On Liberty John Stuart Mill Batoche Books

30/John Stuart Millsame time, at the Old Bailey, two persons, on two separate occasions, 3were rejected as jurymen, and one of them grossly insulted by the judgeand by one of the counsel, because they honestly declared that they hadno theological belief; and a third, a foreigner, 4 for the same reason, wasdenied justice against a thief.This refusal of redress took place in virtue of the legal doctrine, thatno person can be allowed to give evidence in a court of justice who doesnot profess belief in a God (any god is sufficient) and in a future state;which is equivalent to declaring such persons to be outlaws, excludedfrom the protection of the tribunals; who may not only be robbed orassaulted with impunity, if no one but themselves, or persons of similaropinions, be present, but any one else may be robbed or assaulted withimpunity, if the proof of the fact depends on their evidence. The assumptionon which this is grounded is that the oath is worthless of aperson who does not believe in a future state; a proposition which betokensmuch ignorance of history in those who assent to it (since it ishistorically true that a large proportion of infidels in all ages have beenpersons of distinguished integrity and honour); and would be maintainedby no one who had the smallest conception how many of the persons ingreatest repute with the world, both for virtues and attainments, are wellknown, at least to their intimates, to be unbelievers. The rule, besides, issuicidal, and cuts away its own foundation. Under pretence that atheistsmust be liars, it admits the testimony of all atheists who are willing tolie, and rejects only those who brave the obloquy of publicly confessinga detested creed rather than affirm a falsehood. A rule thus self-convictedof absurdity so far as regards its professed purpose, can be keptin force only as a badge of hatred, a relic of persecution; a persecution,too, having the peculiarity that the qualification for undergoing it is thebeing clearly proved not to deserve it. The rule, and the theory it implies,are hardly less insulting to believers than to infidels. For if he whodoes not believe in a future state necessarily lies, it follows that theywho do believe are only prevented from lying, if prevented they are, bythe fear of hell. We will not do the authors and abettors of the rule theinjury of supposing that the conception which they have formed of Christianvirtue is drawn from their own consciousness.These, indeed, are but rags and remnants of persecution, and maybe thought to be not so much an indication of the wish to persecute, asan example of that very frequent infirmity of English minds, which makesthem take a preposterous pleasure in the assertion of a bad principle,