Political Philosophy-Marraige, Religion, and The State

[MAlibdem]

A quote from Rousseau, to brighten your day:

"Those who make a distinction between civil and theological intolerance are mistaken, in my opinion. These two intolerances are inseparable. It is impossible to live in peace with people whom one believes are damned. To love them would be to hate G-d who punishes them. They must absolutely brought into the faith or tormented. Wherever theological intolerance exists, it is impossible for it not to have some civil effect*



*(this is a foot note) Marraige, for example, being a civil contract, has civil effects without which society could not even subsist. Suppose, then, that a clergy obtains for itself alone the right to pass this act, a right it inevitably usurps in any intolerant religion. Then isn't it clear that by asserting the church's authority in this domain, it will render ineffectual that of the prince, who will have no other subjects that those whom the clergy is willing to give him? As the master of which people can or cannot be married, according to whether they do or do not subscrive to one or another doctrine, whether they accept reject one or another religious formula, whether they are more or less devout, isn't it clear that by behaving prudently and standing firm, the clergy will have at its sole command inheritances, offices, the citizens, the State itself, which could not subsist if it were composed only of bastards? But, it will be objected, appeal will be made against such abuses; there will be summonses, decrees, seisuzes of church holdings. What a pity! If the clergy has a little, I won't say courage, but good sense, it will let this happen and go on as usual. It will tranquilly allow the appeals, summonses, decrees, and seizures, and will end up by being the master. It is not, it seems to me, a great sacrifice to abandon a part when one is sure to take possession of the whole."

Whew...

From "On The Social Contract" Book IV, Ch viii