philosophy of right-第66章

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！


assertions；　they　cannot　be　criticised　on　the　score　of　their　shallowness　or　their　immorality。　

But　if　religion　be　religion　of　a　genuine　kind；　it　does　not　run　counter　to　the　state　in　a　negative　or
polemical　way　like　the　kind　just　described。　It　rather　recognises　the　state　and　upholds　it；　and
furthermore　it　has　a　position　and　an　external　organisation　of　its　own。　The　practice　of　its　worship
consists　in　ritual　and　doctrinal　instruction；　and　for　this　purpose　possessions　and　property　are
required；　as　well　as　individuals　dedicated　to　the　service　of　the　flock。　There　thus　arises　a　relation
between　the　state　and　the　church。　To　determine　this　relation　is　a　simple　matter。　In　the　nature　of　the
case；　the　state　discharges　a　duty　by　affording　every　assistance　and　protection　to　the　church　in　the
furtherance　of　its　religious　ends；　and；　in　addition；　since　religion　is　an　integrating　factor　in　the　state；
implanting　a　sense　of　unity　in　the　depths　of　men's　minds；　the　state　should　even　require　all　its　citizens
to　belong　to　a　church　…　a　church　is　all　that　can　be　said；　because　since　the　content　of　a　man's　faith
depends　on　his　private　ideas；　the　state　cannot　interfere　with　it。　A　state　which　is　strong　because　its
organisation　is　mature　may　be　all　the　more　liberal　in　this　matter；　it　may　entirely　overlook　details　of
religious　practice　which　affect　it；　and　may　even　tolerate　a　sect　（though；　of　course；　all　depends　on
its　numbers）　which　on　religious　grounds　declines　to　recognise　even　its　direct　duties　to　the　state。
The　reason　for　the　state's　liberal　attitude　here　is　that　it　makes　over　the　members　of　such　sects　to
civil　society　and　its　laws；　and　is　content　if　they　fulfil　their　direct　duties　to　the　state　passively；　for
instance　by　such　means　as　commutation　or　the　performance　of　a　different　service。　

Footnote：　Quakers；　Anabaptists；　&c。；　may　be　said　to　be　active　members　only　of　civil　society；　and　they　may
be　regarded　as　private　persons　standing　in　merely　private　relations　to　others。　Even　when　this　position　has
been　allowed　them；　they　have　been　exempted　from　taking　the　oath。　They　fulfil　their　direct　duties　to　the　state　in
a　passive　way；　one　of　the　most　important　of　these　duties；　the　defence　of　the　state　against　its　enemies；　they
refuse　outright　to　fulfil；　and　their　refusal　may　perhaps　be　admitted　provided　they　perform　some　other　service
instead。　To　sects　of　this　kind；　the　state's　attitude　is　toleration　in　the　strict　sense　of　the　word；　because　since
they　decline　to　recognise　their　duty　to　the　state；　they　may　not　claim　the　rights　of　citizenship。　On　one　occasion
when　the　abolition　of　the　slave…trade　was　being　pressed　with　great　vigour　in　the　American　Congress；　a　member
from　one　of　the　Southern　States　made　the　striking　retort：　'Give　us　our　slaves；　and　you　may　keep　your　Quakers。'
Only　if　the　state　is　otherwise　strong　can　it　overlook　and　suffer　such　anomalies；　because　it　can　then　rely
principally　on　the　strength　of　custom　and　the　inner　rationality　of　its　institutions　to　diminish　and　close　the　gap
between　the　existence　of　anomalies　and　the　full　assertion　of　its　own　strict　rights。　Thus　technically　it　may　have
been　right　to　refuse　a　grant　of　even　civil　rights　to　the　Jews　on　the　ground　that　they　should　be　regarded　as
belonging　not　merely　to　a　religious　sect　but　to　a　foreign　race。　But　the　fierce　outcry　raised　against　the　Jews；
from　that　point　of　view　and　others；　ignores　the　fact　that　they　are；　above　all；　nien；　and　manhood；　so　far　from
being　a　mere　superficial；　abstract　quality　（see　Remark　to　§　209）；　is　on　the　contrary　itself　the　basis　of　the　fact
that　what　civil　rights　rouse　in　their　possessors　is　the　feeling　of　oneself　as　counting　in　civil　society　as　a　person
with　rights；　and　this　feeling　of　self…hood；　infinite　and　free　from　all　restrictions；　is　the　root　from　which　the
desired　similarity　indisposition　and　ways　of　thinking　comes　into　being。　To　exclude　the　Jews　from　rights；　on　the
other　hand；　would　rather　be　to　confirm　the　isolation　with　which　they　have　been　reproached　…　a　result　for　which
the　state　refusing　them　rights　would　be　blamable　and　reproachable；　because　by　so　refusing；　it　would
misunderstood　its　own　basic　principle；　its　nature　as　an　objective　and　powerful　institution　（compare　the　end　of
the　Remark　to　§　268）。　The　exclusion　of　the　Jews　from　civil　rights　may　be　supposed　to　be　a　right　of　the　highest
kind　and　may　be　demanded　on　that　ground；　but　experience　has　shown　that　so　to　exclude　them　is　the　silliest
folly；　and　the　way　in　which　governments　now　treat　them　has　proved　itself　to　be　both　prudent　and　dignified。　

Remark：　But　since　the　church　owns　property　and　carries　on　besides　the　practice　of　worship；
and　since　therefore　it　must　have　people　in　its　service；　it　forsakes　the　inner　for　the　worldly　life　and
therefore　enters　the　domain　of　the　state；　and　eo　ipso　comes　under　its　laws。　The　oath　and　ethical
ties　generally；　like　the　marriage　bond；　entail　that　inner　permeation　and　elevation　of　sentiment
which　acquires　its　deepest　confirmation　through　religion。　But　since　ethical　ties　are　in　essence　ties
within　the　actual　rational　order；　the　first　thing　is　to　affirm　within　that　order　the　rights　which　it
involves。　Confirmation　of　these　rights　by　the　church　is　secondary　and　is　only　the　inward；
comparatively　abstract；　side　of　the　matter。　

As　for　the　other　ways　in　which　an　ecclesiastical　communion　gives　expression　to　itself；　so　far　as
doctrine　is　concerned　the　inward　preponderates　over　the　outward　to　a　greater　extent　than　is　the
case　with　acts　of　worship　and　other　lines　of　conduct　connected　with　these；　in　which　the　legal　side
at　least　seems　at　once　to　be　a　matter　for　the　state。　（It　is　true；　of　course；　that　churches　have
managed　to　exempt　their　ministers　and　property　from　the　power　and　jurisdiction　of　the　state；　and
they　have　even　arrogated　to　themselves　jurisdiction　over　laymen　as　well　in　matters　in　which　religion
co…operates；　such　as　divorce　and　the　taking　of　the　oath；　&c。）　Public　control　of　actions　of　this　kind
is　indeterminate　in　extent；　but　this　is　due　to　the　nature　of　public　control　itself　and　obtains　similarly　in
purely　civil　transactions　（see　§　234）。　When　individuals；　holding　religious　views　in　common；　form
themselves　into　a　church；　a　Corporation；　they　fall　under　the　general　control　and　oversight　of　the
higher　state　officials。　Doctrine　as　such；　however；　has　its　domain　in　conscience　and　falls　within　the
right　of　the　subjective　freedom　of　self…consciousness；　the　sphere　of　the　inner　life；　which　as　such　is
not　the　domain　of　the　state。　Yet　the　state；　too；　has　a　doctrine；　since　its　organisation　and　whatever
rights　and　constitution　are　authoritative　within　it　exist　essentially　in　the　form　of　thought　as　law。　And
since　the　state　is　not　a　mechanism　but　the　rational　life　of　self…conscious　freedom；　the　system　of　the
ethical　world；　it　follows　that　an　essential　moment　in　the　actual　state　is　the　mental　attitude　of　the
citizens；　and　so　their　consciousness　of　the　principles　which　this　attitude　implies。　On　the　other
hand；　the　doctrine　of　the　church　is　not　purely　and　simply　an　inward　concern　of　conscience。　As
doctrine　it　is　rather　the　expression　of　something；　in　fact　the　expression　of　a　subject…matter　which　is
most　closely　linked；　or　even　directly　concerned；　with　ethical　principles　and　the　law　of　the　land。
Hence　at　this　point　the　paths　of　church　and　state　either　coincide　or　diverge　at　right　angles。　The
difference　of　their　two　domains　may　be　pushed　by　the　church　into　sheer　antagonism　since；　by
regarding　itself　as　enshrining　the　content　of　religions　content　which　is　absolute　…　it　may　claim　as　its
portion　mind；　in　general　and　so　the　whole　ethical　sphere；　and　conceive　the　state　as　a　mere
mechanical　scaffolding　for　the　attainment　of　external；　non　…　mental；　ends。　It　may　take　itself　to　be
the　Kingdom　of　God；　or　at　least　as　the　road　to　it　or　its　vestibule；　while　it　regards　the　state　as　the
kingdom　of　this　world；　i。e。　of　the　transient　and　the　finite。　In　a　word；　it　may　think　that　it　is　an　end　in
itself；　while　the　state　is　a　mere　means。　These　claims　produce　the　demand；　in　connection　with
doctrinal　instruction；　that　the　state　should　not　only　allow　the　church　to　do　as　it　likes　with　complete
freedom；　but　that　it　should　pay　unconditional