Misplaced Pages

Talk:Freedom of thought: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 13:59, 28 July 2011 editSaddhiyama (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers23,958 edits →Original research: new section← Previous edit Latest revision as of 22:38, 2 December 2024 edit undoSpookyaki (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users4,169 edits Assessment: banner shell, Human rights (Top), Politics (Rater) 
(79 intermediate revisions by 33 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header}}
{{WikiProject Human rights|class=C|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|vital=yes|1=
{{WikiProject Human rights|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=Low|libertarianism=yes|libertarianism-importance=High}}
}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 100K
|counter = 1
|algo = old(365d)
|archive = Talk:Freedom of thought/Archive %(counter)d
}}


== The Right to Freedom of Thought & Cognitive Liberty == == Freedom of conscience ==


Just like ], freedom of thought is different from, and should not be confused with ''freedom of conscience''. If freedom of thought is the right to ''hold'' a conviction, and freedom of speech is the right to ''express'' it, freedom of conscience is the right to ''follow'' it.
The right to freedom of thought is the accepted international legal terminology regarding this right; hence it is probably the best language to use to defend/describe it.


This is relevant for e.g. the right to (military) ]. Another example: In Sweden, where i live, there is a huge debate about introducing freedom of conscience for health care staff. We do not discuss the right to hold the moral objections per se (even though one has heard the opinion that dissenting medical personnel should be suspended). Norway and Denmark has got a freedom of conscience clause in their abortion laws, which grants the midwives the right not to participate on moral grounds, referring to article 9 of the ]. I also note that our language Misplaced Pages has got different articles on the two concepts: see ] (freedom of conscience) and ] (freedom of thought).
Cognitive liberty is a distinct, yet important sub-category of this right, usually associated with a particular socio-political movement in the US. To use the right in question to achieve international policy change in a field such as global drug prohibition, it is probably best to use its common name: the right to freedom of thought (a.k.a. the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion – see art. 18 ICCPR).


I claim additional support from The ], which states them separately: "Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion" and major dictionary definitions, such as this one: .
With regards to the suggestions to merge this article with ‘freethought’ or ‘freethinking’, these are rather philosophical/political ideas, as opposed to a traditional legal or moral right. Therefore I am opposed to merging these articles but hope that people will expand this one!
––] (]) 00:12, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
:I agree. The introduction describes freedom of thought as the freedom to ''hold'' an opinion, whereas the overview quotes the ] prohibiting any law that interferes with the ''free exercise'' of religion. Just like the Swedish version, German Misplaced Pages has separate articles on ] (freedom of thought) and on ] (freedom of conscience); and the German folk song ] – popular with the opposition in ] but actually much older – stresses that even if freedom to act is denied, one is still free to think what one will. ] (]) 14:01, 2 May 2015 (UTC)


:I would agree that the freedom to conceive of a right does not guarantee you the right of action or "follow through". As an example; if your religion states you must exclude people in the course of running a business for arbitrary reasons, or must kill people if they are apostates, then I think "freedom of conscience" runs smack into the brick wall of the rule of law. ] (]) 15:47, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
===freedom of thought vs. cognitive liberty===
as per the question below regarding drugs, there should be some disambiguation between freedom of thought vs. ]. '''cognitive liberty''' is the natural extension of the idea of '''freedom of thought''' I would suggest making cognitive liberty a break-out article from freedom of thought, especially regarding the freedom of consciousness/drug issue. There is a distinction, which is why the CCLE is not called the CFTE. ] 10:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


::Please don't use this page as a soapbox for you homosexual understanding of global universal freedoms to be that someone should be forced to bake a homosexual wedding cake when it is against their religion. Only other homosexuals seem to agree with you there, this is a contentious issue and everyone else who isn't your fellow homosexual tends to agree it is a violation of civil rights and human rights to force someone to act against their religion, in fact it is usually seen as religious persecution on the part of you homosexuals (I think it's safe to assume you are a homo) ] (]) 21:03, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
===drugs===


:::Please don't use this page to pretend that "religion/conscience" or whatever term makes it palatable is a caveat to treat other people however you wish. Freedom of thought or conscience doesn't equate to freedom of action. In the United States at least this is well established with the decision in Reynolds v. United States (1879) where the court found "Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices." So the Supreme court of the United States agrees with me. So does anyone who thinks it should be illegal to kill apostates. This isn't about homosexuality, it's about a litany of things that religions can't possibly hope to actually practice in a secular society. So you may have your belief, but you can't break the law and stand on religion (most especially when the religious texts don't support your position to begin with). The list is far to long to exhaust here. Moreover, no one is being "forced" to bake a cake. If you wish to run a bakery in a secular society where it's the law of the land that you serve the public without discrimination you are free to follow your conscience and close shop. As to the Ad-hom bigotry, no I'm not a homosexual. It does seem clear though how you think about other human beings. ] (]) 17:27, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
does this freedom allow ppl to alter their conscienceness?


:] - I agree, Freedom of conscience is a related but different and larger topic Conscientious objection which is predominantly tied to government-compelled military service. It also shows as ] ] and conscience code or professional organizations. I think WP lacks an article for ] topic, but perhaps a redirect to ] would suit. ] (]) 01:51, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
The section that equates drug legalization with freedom of thought seems like a non sequitur. I think that section is a form of political advocacy with tenuous and nonobvious connections to the topic at hand and should be moved to a separate article on the topic. ] 05:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


::: Mmph, on second look, a simple redirect doesn't seem so good a match for Conscience rights. In the US it seems tied to the bill of rights 1st amendment ] to not prohibit the free exercise of religion, specifically whether the government can compel people to perform abortions or homosexual marriage. In the world though it is tied to the genera form of government compelling behavior, including military service or other acts against one's moral values. That seems at least a disambiguation page ... ] (]) 01:45, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
:What is taking an illagal drug other than a thought crime? --] (]) 11:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


: I would like to bump this topic. In my opinion "Freedom of conscience" is different from "Freedom of thought" as it enables someone to act on that thought. Here in Norway medical doctors may refuse to assist in abortions, but GP's may not refuse to send their patients to an abortion clinic. One doctor (Katarzyna Jachimowicz) were fired for not complying, and she sued claiming to be a "conscientous objector". She lost at first but won in supreme court. Another issue is circumcision, where both atheists and christians object to take part in a service provided by the public health-services, claiming it to be harmful. Vets may object to animal testing, journalists can object to cover certain cases, and there are also other issues where conscience is not related to religion but to moral and/or political view. Having a moral view is covered by freedom of thought, while being able to act according to that view is freedom of conscience. The latter is much more controversial, and mixing them toghether make us loose the distiction. ] (]) 14:12, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
=== Intelligent Design ===


Nine years after discussion start: ] is now a stub. Please help make it better. Two solid book resources, which might help, are in the references section! -] (]) 11:27, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
"Examples of effective campaigns against freedom of thought are the censoring of debate on intelligent design..." This claim needs to be given some sort of context (when and where was debate on ID censored?). It doesn't seem very NPOVish as it is.
--] 23:25, 1 October 2005 (UTC)


== Genocide denial ==
I also feel that the passage Jsnow mentioned is somewhat NPOV, but I'm going to change it on the grounds that it's simply false. I hear and read debate on ID all the time, so the campaign has obviously *not* been effective. ]


The article claims:<br>
=== holocaust denial ===
:''Examples of effective campaigns against freedom of expression are the Soviet suppression of genetics research in favor of a theory known as Lysenkoism, the book-burning campaigns of Nazi Germany, the Slovak law to sentence anyone who denies Armenian Genocide up to five years in prison, laws against holocaust denial in Germany, France, Austria, Poland, Hungary and Romania, the radical anti-intellectualism enforced in Cambodia under Pol Pot, the strict limits on freedom of expression imposed by the Communist governments of the Peoples Republic of China and Cuba or by right-wing authoritarian dictatorships such as those of Augusto Pinochet in Chile and Francisco Franco in Spain.''<br>
I find it somewhat insidious for Misplaced Pages to be equating laws against ] in European democracies with Nazi book-burning or Pol Pot's campaign of terror against intellectuals and free-thinkers… By neatly sandwiching democracies' laws against the propagation of lies between dictatorships' acts against free thought, this Misplaced Pages article places them all on the same level. That would seem evidently wrong. ] (]) 11:08, 27 July 2015 (UTC)


== External links modified ==
I think the issue of holocaust denial and questioning elements of the holocaust (such as numbers) belongs in this article, as it could be considered thought policing. Several European countries prosecute and imprison people for having an opinion on the holocaust which differs from the official account. Since none of us were alive to have first hand proof of what happened, it shouldn't be unreasonable for differing opinions to be respectfully voiced.


Hello fellow Wikipedians,
There are still ppl who were alive back then <br> and public expression is something else than thougt <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 14:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


I have just modified one external link on ]. Please take a moment to review . If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes:
=== porn ===
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060721204415/http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/cgi-local/DHI/dhi.cgi?id=dv1-02 to http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/cgi-local/DHI/dhi.cgi?id=dv1-02
banning/censuring/adult only avalability of porn can be seen as an attack on freedom of thougt <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 14:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
== what exactly ==


{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}
an effort to limit the use of words of language is a form of restricting freedom of thought.
(2nd para., last sentence.)


Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 18:02, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
does this mean? the sentence would make more sense to me w/o th words "of language". I would like- for a brief bit- to examine thier value in this sentence.


== “Fascism has always been product of the left” ==
to read it out loud helps it makes sense (I think). so, my instinct tells me it's not yet reached it's best written version.


Quoting the current text of the article:
it seems unlikely but I must ask:


“Examples of effective campaigns against freedom of expression (...) the strict limits on freedom of expression imposed by (...) left-wing authoritarian dictatorships such as those of Augusto Pinochet in Chile and Francisco Franco in Spain. Fascism has always been product of the left though it is falsely thought to be product of the right when it is erroneous to suggest so as illustrated by Ayn Rand.”
has someone written that
there have been efforts to say "let's put a cap or limit on the english lexicon", whether from a dictionary-complier's POV or some other "language authority"'s? or does it just refer to PR , talking points, orchestrated town-halls, staged forums and what-not?


While Rand’s views deserve to be mentioned, it should be noted that her writings challenged multiple mainstream philosophical traditions; her point of view should hardly be presented as a simple fact in this way. (Furthermore, there is no source given for how exactly Rand illustrated the erroneousness of the suggestion.) – ] (]) 10:19, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
there are many contexts or varieties of ways in which language may be restricted not trillions of which have anything to do with any "totalitarianism ''real''". so, some thought or another isn't necess. oppressed by the ] or ] of "certain" words in the same way as it would be in a dictatorial situation. I wann avoid just adding the word "certain", to make "certain words", cuz that kinda changes th tone. anyone?? ]<font color="maroon">]]</font> 07:11, 9 April 2006 (UTC)


== This page is a bit of a shitshow ==
== Merge ], ] and ] ==


I see that it's flagged as reading like a personal essay and I can see why!
For discussion, see ] ] 16:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


I know editors don't like people swooping in and changing everything but I'd be happy to translate the French version and publish it here.
I've opposed it there so far as this article goes, because this is a different concept. ] 16:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


I should have some free time when I'm done hanging up posters of my left-wing heroes Pinochet & Franco. ] (]) 02:20, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
==to 64.231.104.53==
Your deletion of content from the section '''Internet Censorship and Freedom of Thought''' only rendered the entire section meaningless. You called this content POV pushing. Can you explain how this POV here? Thanks. <font color="003366" face="Verdana">]</font><font color="006666" face="Veranda">]</font><sup><font color="663366">]</font></sup> 18:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
:Perhaps not POV (I'll let 64.231.104.53 debate that point), certainly OR, and probably incorrect. The few Bible verses I tries on Google gave quite good results. Do you have some reputable sources that support your text? Furthermore, I don't think the paragraph is meaningless without your text, and calling another user a vandal (as you did in your edit summary) is not ]. ] 14:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


Um...wow...Do. Not. Feed. The. Trolls.
:Yeah. Your calling my edit POV was not civil. Your calling my edit OR is not civil. If you want civility, act civil. As far as the search results go, they are variable..up and down and wildly changing and have been for a year and a half on Google. I happen to be somewhat of an expert on the subject of many of the search engines. In the last few months the search results on Google, Yahoo, etc. are downright scary. So the results you got when you searched will probably be different in a month or two when you do the same search. As far as POV, I just happened to search for certain words from the book of Matthew. I wouldn't doubt the same sort of lack of meaningful results, would come up with a search for a quote out of the Koran. Review what it says in ]. This is ''not'' that. But I apologize for the vandal comment. <font color="003366" face="Verdana">]</font><font color="006666" face="Veranda">]</font><sup><font color="3906A2">]</font></sup> 23:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
:Oh, and also, you said "You don't think the paragraph is meaningless without ''my text''." The whole paragraph and section ''is my text.'' <font color="003366" face="Verdana">]</font><font color="006666" face="Veranda">]</font><sup><font color="3906A2">]</font></sup> 23:23, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


Floss with them, thus:
==Internet Censorship and Freedom of Thought==


Anyone who thinks it is cool to try this adolescent provocateur stuff on the Freedom of Conscience wikipedia page - 1) the higher genera of competition here would be cooperation, which you clearly cannot handle, 2) Who cares about "the French version" when you can just read the Cardozo decision? 3) Hang up all the posters of your heroes you like, you will never be better than them, or whatever point your humanity got off on the short bus to doing the Ayn Rand Institute's work for them - you know that third-rate author is dead, right? 4) If I had the PPP monies the Ayn Rand Institute "received", well then, on strictly utilitarian terms, I would be more productive getting things done with more people than you, because instead of trying to pimp them into whatever you think you are, apparatchik to Capital and slave to the authoritarianism, people would like me more; I am fun and care more about their needs than mine - what are you? 5) Some agent of economies of death who thinks they are entitled to their own facts, when the world keeps telling you otherwise - who is your soulmate, someone whose mind is as colonized as yours by a piss-poor set of institutional arrangements that have no necessity in nature, man, or god? 6) Fantasize all you want about to being able to hang with the best and the brightest, you know you will never be as real as anyone who volunteered for the International Brigades - including the one from the U.S., the Abraham Lincoln Brigade. So.........C'mon Mighty Whitey, let's hear your defense of the "status" quod? <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 03:20, 18 October 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
''A current example of propaganda, censorship and therefore suppression of freedom of thought, is the control of information on the world wide web. This can readily be seen by going to any of the (currently few) major search engines left now, such as the English Google, Yahoo, Answers or MSN. Search results for certain topics, such as religious texts, often have little to do with the keywords provided in the search. Although results on Google, for example, periodically change radically, it is often nigh on impossible to find actual quotes from the gospel books of the New Testament, for example. Instead, pages with ads for hotels, pages that seem to have little or nothing to do with the query or personal interpretations for Jesus' words come up in the results. Fascism and Communism are examples of states that stifle religious freedom, freedom of speech and thought, and that censor information concerning freedom of thought.''

To Fram and 64.231.104.53: if you don't understand the above section of this article, then I suggest you re-read (if you did read already) the entire article. then give it a few days to settle in. Ponder it carefully. I don't mean to be insulting here. Just ''think'' about it some before you decide to throw it away. It only furthers what has already been said in the rest of the article. <font color="003366" face="Verdana">]</font><font color="006666" face="Veranda">]</font><sup><font color="3906A2">]</font></sup> 23:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

:Is it true? Is it verified independently of Misplaced Pages and its editors (i.e., in published, reputable, reliable sources)? If not, it shouldn't be here, by ]. I have tried to verify it (by conducting some OR), and at least in that search, it didn't look true. So the text as it stands is incorrect and much too broad, and needs verification, sources, ... It doesn't matter if it is in line with the rest of the text or not, it has to be true and verifiable. ] 12:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

IMO its completely irrelevant and should be deleted. Wiki doesn't use independent research...] 22:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

== Christian slant ==

The repeated references to Christianity seem gratuitous here. The article as a whole seems to be carrying a thesis that freedom of thought was rooted in European religious traditions and brought to fruition with the creation of the USA. Leaving aside the truth or falsity of this thesis, its very presence in the article appears to be a NPOV violation. I'd like to hear a second opinion. --] 05:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

:Okay, here's mine. It's noteable that you said "Leaving aside the truth or falsity of this thesis". Why would you say that? Leaving aside the truth is the last thing we want to do. If it is demonstrably true, and I believe it is, we generally don't censor the truth for the sake of "political correctness" on Misplaced Pages. Unless you can demonstrate other origins for the roots of Freedom of Thought / Conscience. And actually, history shows that Christianity originated in Asia, not Europe -- and also, forms of it had spread in Africa fairly early, and were relatively accepted without as much resistance when compared to Europe, but certain modernists always choose to present Christianity as a "European religious tradition". Hmmm.. ] (]) 11:40, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

When I spoke of "European religious tradition" I was paraphrasing the article. Here's an actual quote:
<blockquote>
... this same freedom has been cherished and developed to a great extent in the modern western or Judaeo-Christian world, such that it is literally taken for granted.

This development was enshrined in words in the United States Constitution by the Bill of Rights, ...
</blockquote>
The reason I was saying that the truth or falsity of this claim is irrelevant is that NPOV means that Misplaced Pages articles should not be pushing ''any agenda at all''. In particular, I think this article has big problems with ]; it is heavily steeped in the self-mythology of the USA, while making no admission of the possibility that the concept of freedom of thought may have arisen in other cultures.

Naturally, if it can be proven that freedom of thought is indeed a purely Christian construct, then that would constitute an encyclopaedic fact that should be appear in the article. Merely implying it, however, is a NPOV violation IMHO. --] 01:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

:The truth is never irrelevant. But I'll tell you what - if you think the article is US-centered, why don't you try expanding the article with verifiable sources about Freedom of Conscience in other traditions. Here's a hint: It was a major component of Haile Selassie's philosophy, he was the Emperor of Ethiopia and he actually said quite a lot on how important Freedom of Conscience is. I have been thinking about adding this to the article for some time to counter this kind of geographic bias allegation. ] (]) 02:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The following sections should be removed, not necessarily because they be gratuitous, rather simply because the context is wrong. These verses are describing the power of a man over his own spirit and upon his death maintaining his corporal spirit connection in defiance of God's wishes (to take his spirit)] 01:53, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
This impossibility of controlling thought is perhaps summarized in the Biblical context nowhere more succinctly than in Ecclesiastes 8:8: "There is no man that hath power over the spirit, to retain it; neither hath he power in the day of death." In other words, trying to control the thoughts of others is as pointless as trying to control death.

::I agree. I read the Ecclesiastes verse as "retain the spirit" meaning staying alive (preventing spirit from leaving body) which is reinforced in the "he neither has power in the day of death". Matthew's verse I believe refers to the refusal of the Pharisees to accept the preaching of the gospel - when John preached in poverty, and Jesus preached in decadence, they criticised them either way. So the wedding/mourning songs means that they couldn't please them no matter how they played to them. If you read verses in the context of the passage it will usually make sense. When I read the references I was taken aback and found them to be completely out of context and seemingly random. I actually came on here just to point out the tangentiality of the verses. ] (]) 09:24, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

:That might be your own interpretation of that verse, but certainly not the only one. ] (]) 01:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps but, it does say no power to retain the spirit (at death). Without going to the Hebrew, to be relevant here, an appropriate verse could have used "a spirit" or "the spirits" or "the spirit of another". Next, the hebrew is translated thusly " no man that hath power over the spirit to retain the spirit; neither power in the day of death". <references/>http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/c/1161822584-2102.html#8 The neither seems to be tying the two together. ] 00:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

== Invalid linking from articles ==

This page has been spammed into pages "Related Articles" sections spuriously. I call this spam because most of these pages are not related to this article in any form. This includes articles related to neuroscience, psychiatry, and anti-psychiatry. This article is not related to many of these things because they are sciences and this page is effectively philosophy.

For example this page talks of neurochemistry but isn't really related to the science. Let alone is it valid to link to this page from individual things like the page on 'Dopamine' when the understanding of something like Dopamine is far too limited for it to be in any way an accurate depiction of anything to do with Freedom of Thought.

Personally, I believe that this spamming is being used to generate attention between yet another growing fringe-cliche. However I believe it should be frowned upon simply because it adds clutter to otherwise very informative articles. --] 17:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


== Mind control ==
The section about thought control will soon be expanded. I want to show how media shapes public opinion in "democratic" Western countries. Any help would be welcome. With respect, ] 04:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

:i agree that there should be a section on this. by "mind control" it is not that one individual controls another individual like a remote control car. there are scholarly works written on this topic. most notably by Noam Chomsky titled "Necessary Illusions Thought Control in Democratic Societies". and after the invasion of Iraq, there has developed a "media reform movement", do to failure of the corporate mass media to adequately probe the US gov'ts blatant lies. the massive concentrations of media ownership warned Ben Bagdikian in his "Media Monopoly" could have awful ramifications in the future. and indeed it has. what is not covered constitutes a form of mind control if certain things are left out or others are repeated over & and over. ] 15:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

== Request for Sources ==
A request for sources is not a POV. None of the articles about the authors listed makes mention of Entheogens. Why not provide sources instead of removing the tags, if not because proper sources cannot be found? ] (]) 22:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
:I'm glad you finally decided to explain your edits on the talk page. You wrote on your user talk page:
<blockquote><blockquote>not a single article mentioned "entheogens". As for the suggestion that the first citation was "uncontroversial common knowledge", that is just ludicrous.</blockquote></blockquote>
:It's common knowledge to anyone who ''knows'' the topic, and I fail to see ''any'' controversy around attributing the opinions of authors and organizations. Perhaps you could show me the controversy and the disptue? Now, before I address your query, I would like to know if your challenge is complete, because I don't want you to start moving the goalposts when I address it. Is your challenge complete? &mdash;] | ] 01:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Let's look at the content that Bulbous has disputed:

*Despite the many laws concerning freedom of thought, amongst ], there is no consensus on what ] itself actually is. However, the field of ] uses a pragmatic view in linking thoughts to patterns of brain activity - ‘almost everyone now agrees… that the subject of mental properties and events is a physical thing.’
::Bulbous requested a source for this, even though it ''was'' sourced to George Botterill and Peter Carruthers, ‘The Philosophy of Psychology’, Cambridge University Press (1999), p3. The edit history shows that Bulbous removed the footnote and added a "fact" tag. So, in that instance, we see that Bulbous removed the footnote that referred to the source in the references section and added a fact tag.

*Laws that attempt to regulate what goes on inside a person’s head have long been regarded with suspicion. ] removed one such law, several hundred years ago, because, according to Sir ], ‘She would not make windows into men’s souls’.
::Again, the statement was previously sourced in a footnote to The Hon. Sir John Laws, ‘The Limitations of Human Rights’, P.L. Summer, Sweet & Maxwell and Contributors, p260. Bulbous ''removed'' the footnote and added a fact tag.

Bulbous has disputed the following additions:

*Authors such as ], ] and ] have argued that prohibition of drugs infringes the guarantee of freedom of thought.

And:

*Authors such as ], ] and ] have argued that certain psychoactive drugs, or ‘]’, may be used to favorably alter the way we think.

*Some ], such as the ], argue that placing limits on the use of certain drugs is akin to placing a limit on thought itself – thus violating the right to ].

Bulbous has also added in the following content without references:
*A recent British case involving this line of legal argument is that of ], who is awaiting a hearing at the ] after being refused a final appeal at the ], the highest court in Great Britain. Hardison is currently serving a twenty year sentence for producing a variety of ].

Is there anything else? &mdash;] | ] 01:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
:Oh, please! You're making a ridiculous fuss over a simple request for sources, starting with your first edit in which you deleted my ((fact)) tags, calling me a "POV-pusher", when all I have done is edit and adjust the formatting and presence of sources on this page. I have not made any content edits or expressed any opinions; how does that possibly make me a "POV-pusher"?

:My previous edits actually *corrected* improper footnote notation on this page. I have *improved* this article by formatting properly. If you actually spent as much time sourcing the edits as you have whining about my request on my talk page and here, we wouldn't even be having this discussion and the article would be much better served. ] (]) 19:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
::How does removing a reference and replacing it with a cite tag improve the article? Perhaps you can show me the diff where you did that. I just looked and could not find it. As for sourcing your most recent round of requests, you have not fully answered my questions. I will once again state that the material is common knowledge to anyone who knows the topic. That means, in case you didn't know, that sources are easy to find. You have previously removed a former incarnation of this material added by one editor, and you have recently added cite request tags when another editor added more material. I am also waiting for you to add references to the unsourced content you added back into the article that was removed by another editor. &mdash;] | ] 21:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
:::Sigh... simply adding an statement and then closing it with a square bracket, a numeral, and another square bracket is not adding a footnote (at least as far as Misplaced Pages is concerned). A statement sourced with some kind of ambiguous symbolism is an unsourced statement. If you look, a lot of what I did in the diffs you provided above was to fix improper references. Once again, your contention that the material that I am requesting to be sourced is "common knowledge", simply means that it should be *easy to source* and once again coming back to the talk page to blather about it is a waste of all of our time. If you can source it, then do so, and we can move on to more productive discussion. ] (]) 22:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
::::You removed the footnote and added a fact tag, thereby removing the connection to the references section. I don't see how your edits "helped" in any way, when you could have taken the time to format the citation. I don't see how your edits improved this article. As for disputing the content of multiple editors, I have asked you several times, to describe your objection to their edits. Your objection to the use of the word "entheogen" is irrelevant, as it is being used as a synonym (and it is important to understand the ''history'' of such terms, which have changed a half-dozen times). Twice, an editor has added content about Timothy Leary, Aldous Huxley and Terence McKenna that is easy to source. Have you tried to actually find references for it, or are other people supposed to keep doing your homework for you? At what point do you take an active role as an editor, here? Did you contact the editors who made the edits? If you aren't actively engaging in research and editing, I don't see what your purpose is here. Anyone can add a template tag to an article, but you have to have a ''reason'' to do it, otherwise it's disruptive. And yes, I'm still waiting for the reference to the Casey William Hardison material that you added back into this article without a source. Let's hope, of course, that the reference refers to "freedom of thought", otherwise it's getting removed. &mdash;] | ] 22:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
:::::This discussion is more than pointless. Your goal cannot be other than to be disruptive. If you could source the edits, you would have, and no further comment would be necessary (indeed, none would have been necessary from the start, as sources were all I wanted in the first place). If you can not source the edits, then you have lied to us that the statements were "common knowledge", and also wasted our time here. Either way, you are not being productive. Grow up. ] (]) 01:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
::::::Let me be clear: do not remove references and replace them with fact tags. Do not add unsourced material into the article when another editor has removed it. And do not make baseless challenges to material unless you are willing to discuss it. I have asked you to explain your removal of content and your placement of citation tags based on your shady history editing this page. I have provided diffs of your questionable edits above. The cognitive freedom material appears fully sourced in the parent page. The religion material appears unsourced, which you have ignored. The use of the word "entheogen" has nothing to do with the material in question. Your edits caught my attention because your edit summary stated that you were using citation tags to mark the material for removal: this is bad faith editing. These tags are meant to be used in a specific manner, in conjunction with discussion on the talk page when it is necessary. I am glad that you took my request for clarification seriously on your user talk page, and began to address the problem on the talk page of the article, but I find your efforts at improving this article unsatisfactory. You seem to believe that material you add does not require sources, but the materal others add, does. Could you address this problem? &mdash;] | ] 02:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
:::::::I believe, as is Misplaced Pages policy, that *all* material requires sources (even those edits that self-proclaimed experts consider "common knowledge"). You can consider all three uncited statements (inlcuding the one I restored) as "Deletion Pending". And deletion will come sooner rather than later since you seem absolutely unwilling to source these common knowledge edits. If you would stop wasting our time on this page and devote 1/10th of your energy to properly sourcing these edits, we would be done here. I'll give these edits a week. If you dispute the requirement to source them, then we can go to dispute resolution, where the lack of sourcing will lose the day. ] (]) 02:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
::::::::I hope the seven day deadline you've given yourself is enough time for you to do the research necessary for you to add citations to the material you've added to this article. If it isn't, let me know and I would be happy to help you. &mdash;] | ] 03:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::Seriously, I have never seen so much energy expended on a simple request for sources. If someone challenged ME for sources, especially ones that I felt were "common knowledge", I'd go out and find those sources and shut that challenger up. The fact that you keep coming back to the talk page and challenging my right to request sources, or questioning my motives only serves to prove that YOU HAVE NO DEFENCE. Time to put up or shut up. This meta-discussion is tiresome. ] (]) 03:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::I want to apologize for my delay in replying to your last comment, as I was temporarily indisposed rolling on the floor, uproariously laughing at the sweet, sweet irony of your wish to "shut that challenger up" in a discussion page on the topic of "freedom of thought". Yes, my opinion is that the material you refuse to discuss is common knowledge, and yes, the material you added to the article remains unsourced. If you need my help sourcing your material, let me know. &mdash;] | ] 05:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::::Seven days, no sources = removal. Prepare to cite sources or fade away. ] (]) 05:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::::::It's a shame that we'll lose the Casey William Hardison material you added. Oh well. &mdash;] | ] 05:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

===Back on topic===
Bulbous, you have disputed the following additions other editors have added. Please explain why you have disputed this content:

*Authors such as ], ] and ] have argued that prohibition of drugs infringes the guarantee of freedom of thought.
*Authors such as ], ] and ] have argued that certain psychoactive drugs, or ‘]’, may be used to favorably alter the way we think.
*Some ], such as the ], argue that placing limits on the use of certain drugs is akin to placing a limit on thought itself – thus violating the right to ].

Wired 8.05 calls Timothy Leary the "populist demagogue" of the psychedelic community. According to Lee & Shlain, Timothy Leary's organization, The International Federation for Internal Freedom (IFIF) "believed that everyone should be allowed to use mind-expanding chemicals because the 'internal freedom' they provided was a personal and not a governmental matter. They envisioned a society in which large numbers of people would seek higher consciousness, ecstasy, and enlightenment through hallucinogens." Leary argues that psychedelic drugs may be used favorably throughout his book, ''The Politics of Ecstasy'' (1968;1998), as well as many other texts. In ''The Politics of Psychopharmacology'', even ] describes Leary's stance as a "very blatant public position concerning the open use of these remarkable drugs". In the same book, Leary writes: "Why is the topic of drugs so taboo? Because the use of drugs is the first and the last frontier of human freedom. They give the individual the power to move his consciousness in any direction he desires; given control of his own nervous system, the individual essentially can become the kind of person he wants to become...Richard Glen Boire explains the force driving the taboo--regulation of consciousness. The government is mandated to maintain the status quo and that extends into the privacy of our thoughts and perceptions. Unauthorized mental states are not permitted...I learned this lesson-the hard way. I was hounded, shackled and imprisoned, like a common criminal, for experimenting with my consciousness-and suggesting that others do so as well. The persecution was unrelenting until I finally bowed to authority and told the "truth" - then they set me "free"." (Richard Glen Boire is a Senior Fellow at the Center for Cognitive Liberty & Ethics.) Leary argues throughout these two books and many others, that certain psychoactive drugs may be used to favorably alter the way we think, and that drug prohibition infringes upon the "constitutional right to change consciousness". Additional illustrative examples number in the dozens, if not hundreds.

Wired 8.05 named ] the "aristocrat of psychedelics". Huxley is known for advocating and taking LSD suggesting in '' The Doors of Perception'' (1954) that mescalin and lysergic acid were 'drugs of unique distinction' which should be exploited for the 'supernaturally brilliant' visionary experience they offered." According to Lenson in ''On Drugs'', "Aldous Huxley argues that psychedelic drugs can cleanse cognition to resore some of its infantile immediacy." In ''The Mystic Heart'', Teasdale calls Huxley a "major thinker in entheogenic studies". According to Wilson's ''The Mammoth Book of True Crime'', Huxley "recommended that should become as freely available as tobacco or alcohol, since it was less harmful than either." According to Lee & Shlain's ''Acid Dreams'', "Huxley felt the best way to bring about vast changes in society was to offer to the talented, the well-born, the intelligent rich, and others in positions of influence." In the same book, the authors note, "Huxley...recognized that certain drugs, particularly hallucinogens, produced radical changes in consciousness that could have a profound and beneficial effect...Huxley unabashedly declared himself a propagandist for hallucinogenic drugs..." In ''Brave new World Revisited'', Huxley writes, "LSD...a perception-improver and vision producer that is, physiologically speaking, almost costless. This extraordinary drug...has power (like peyote) to transport people into the other world... profoundly significant and enlightening...the fact that minds can be changed so radically at so little cost to the body is altogether astonishing." According to Torgoff in ''Can't Find My Way Home'', "Huxley...first cautioned Leary, telling him that there were people in the society who would do anything to stop this kind of research. The celebrated British author of ''The Doors of Perception'' understood very well that the first drug prohibition went all the way back to the Bible, to the forbidden fruit of the Tree of Knowledge. Huxley gave Leary one simple message: Go slow..." After completing his novel ''Brave New World'' in 1931, Huxley wrote an essay in the Chicago Herald Examiner addressing drugs and prohibition, revealing his feelings on the matter: "the results of prohibition are not encouraging. Men and women feel such an urgent need to take occasional holidays from reality, that they will do almost anything to procure means of escape." Years later, Huxley responded to the negative reviews about his mescalin experience documented in ''The Doors of Perception'', writing: "How odd it is that writers...may sing the praises of alcohol (which is responsible for about two-thirds of the car accidents and three-quarters of the crimes of violence) and be regarded as good Christians and noble fellows, whereas anyone who ventures to suggest that there may be other and less harmful short cuts to self transcendence is treated as a dangerous drug fiend and wicked perverter of weak-minded humanity". On the subject of prohibition and the use of mescalin, Huxley wrote in ''The Doors of Perception'': "The universal and ever-present urge to self-transcendence is not to be abolished by slamming the currently popular Doors in the Wall. The only reasonable policy is to open other, better doors in the hope of inducing men and women to exchange their old bad habits for new and less harmful ones...But the need for frequent chemical vacations from intolerable selfhood and repulsive surroundings will undoubtedly remain. What is needed is a new drug which will relieve and console our suffering species without doing more harm in the long run than it does good in the short. Such a drug must be potent in minute doses and synthesizable...it should produce changes in consciousness more interesting, more intrinsically valuable than mere sedation or dreaminess, delusions of omnipotence or release from inhibition...The urge to transcend self-conscious selfhood is, as I have said, a principal appetite of the soul. When, for whatever reason, men and women fail to transcend themselves by means of worship, good works and spiritual exercises, they are apt to resort to religion's chemical surrogates..."

Wired 8.05 calls ] the "crunchy libertarian" of the psychedelic community. Like Leary, McKenna wrote many books arguing that entheogens may be used to favorably alter the way we think. He advised taking psychedelic mushrooms, and believed that "the presence of psychedelic substances in the diet of early human beings created a number of changes in our evolutionary situation" and he believed DMT revealed deep insights into the fabric of reality. In ''Can't Find My Way Home'', McKenna states that psychedelics are "what people have been doing for thousands and thousands of years. It's all about getting in touch with what has been suppressed by history." McKenna advocated "a kind of 'deputized minority-a shamanic professional class, if you will-whose job it is to bring ideas out of the deep, black water and show them off to the rest of us". Furthermore, McKenna "advocated great caution" until the time came that "psychedelics might become decriminalized." According to McKenna, "I intend to keep talking about it until somebody snuffs me or we get some action, because I have taken a complete inventory of world civilization, and DMT is definitely the most interesting thing on this planet." McKenna criticizes drug prohibition in many forums, with quotes like, "We're playing with half a deck as long as we tolerate that the cardinals of government and science should dictate where human curiousity can legitimately send its attention and where it can not. It's an essentially preposterous situation. It is essentially a civil rights issue, because what we're talking about here is the repression of a religious sensibility. In fact, not a religious sensibility, the religious sensibility." In one lecture, McKenna said: "I advocate the use of plants with a history of shamanic usage. Because these things are illegal, human research is essentially outlawed. As users we suffer under the prohibition, but imagine that science, one of the most powerful forces in our society, has been told, "Get lost. Forget about psychedelic chemistry and forget about human studies." Reagarding Steve Kubby's book ''Politics of Consciousness'', a book whose central thesis equates the War on Drugs with a war on the freedom of thought, McKenna writes, "I thought that The Politics of Consciousness brought the issue of drugs and freedom out of the closet and placed it where it needed to be, right in the middle of the turn of the millennium agenda of the American society. If the pursuit of happiness, enshrined in our nation's founding documents, means anything, it means the right to explore one's own mind using traditional substances and approaches."

In the case of the Center for Cognitive Liberty & Ethics, they have explicitly stated that they seek "to foster cognitive liberty - the basic human right to unrestrained independent thinking, including the right to control one's own mental processes and to experience the full spectrum of possible thought. CCLE is focused on "protecting the ''unlimited'' potential of the human mind". The group maintains that "drug prohibition infringes on the inalienable right to freedom of thought", a "fundamental right" which the CCLE is "committed to gaining legal recognition" for in the name of "cognitive liberty". In one of many articles about different drugs and legislation that would curtail their use, CCLE has written that "...by making it a criminal offense to 'use or be under the influence of' MDMA... makes criminals out of otherwise law-abiding citizens based solely on an 'unapproved' state of consciousness. This prohibition, in addition to codifying an Orwellian concept akin to 'thought crime,' is an unconsitutional infringement on the fundamental right to freedom of thought as protected by the First Amendment, and on the fundamental right to privacy, including the Fifth Amendment right to autonomy over one's interior thoughts". &mdash;] | ] 11:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
:I am just stunned. How much time did you waste typing all of that? *Why didn't you just footnote the edits and save us '''both''' a lot of hassle?* Clearly there are two sources that justify those lines I tagged. Why couldn't you have simply added them to the article and refrained from engaging in a pointless debate? ] (]) 15:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
::Hello? After all of that effort, why are the fact tags still up? You seem to have reliably sourced the edits. Why haven't the sources been added to the article? ] (]) 03:06, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

==Freedom of thought and Magisterium==
The article, if it becomes more complete, should discuss the controversial relationship between freedom of thought and the Roman Catholic ]. It appears that historically, the notion of freedom of thought was created against the influence of the Church Magisterium, during the 18th century Enlightenment. ] (]) 01:44, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

:I would disagree with that assertion, but if you get a reliable source that makes that same assertion, I would have to concede it is relevant and should be included. ] (]) 02:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

==Arianism and freedom of conscience==
Is there any evidence to suggest that ] advocated a personalist christology and an early form of freedom of conscience ? According to Fr. ], there is, since Arius insisted that the Father is related to and generates the Son not by nature, but by will. Athanasius insisted that the Father is related to and generates the Son not by will, but by nature. ] (]) 02:14, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

==Staying on Topic==
This topic has too much on ]. Expression is tied to thought but it has its own page, for example, the discussion about censorship. Also, isn't the drug use discussion also more about expression rather than inhibition of freedom of thought? --] (]) 20:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

==Freedom of Thought/Freedom of Speech==
I think it is a vio of ] that these are separted entities. .] (]) 17:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

=="A Prominent Characteristic"==
I removed the following line: <blockquote>
"While freedom of thought is said to be one of the fundamental principles of most democracies, the attempted suppression of freedom of thought is a prominent characteristic of totalitarian and authoritarian regimes."
</blockquote>I left a "citation" flag up for a while, and have decided to now remove this line. "Totalitarian" regimes (a term I dislike, but that's another matter) are generally (or always, I guess) characterized by a suppression of certain beliefs, and the promotion of a "correct" set of beliefs, but the sentence I removed implies something positively Orwellian... which is actually my point: I get the feeling someone mistook '']'' for a history book rather than a parable, a documentation of actually-existing totalitarianism rather than a warning about the path he saw places everywhere going down. Or, conversely, it demonstrates that "totalitarianism" itself is fiction, but I'm getting off-topic again. :) --] (]) 00:35, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

::What is forcibly changing the beliefs of someone if not attempted suppression of freedom of thought? Even the management practise of 'managing culture' and the beliefs and values of employees, I find to be the reprehensible not only suppression of thought, but even worse act of conditioning and changing of it itself so that the product is a different human being (for what is a human if not a personality and set of thoughts and feelings?). This may not be totalitarianism, but it is current managerial theory, and it is real. ] (]) 09:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
:::We see that you have a very definite personal POV, but what makes you think your POV is relevant here? We require citations and references to published reliable sources. Please carefully read ]. ] (]) 11:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

== Drug prohibition ==

I removed the drug prohibition section as off topic and not meeting Misplaced Pages's standards for ] and notability within this topic. The idea that prohibition of drugs is somehow against freedom of thought is a fringe idea, and the sources quoted were of course fringe websites. We would need a mainstream reliable source that puts the topic as a notable topic within freedom of thought to even include it here. I do not oppose it being in Misplaced Pages, as if genuine sources can be found it should be covered, but I strongly oppose it being covered in this article as it's hugely POV-pushing to even include it. IF someone can properly source it and find scholarly experts mentioning it, feel free to make a separate article, which this one can link to in the see also section. Otherwise it's just a case with someone with a minor fringe view trying to use this article as a soapbox to push their own opinions here. ] (]) 17:02, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

== Original research ==

The section entitled "Suppression" seems to contain ]. I am primarily concerned with the part mentioning Bible quotations, since these quotations seems very open for interpretation, and one concluding that they hint at freedom of thought is not what seems most likely. We need reliable secondary sources in this section. Lacking those I propose some serious weeding out of the worst OR-violations. --] (]) 13:59, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 22:38, 2 December 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Freedom of thought article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 12 months 
This  level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconHuman rights Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconPolitics: Libertarianism Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Libertarianism (assessed as High-importance).

Freedom of conscience

Just like freedom of speech, freedom of thought is different from, and should not be confused with freedom of conscience. If freedom of thought is the right to hold a conviction, and freedom of speech is the right to express it, freedom of conscience is the right to follow it.

This is relevant for e.g. the right to (military) conscientious objection. Another example: In Sweden, where i live, there is a huge debate about introducing freedom of conscience for health care staff. We do not discuss the right to hold the moral objections per se (even though one has heard the opinion that dissenting medical personnel should be suspended). Norway and Denmark has got a freedom of conscience clause in their abortion laws, which grants the midwives the right not to participate on moral grounds, referring to article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights. I also note that our language Misplaced Pages has got different articles on the two concepts: see samvetsfrihet (freedom of conscience) and åsiktsfrihet (freedom of thought).

I claim additional support from The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states them separately: "Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion" and major dictionary definitions, such as this one: Oxford English Dictionary: Freedom of conscience. ––St.nerol (talk) 00:12, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree. The introduction describes freedom of thought as the freedom to hold an opinion, whereas the overview quotes the First Amendment prohibiting any law that interferes with the free exercise of religion. Just like the Swedish version, German Misplaced Pages has separate articles on Gedankenfreiheit (freedom of thought) and on Gewissensfreiheit (freedom of conscience); and the German folk song Die Gedanken sind frei – popular with the opposition in East Germany but actually much older – stresses that even if freedom to act is denied, one is still free to think what one will. GroupCohomologist (talk) 14:01, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
I would agree that the freedom to conceive of a right does not guarantee you the right of action or "follow through". As an example; if your religion states you must exclude people in the course of running a business for arbitrary reasons, or must kill people if they are apostates, then I think "freedom of conscience" runs smack into the brick wall of the rule of law. Idasod (talk) 15:47, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Please don't use this page as a soapbox for you homosexual understanding of global universal freedoms to be that someone should be forced to bake a homosexual wedding cake when it is against their religion. Only other homosexuals seem to agree with you there, this is a contentious issue and everyone else who isn't your fellow homosexual tends to agree it is a violation of civil rights and human rights to force someone to act against their religion, in fact it is usually seen as religious persecution on the part of you homosexuals (I think it's safe to assume you are a homo) 172.56.34.248 (talk) 21:03, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Please don't use this page to pretend that "religion/conscience" or whatever term makes it palatable is a caveat to treat other people however you wish. Freedom of thought or conscience doesn't equate to freedom of action. In the United States at least this is well established with the decision in Reynolds v. United States (1879) where the court found "Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices." So the Supreme court of the United States agrees with me. So does anyone who thinks it should be illegal to kill apostates. This isn't about homosexuality, it's about a litany of things that religions can't possibly hope to actually practice in a secular society. So you may have your belief, but you can't break the law and stand on religion (most especially when the religious texts don't support your position to begin with). The list is far to long to exhaust here. Moreover, no one is being "forced" to bake a cake. If you wish to run a bakery in a secular society where it's the law of the land that you serve the public without discrimination you are free to follow your conscience and close shop. As to the Ad-hom bigotry, no I'm not a homosexual. It does seem clear though how you think about other human beings. Idasod (talk) 17:27, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
St.nerol - I agree, Freedom of conscience is a related but different and larger topic Conscientious objection which is predominantly tied to government-compelled military service. It also shows as Conscience clause (medical) Conscience clause (education) and conscience code or professional organizations. I think WP lacks an article for Conscience rights topic, but perhaps a redirect to Human_rights#Freedom_of_thought.2C_conscience_and_religion would suit. Markbassett (talk) 01:51, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Mmph, on second look, a simple redirect doesn't seem so good a match for Conscience rights. In the US it seems tied to the bill of rights 1st amendment Free Exercise Clause to not prohibit the free exercise of religion, specifically whether the government can compel people to perform abortions or homosexual marriage. In the world though it is tied to the genera form of government compelling behavior, including military service or other acts against one's moral values. That seems at least a disambiguation page ... Markbassett (talk) 01:45, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
I would like to bump this topic. In my opinion "Freedom of conscience" is different from "Freedom of thought" as it enables someone to act on that thought. Here in Norway medical doctors may refuse to assist in abortions, but GP's may not refuse to send their patients to an abortion clinic. One doctor (Katarzyna Jachimowicz) were fired for not complying, and she sued claiming to be a "conscientous objector". She lost at first but won in supreme court. Another issue is circumcision, where both atheists and christians object to take part in a service provided by the public health-services, claiming it to be harmful. Vets may object to animal testing, journalists can object to cover certain cases, and there are also other issues where conscience is not related to religion but to moral and/or political view. Having a moral view is covered by freedom of thought, while being able to act according to that view is freedom of conscience. The latter is much more controversial, and mixing them toghether make us loose the distiction. Markuswestermoen (talk) 14:12, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Nine years after discussion start: Freedom of conscience is now a stub. Please help make it better. Two solid book resources, which might help, are in the references section! -St.nerol (talk) 11:27, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Genocide denial

The article claims:

Examples of effective campaigns against freedom of expression are the Soviet suppression of genetics research in favor of a theory known as Lysenkoism, the book-burning campaigns of Nazi Germany, the Slovak law to sentence anyone who denies Armenian Genocide up to five years in prison, laws against holocaust denial in Germany, France, Austria, Poland, Hungary and Romania, the radical anti-intellectualism enforced in Cambodia under Pol Pot, the strict limits on freedom of expression imposed by the Communist governments of the Peoples Republic of China and Cuba or by right-wing authoritarian dictatorships such as those of Augusto Pinochet in Chile and Francisco Franco in Spain.

I find it somewhat insidious for Misplaced Pages to be equating laws against genocide denial in European democracies with Nazi book-burning or Pol Pot's campaign of terror against intellectuals and free-thinkers… By neatly sandwiching democracies' laws against the propagation of lies between dictatorships' acts against free thought, this Misplaced Pages article places them all on the same level. That would seem evidently wrong. Aridd (talk) 11:08, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Freedom of thought. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:02, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

“Fascism has always been product of the left”

Quoting the current text of the article:

“Examples of effective campaigns against freedom of expression (...) the strict limits on freedom of expression imposed by (...) left-wing authoritarian dictatorships such as those of Augusto Pinochet in Chile and Francisco Franco in Spain. Fascism has always been product of the left though it is falsely thought to be product of the right when it is erroneous to suggest so as illustrated by Ayn Rand.”

While Rand’s views deserve to be mentioned, it should be noted that her writings challenged multiple mainstream philosophical traditions; her point of view should hardly be presented as a simple fact in this way. (Furthermore, there is no source given for how exactly Rand illustrated the erroneousness of the suggestion.) – Jippe (talk) 10:19, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

This page is a bit of a shitshow

I see that it's flagged as reading like a personal essay and I can see why! 

I know editors don't like people swooping in and changing everything but I'd be happy to translate the French version and publish it here.

I should have some free time when I'm done hanging up posters of my left-wing heroes Pinochet & Franco. Ritom7 (talk) 02:20, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Um...wow...Do. Not. Feed. The. Trolls.

Floss with them, thus:

Anyone who thinks it is cool to try this adolescent provocateur stuff on the Freedom of Conscience wikipedia page - 1) the higher genera of competition here would be cooperation, which you clearly cannot handle, 2) Who cares about "the French version" when you can just read the Cardozo decision? 3) Hang up all the posters of your heroes you like, you will never be better than them, or whatever point your humanity got off on the short bus to doing the Ayn Rand Institute's work for them - you know that third-rate author is dead, right? 4) If I had the PPP monies the Ayn Rand Institute "received", well then, on strictly utilitarian terms, I would be more productive getting things done with more people than you, because instead of trying to pimp them into whatever you think you are, apparatchik to Capital and slave to the authoritarianism, people would like me more; I am fun and care more about their needs than mine - what are you? 5) Some agent of economies of death who thinks they are entitled to their own facts, when the world keeps telling you otherwise - who is your soulmate, someone whose mind is as colonized as yours by a piss-poor set of institutional arrangements that have no necessity in nature, man, or god? 6) Fantasize all you want about to being able to hang with the best and the brightest, you know you will never be as real as anyone who volunteered for the International Brigades - including the one from the U.S., the Abraham Lincoln Brigade. So.........C'mon Mighty Whitey, let's hear your defense of the "status" quod? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.37.189.147 (talk) 03:20, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Categories: