PART I: Pierre Bayle’s Reply of a New Convert (1689)

This is the first English translation of Pierre Bayle’s political pamphlet, Réponse d’un nouveau converti à la Lettre d’un refugié of 1689. It may be one of the most critical attacks on a writer’s own side in the history of political ideas. It is a stinging rebuke of Bayle’s own party, the Protestants, for their incoherence, hypocrisy, and violence. It came three years after his similarly savage refutation of the Catholics in The Condition of Wholly Catholic France, also recently published in its first English translation in this journal. A substantial introduction explains some of the context, explores the political theology of this pamphlet, and reviews scholarly interpretations.     

Calvin and Natural Rights

Abstract

This article applauds the recent rise of scholarly attention to studying the relation of religion to natural rights in general and Calvinism in particular. Against the strong belief in some quarters that appeals to nature, including the idea of rights, do not play a significant role in Calvin's thought, the article concurs with recent (and some not so recent) work to the contrary, arguing that such appeals do occupy an important, if ambiguous, place for Calvin. However, the article resists explaining the variations in his thought as the result of changing interpretations over time. Rather, it is contended that these matters were a source of tension throughout Calvin's career. He struggled not so much with the question of the natural knowledge of rights, but of the ability to choose to act on that knowledge. In conclusion, the article hints that Calvin's ambivalence on this issue sowed the seeds for significant divergence among his descendants.     

Bayle’s political doctrine: a proposal to articulate tolerance and sovereignty

ABSTRACT

For most interpreters of the philosopher from Rotterdam, his political doctrine is solely a consequence of his religious and moral doctrines, and so an image of Bayle as a political philosopher is not usually presented. To my mind, however, only by analyzing his political doctrine can the extent of his religious proposal be understood. In this article, I intend to show that both the Baylean criticism of popular sovereignty and his rejection of the right of resistance are analyses that are indissociable from the Baylean doctrine of tolerance. The protection of individual freedom of conscience and the defense of a multi-confessional state model, tolerant regarding religious minorities, can only be articulated as historical reality if they rest on the political doctrine of indivisible sovereignty and on the strictest separation between political obedience and religious membership.     

Faith,Pluralism, and Public Engagement

Abstract

This essay is Miroslav Volf’s reply to the respondents to his book A Public Faith (2011). In the process of engaging his his respondents, the author articulates the main thesis and thrust of the book as well as the motivation behind writing it.     

论新启蒙运动

新启蒙运动是中国共产党为配合抗日民族统一战线的建立而在思想文化领域里发起的一场运动.它吸引了一些具有自由主义倾向的知识界人士参加.但是从一开始,这一运动内部就充满分歧,共产党人和自由主义者对"思想自由"、"新哲学"、"理性"等概念的解释完全不同.共产党人还为新启蒙运动设定了长远的政治目标和现实的政治斗争对象.抗战进入相持阶段后,新启蒙运动的口号已不适应变化了的形势,共产党人从此不再热心于新启蒙运动,取而代之的是学术中国化运动.     

HISTORY AND POLITICS AS IF WE STILL LIVED IN THE HOLOCENE

The Dawn of Everything: A New History of Humanity (2021), by David Graeber and David Wengrow, is a monumental, boldly revisionist study of the human past from the last ice age to the present. It is geared explicitly toward the present in political terms and seeks to explain how primordial forms of human freedom were lost in ways that resulted in our current structures of violence and domination. The authors explore a vast range of prehistoric, ancient, and non-Western peoples to undermine (neo)evolutionist, stadial theories of long-term human development, particularly any that imply determinism, inevitability, or teleology. If so many peoples in the past were so much freer than we are today, how is it that we got stuck? And are we really as stuck as we think? Graeber and Wengrow successfully undermine the social scientific template of stage-based human development from hunter-gatherers to modern capitalist nation-states, but their book suffers from two major omissions. First, they ignore almost entirely the Anthropocene epoch and show no grasp of its implications for their analysis of the present or prospects for the future. Second, their “new history of humanity” ignores the history that is most relevant to answering their own questions about how we have arrived globally in our current structures of violence and domination: the early modern and modern history of expansionist, colonialist, capitalist, belligerent, imperialist Western European nations and their extensions since the fifteenth century. These two omissions are connected: it is disproportionately the history of the (early) modern West before and after the Industrial Revolution that explains how the planet arrived in the Anthropocene with the “Great Acceleration” around the mid-twentieth century. But heeding this history and its consequences would have undermined the authors’ upbeat political vision about our prospects for the future—essentially, a recycled Enlightenment vision about human self-determination and individual freedom that depends on environmental exploitation as if we still lived in the Holocene. For all its undoubted achievement, The Dawn of Everything neglects the history that is most salient to answering the main questions its own authors pose. What matters most about that history is not that it was inevitable but that it was actual—and that its cumulative consequences remain with us.     

胡适的容忍论

胡适的自由思想中容忍具有极为重要的地位.胡适认为容忍既是一种自由的精神,又是一种民主的精神,是自由的根本.一个社会缺乏容忍,自由就不会有保障.社会只有容忍不同的思想存在,容忍有不同的声音,才能使人人都有思想的自由.胡适极力反对不容忍,主张容忍异己,容忍反对党.胡适还强调,一个社会缺少容忍精神,必定会产生唯我主义,走向极权专制.胡适终身奉行容忍,在朋友中倡导互相容忍,反对各种不容忍.     

State restrictions on the Ahmadiyya sect in Indonesia and Pakistan: Islam or political survival?

Indonesia and Pakistan have both adopted state policy that restricts the religious freedom of a minority heterodox sect, the Ahmadiyya, which is viewed by mainstream Muslims as a non-Muslim minority. This outcome is somewhat puzzling as there is a great discrepancy between the institutionalisation and formal privileging of the dominant religion – Islam – in the two Muslim majority states. I find that the similar outcome is attributable not to the institutionalisation of Islam in the state, but rather to the political survival needs of the regime, motivating it to adopt the policy demands of Islamist actors to repress the Ahmadiyya sect.

印度尼西亚和巴基斯坦都施行了限制少数异端艾哈马蒂亚教派宗教自由的国家政策。艾哈马蒂亚被主流穆斯林视为非穆斯林少数派。这个结果有些令人费解,因为在两个穆斯林占多数的国家,在主导性宗教即伊斯兰教的体制化与特权化之间存在差异。笔者发现,类似的的结果根源不在伊斯兰的体制化,倒是在于政权的政治生存需要,即响应伊斯兰主义主体压制艾哈马蒂亚教派的政策需要。     

Freedom,Religion and the Making of the Modern State in Japan, 1868–89

This paper rethinks the article of religious freedom of the Meiji Constitution of 1889 and calls into question the liberalist paradigm employed to understand the Constitution and modern Japanese history. In this liberalist framework, the Constitution manifests the peculiar and authoritarian nature of the pre-war Japanese state. In particular, the 28^th article, which provides for the conditional freedom of religious belief, is seen as no more than a cover for social control by the state. This paper examines the histories of the ideas of religion and freedom, and the religious freedom article, and argues that the most appropriate task is not to measure how much religious freedom the Meiji Constitution failed to guarantee against a de-historicised liberalism, but rather to consider the function of the very inclusion of religious freedom in the Constitution. I argue that the inclusion of religious freedom as a generic type of liberty in the Meiji Constitution was instrumental in the creation of the private modern individual as a subject-citizen. It is through this private individual citizen that the modern state as a public, secular authority was created.     

Practicing Faith in Public Life

Abstract

Miroslav Volf’s book, A Public Faith: How Followers of Christ Should Serve the Common Good, offers a valuable guide to how people of faith can engage in politics by calling on the best of their traditions, holding modest expectations, and remaining nonviolent. From the perspective of Catholic Social Teaching, Volf’s model can be viewed as appropriately, but cautiously hopeful. Yet, given contemporary suspicion of religion in politics, the challenges of acting prophetically in a pluralistic society, and the responsibility of Christians to “be the church,” it may be wise to begin with local actions rather than hoping to change the world by political means.