University Press (1999), p.&nbsp;3
* The Hon. Sir John Laws, 'The Limitations of Human Rights', P. L. Summer, Sweet & Maxwell and Contributors, p.&nbsp;260
* {{cite encyclopedia
| author =Voltaire
| author-link =Voltaire
| encyclopedia =Dictionnaire philosophique
| title =Liberté de penser
| language =fr
| year =1954
| series =Classiques Garnier
| publisher =Éditions Garnier
| location =Paris
| pages =277–81
}}
* ], '']'' (1644; )
* ], '']'' ()


==External links==
While freedom of thought is said to be one of the fundamental principles of most ], the attempted suppression of freedom of thought is a prominent characteristic of ] and ] regimes. Freedom of expression can be limited in several ways &mdash; through ], arrests, ], or ], and this tends to discourage freedom of thought. Examples of effective campaigns against freedom of expression are the Soviet suppression of genetics research known as ], the book burning campaigns of ], and the radical ] enforced in ] under ].
{{commons category|Freedom of thought}}
* (accessed July 10, 2009, on Google Books)
*
* – a network of scholars elaborating the law, policy and ethics of freedom of thought
* ]


{{Censorship}}
Freedom of expression can also be stifled without institutional interference when the views of the ] become so widely accepted that other ways of expression are repressed. For this reason, some condemn "]" as a form of limiting freedom of thought. Although proponents of "political correctness" claim that it aims to give minority views an equal representation, critics point to instances in which the majority view is also the view which is seen as "politically correct." For example, college student ] was arrested following the ] for politically incorrect comments that authorities saw as "sympathetic to the killer." Karson's arrest raised important questions regarding freedom of thought and whether or not it applies in educational settings.
{{Liberty}}
{{Human rights}}
{{Western culture}}
{{Authority control}}


]
The ], which states that ] is inherently embedded in ], would support the claim that an effort to limit the use of words of language is actually a form of restricting freedom of thought.

A possible counter-point is that such efforts have increased the number of terms available for use in describing social groups and events, contributing to freedom of thought, rather than stifling it.

==Internet censorship and freedom of thought==
]
A current example of propaganda, censorship and therefore suppression of freedom of thought, is the control of information on the world wide web in such countries as ]<ref> ''BBC News'' ] ]</ref>, ], ]<ref> ''Al Jazeera'' ] ]</ref>, ], and ] . In October 2006, Iranian mullahs ordered ]s to reduce connection speeds for home and cafe computers.<ref> ''Voice of America''</ref>

== See also ==
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]

==References and notes==
<div class="references-small">
<references/>
</div>

==Further reading==
# George Botterill and Peter Carruthers, ‘The Philosophy of Psychology’, Cambridge University Press (1999), p3
# The Hon. Sir John Laws, ‘The Limitations of Human Rights’, P.L. Summer, Sweet & Maxwell and Contributors, p260

== External links ==
* - Iranian Underground Art Movement
*
* - a charitable trust that promotes the investigation of consciousness
* - International organization for press freedom
* - a network of scholars elaborating the law, policy and ethics of freedom of thought
* - the first individual in the UK to use an elaborate freedom of thought argument to challenge drug prohibition in court
* - E-book online (Copyright expired)
] ]
]

]
]
]
]
] ]
]
]
]

Latest revision as of 02:42, 15 December 2024

Not to be confused with Freethought, Cognitive liberty, or Freedom of speech. Freedom to hold a thought
This article is written like a personal reflection, personal essay, or argumentative essay that states a Misplaced Pages editor's personal feelings or presents an original argument about a topic. Please help improve it by rewriting it in an encyclopedic style. (July 2018) (Learn how and when to remove this message)
"Without freedom of thought there can be no such thing as wisdom & no such thing as public liberty without freedom of speech", Benjamin Franklin, 1722

Freedom of thought is the freedom of an individual to hold or consider a fact, viewpoint, or thought, independent of others' viewpoints.

Overview

Every person attempts to have a cognitive proficiency by developing knowledge, concepts, theories and assessing them in the given environment. This cognitive proficiency gives a sense of contentment and replaces the feeling of helplessness. Apart from bringing ease to the ego of a person, new knowledge and ideas also bring a hope for the future.

Freedom of thought is the precursor and progenitor of—and thus is closely linked to—other liberties, including freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and freedom of expression. Though freedom of thought is axiomatic for many other freedoms, they are in no way required for it to operate and exist. The conception of a freedom or a right does not guarantee its inclusion, legality, or protection via a philosophical caveat. It is a very important concept in the Western world and nearly all democratic constitutions protect these freedoms.

For instance, the United States Bill of Rights contains the famous guarantee in the First Amendment that laws may not be made that interfere with religion "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". U.S. Supreme Court Justice Benjamin Cardozo reasoned in Palko v. Connecticut (1937):

Freedom of thought... is the matrix, the indispensable condition, of nearly every other form of freedom. With rare aberrations a pervasive recognition of this truth can be traced in our history, political and legal.

Such ideas are also a vital part of international human rights law. In the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), which is legally binding on member states of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), "freedom of thought" is listed under Article 18:

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

The United Nations' Human Rights Committee states that this "distinguishes the freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief from the freedom to manifest religion or belief. It does not permit any limitations whatsoever on the freedom of thought and conscience or on the freedom to have or adopt a religion or belief of one's choice. These freedoms are protected unconditionally". Similarly, Article 19 of the UDHR guarantees that "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference".

Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights states, "Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion."

History of development and suppression

It is impossible to know with certainty what another person is thinking, making suppression difficult. The concept is developed throughout the Bible, most fully in the writings of Saul of Tarsus (e.g., "For why should my freedom be judged by another's conscience ?" 1 Corinthians 10:29).

Bronze statue of Giordano Bruno in Rome

Although Greek philosophers Plato and Socrates had discussed freedom of thought minimally, the edicts of King Ashoka (3rd century BC) have been called the first decree respecting freedom of conscience. In European tradition, aside from the decree of religious toleration by Constantine I at Milan in 313, the philosophers Themistius, Michel de Montaigne, Baruch Spinoza, John Locke, Voltaire, Alexandre Vinet, and John Stuart Mill and the theologians Roger Williams and Samuel Rutherford have been considered major proponents of the idea of freedom of conscience (or "soul liberty" in the words of Williams).

Queen Elizabeth I revoked a thought censorship law in the late sixteenth century, because, according to Sir Francis Bacon, she did "not to make windows into men's souls and secret thoughts". During her reign, however, a number of books published by theorist Giordano Bruno spurred controversy, mentioning topics banned by the Catholic Church such as the possibility of an infinite universe. Unwilling to recant these ideas, Bruno was eventually burned as a heretic in Rome by the Italian Inquisition, in turn becoming a martyr for free thought.

Oliver Cromwell is described by Ignaz von Döllinger as "the first among the mighty men of the world to set up one special religious principle, and to enforce it so far as in him lay: ... The principle of liberty of conscience and the repudiation of religious coercion".

However, freedom of expression can be limited through censorship, arrests, book burning, or propaganda, and this tends to discourage freedom of thought. Examples of effective campaigns against freedom of expression are the Soviet suppression of genetics research in favor of a theory known as Lysenkoism, the book-burning campaigns of Nazi Germany, the radical anti-intellectualism enforced in Cambodia under Pol Pot and in Nazi Germany under Adolf Hitler, the strict limits on freedom of expression imposed by the Communist governments of the People's Republic of China and Cuba or by Capitalist dictatorships such as those of Augusto Pinochet in Chile and Francisco Franco in Spain.

The Sapir–Whorf hypothesis, which states that thought can be embedded in language, would support the claim that an effort to limit the use of words of language is actually a form of restricting freedom of thought. This was explored in George Orwell's novel 1984, with the idea of Newspeak, a stripped-down form of the English language alleged to lack the capacity for metaphor and limiting expression of original ideas.

More recently, neuroimaging technology has raised concerns about entities possibly reading and subsequently suppressing thought. These concerns form the emerging fields of neuroethics and neuroprivacy.

See also

References

  1. Main, T. F. (1967-06-01). "Knowledge, Learning and Freedom from Thought". Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry. 1 (2): 64–71. doi:10.3109/00048676709159167. ISSN 0004-8674. S2CID 144126437.
  2. Swaine, Lucas (2016-11-09). "Freedom of Thought as a Basic Liberty". Political Theory. 46 (3): 405–425. doi:10.1177/0090591716676293. ISSN 0090-5917. S2CID 151827391.
  3. Palko v. State of Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319 (1937).
  4. "General Comment No. 22: The right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion (Art. 18) : . 30/07/93. CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.4, General Comment No. 22. (General Comments)". United Nations Human Rights Website – Treaty Bodies Database. Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. 1993-07-30. Retrieved 2007-10-21.
  5. "The European Convention on Human Rights". Council of Europe.
  6. Eugene J. Cooper, "Man's Basic Freedom and Freedom of Conscience in the Bible : Reflections on 1 Corinthians 8–10", Irish Theological Quarterly Dec 1975
  7. Luzzatti, Luigi (February 2006). Luigi Luzzatti, "The First Decree on Freedom of Conscience" p. 47 in God in Freedom. Cosimo. ISBN 978-1596054486. Retrieved 15 September 2014.
  8. Luzzatti, p. 91.
  9. Brimacombe, Peter (2000). All the Queen's Men: The World of Elizabeth I. Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 125. ISBN 0312232519.
  10. Arturo Labriola, Giordano Bruno: Martyrs of free thought no. 1
  11. A.D. Lindsay: The Essentials of Democracy (2 ed.), 1948.

Further reading

  • D.V. Coornhert, Synod on the Freedom of Conscience: A Thorough Examination during the Gathering Held in the Year 1582 in the City of Freetown English translation
  • Richard Joseph Cooke, Freedom of thought in religious teaching (1913)
  • Lucas Swaine, "Freedom of Thought as a Basic Liberty," Political Theory, 46:3 (2018): 405–425. doi:10.1177/0090591716676293
  • Eugene J. Cooper, "Man's Basic Freedom and Freedom of Conscience in the Bible : Reflections on 1 Corinthians 8–10", Irish Theological Quarterly Dec 1975
  • George Botterill and Peter Carruthers, 'The Philosophy of Psychology', Cambridge University Press (1999), p. 3
  • The Hon. Sir John Laws, 'The Limitations of Human Rights', P. L. Summer, Sweet & Maxwell and Contributors, p. 260
  • Voltaire (1954). "Liberté de penser". Dictionnaire philosophique. Classiques Garnier (in French). Paris: Éditions Garnier. pp. 277–81.
  • Roger Williams, The Bloudy Tenent of Persecution for Cause of Conscience (1644; 1867 reprint)
  • Samuel Rutherford, Lex, Rex (1644)

External links

Censorship
Media regulation
Methods
Contexts
By country
Liberty
Concepts
By type
By right
See also
Human rights
Fundamental concepts
and philosophies
Distinctions
Aspects
Organizations
By continent
Human rights abuses
Related
Western world and culture
Foundations
History
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Law
Contemporary
integration
Categories: