PRECEDENCE OF INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS.

What is true of material advantage is equally true of prerogatives of

every description. The state cannot legitimately restrict any form of

personal liberty, unless its indulgence involves some definite injury

to the liberties of others, and that so great as to overbalance the

interests of individuals in maintaining the liberty in question. Where

there is a reasonable doubt, democracy demands that it be resolved

in favor of the individual. Mere majorities cannot decide the issue.

Redheaded men and women form a very small percentage of the population;

but the overwhelming majority of others have no right whatever, under

the democratic principle, to decree that this small group shall be

exterminated, or even that it shall be subject to a special tax or to

any other burdensome restraint not applied to all the people. Freedom

of the press is a vital democratic principle, which becomes absolutely

worthless, unless it be recognized as a right of even the smallest

minority, no less than of the largest majority. The humblest citizen

is entitled to trial by jury and the use of the writ of habeas corpus,

although his enemies and accusers constitute the great mass of the

people. Majority tyranny is in no sense genuine democracy, but is a

wretched counterfeit. As a practical necessity, the majority must be

held to govern in all matters of strictly collective concern; but it has

no right to meddle with that which is strictly of a private nature.

The absolute and perpetual separation of church and state is among the

most imperative requirements of the democratic principle. Nothing can

be so essentially the private concern of the individual as his personal

beliefs on subjects of abstract speculation. Here, of all places, the

state cannot intrude without rendering itself guilty of the foulest

conceivable crime against its citizens. Religious conviction can never

be a collective matter. Only if all the brains in a group of persons

could be fused into one, would it be possible for such group to hold

an opinion of its own. Each of ten men may accept the doctrines of the

Roman Catholic church; but the moment an eleventh man, who is of another

way of thinking, joins the group, it can no longer be said that

the group believes in the tenets of Catholicism. A majority of the

individuals composing the group so believe; but there is no one mind

thinking for all. Apparent exceptions exist only in the case of mobs,

in which the free play of individuality is temporarily suspended, the

members of the crowd being hypnotized and maddened out of the capacity

for intelligent thought or action by some influence which has been

brought to bear on them. This is not a collective mind, but the

temporary surrender of a group of individuals to an overpowering and

irrational impulse. The mob spirit is at the opposite pole from the

spirit of democracy.

Exempting the Churches An Argument for the Abolition of This Unjust and Unconstitutional Practice · 第 6 / 56 题