This is because some of the state's power actually comes from granting the right to practice religion freely by making the freedom of religion a law, the state is implicitly arguing that it has the authority and legitimacy to dictate what people feel and think. However, not believing in any religion is still considered anathema to society, and thus atheists are held in contempt and disgust. Where sixteenth-century England was ripe with religious persecution, Utopia allows for the practice of religion freely, without conflict. While this passage is undoubtedly influenced by More's own religious belief, and thus may be read as essentially a piece of pro- religion propaganda, it is worth noting because it demonstrates how once again Utopia does not represent a true utopia, but rather a problematic society just like any other, albeit problematic in ways not previously imagined. More notes that atheists are viewed:Īs scarce fit to be counted men, since they degrade so noble a being as the soul, and reckon it no better than a beat's: thus they are far from looking on such men as fit for human society, or to be citizens of a well-ordered commonwealth since a man of such principles must needs, as oft as he dares do it, despise all their laws and customs: for there is no doubt to be made that a man who is afraid of nothing but the law, and apprehends nothing after death, will not scruple to break through all the laws of his country, either by fraud. In Utopia, "there are several sorts of religions," and they are, in general, treated equally, but atheists are roundly condemned, based largely on a faulty assumption about what motivates or demotivates religious and non-religious people. This same phenomenon is true when one considers the religions of Utopia. In both instances, human life becomes subordinate to the perpetuation of the state, revealing how seemingly disparate societies can nevertheless create and perpetuate the same problems, albeit flavored differently depending on the specific society. In Europe, kings fought seemingly pointless wars in order to maintain their power and legitimacy, and in Utopia, the state executed anybody who talked about it outside the officially recognized channels. Here, More is not attempting to present an ideal alternative to European society, but rather demonstrate how any society that sits at the extreme end of an ideological spectrum, as Utopia and Europe both did, will have problems which stem from the actions necessary to maintain that social order.
This is essentially censorship and control of speech coded in the language of open deliberation, and it reveals another problem inherent in Utopian society. While this ensures that there will be no plotting against the state, it also means that dissidents must fear for their lives if they disagree with the dictates of their rulers and desire to talk about it.
0 kommentar(er)
