I'm pretty squarely opposed to your version of CN, but I enjoyed how clear this reads. You're especially right in the end: public evangelical discussions of CN and religious liberty have not framed the question well, and have often been pretty sloppy.
I am wondering, though: What is the motivation for the first premise? It seems implausible to me for several reasons. Besides the fact I'm a card-carrying liberal--which means we just disagree on first principles--pretty much any action we can perform could potentially harm others. Just by commenting on this post, for example, I could cause someone psychological distress. That's a harm because it sets back someone's well-being, but it's clearly a permissible harm for me to cause. You probably have a more robust view of harm, but I don't see it here.
One other question. Here is how I'm understanding your view on religious toleration--am I getting it wrong?
You're principled defense of religious toleration for protestants makes sense, but just to be clear: you do not extend this toleration to non-Christians, correct? Perhaps as a matter of prudence, you do not use the force of the law to punish them, but if those prudential worries were solved--e.g., you have a robust christian super-majority that would not be scandalized by punishing religious minorities--then it seems permissible for the magistrate to use the force of law to punish them. Actually, it might even be *obligatory* if the prudential considerations are solved and the religious minority is still publicly professing their faith.
On the point of prudence: in England even the laws against Roman Catholicism were enforced very laxly after 1660. You could hold mass so long as it was just your household, and some aristocratic families continued to be Papists. This is an example in between internal and external religion: it was external, but not external to the household and thus not subversive of true religion or of political society.
You say, "I will grant here that civil authorities should not prosecute crimes solely against God." I hope by "here" you mean, "for the sake of the present discussion". Blasphemy laws have been standard for most of British and American history. Part of the justification is to prevent offense to people, but even that is ultimately based on offense to God.
This will be challenging for many to read without bias. It is critical to read first, the reread to see if you read correctly. Then read again, etc. God be with us.
I'm pretty squarely opposed to your version of CN, but I enjoyed how clear this reads. You're especially right in the end: public evangelical discussions of CN and religious liberty have not framed the question well, and have often been pretty sloppy.
I am wondering, though: What is the motivation for the first premise? It seems implausible to me for several reasons. Besides the fact I'm a card-carrying liberal--which means we just disagree on first principles--pretty much any action we can perform could potentially harm others. Just by commenting on this post, for example, I could cause someone psychological distress. That's a harm because it sets back someone's well-being, but it's clearly a permissible harm for me to cause. You probably have a more robust view of harm, but I don't see it here.
One other question. Here is how I'm understanding your view on religious toleration--am I getting it wrong?
You're principled defense of religious toleration for protestants makes sense, but just to be clear: you do not extend this toleration to non-Christians, correct? Perhaps as a matter of prudence, you do not use the force of the law to punish them, but if those prudential worries were solved--e.g., you have a robust christian super-majority that would not be scandalized by punishing religious minorities--then it seems permissible for the magistrate to use the force of law to punish them. Actually, it might even be *obligatory* if the prudential considerations are solved and the religious minority is still publicly professing their faith.
Is this off?
This was very helpful!
This argument is very mild and reasonable.
On the point of prudence: in England even the laws against Roman Catholicism were enforced very laxly after 1660. You could hold mass so long as it was just your household, and some aristocratic families continued to be Papists. This is an example in between internal and external religion: it was external, but not external to the household and thus not subversive of true religion or of political society.
You say, "I will grant here that civil authorities should not prosecute crimes solely against God." I hope by "here" you mean, "for the sake of the present discussion". Blasphemy laws have been standard for most of British and American history. Part of the justification is to prevent offense to people, but even that is ultimately based on offense to God.
This will be challenging for many to read without bias. It is critical to read first, the reread to see if you read correctly. Then read again, etc. God be with us.