Those who believe that the voice of the people is the voice of God may infer that any unusual opinion or peculiar taste is almost a form of impiety, and is to be viewed as a culpable rebellion against the legitimate authority of the herd. This will only be avoided if liberty is as much valued as democracy, and it is realized that a society in which each is the slave of all is only a little better than one in which each is the slave of a despot. There is equality where all are slaves, as well as where all are free. This shows that equality, by itself, is not enough to make a good society.
Bertrand Russell (1872–1970) English mathematician and philosopher
Lecture (1949-01-16), “The Conflict of Technique and Human Nature,” Reith Lecture, “Authority and the Individual” No. 4, BBC Radio
(Source)
This passage was not included in the original broadcast (transcript), but only in the collected and edited version in Authority and the Individual (1949).
More on "the voice of the people is the voice of God" here.
Quotations about:
dissent
Note not all quotations have been tagged, so Search may find additional quotes on this topic.
No great advance has been made in science, religion, or politics, without controversy.
Lyman Beecher (1775–1863) American minister, preacher, abolitionist
Sermon (1823-10-15), “The Faith Once Delivered to the Saints,” Worcester, Massachusetts
(Source)
A sermon on Jude 3, given at the ordination of Rev. Loammi Ives Hoadly, to the Pastoral Office over the Calvinistic Church and Society. Collected in Beecher, Sermons Delivered on Various Occasions (1828) [ed. Theophilus Marvin].
This is nearly always rendered:No great advance has ever been made in science, politics, or religion, without controversy.
That is the form recorded in Josiah Gilbert's inaugural Burning Words of Brilliant Writers (1883), from which it was endlessly copied to similar collections.
We do not need to fear ideas, but the censorship of ideas. We do not need to fear criticism, but the silencing of criticism. We do not need to fear excitement or agitation in the academic community, but timidity and apathy. We do not need to fear resistance to political leaders, but unquestioning acquiescence in whatever policies those leaders adopt.
Henry Steele Commager (1902–1998) American historian, writer, activist
Essay (1965-12-18), “The Problem of Dissent,” Saturday Review
(Source)
Reprinted in Freedom and Order, Part 6 (1966).
The nation that complacently and fearfully allows its artists and writers to become suspected rather than respected is no longer regarded as a nation possessed with humor or depth.
James Thurber (1894–1961) American humorist, cartoonist, writer
Essay (1958-12-07), “State of the Nation’s Humor: ‘On the Brink of Was,'” New York Times Magazine
(Source)
And as for the argument that criticism [of government foreign policy] may give aid and comfort to some enemy, that is a form of blackmail unworthy of those who profess it. If it is to be accepted, we will have an end to genuine discussion of foreign policies, for it will inevitably be invoked to stop debate and criticism whenever that debate gets acrimonious or the criticism cuts too close to the bone. And to the fevered mind of the FBI, the CIA, and some Senators, criticism always gives aid and comfort to the enemy or cuts too close to
the bone.Henry Steele Commager (1902–1998) American historian, writer, activist
Essay (1965-12-18), “The Problem of Dissent,” Saturday Review
(Source)
Reprinted in Freedom and Order, Part 6 (1966).
Sections of the essay (including this portion) were read into the Congressional Record, Senate Proceedings (1969-06-26), as part of a speech by former Senator Wayne Morse (D-Oregon) at the commencement of Fairleigh Dickinson University (1969-06-07); Morse's speech was read in by Senator Gary Hart (D-Colo.).
The point is that when a nation silences criticism and dissent, it deprives itself of the power to correct its errors. The process of silencing need not be as savage as in Nazi Germany or in South Africa today; it is enough that an atmosphere be created where men prefer silence to protest. As has been observed of book-burning, it is not necessary to burn books, it is enough to discourage men from writing them.
Henry Steele Commager (1902–1998) American historian, writer, activist
Essay (1965-12-18), “The Problem of Dissent,” Saturday Review
(Source)
Reprinted in Freedom and Order, Part 6 (1966).
Sections of the essay (including this portion) were read into the Congressional Record, Senate Proceedings (1969-06-26), as part of a speech by former Senator Wayne Morse (D-Oregon) at the commencement of Fairleigh Dickinson University (1969-06-07); Morse's speech was read in by Senator Gary Hart (D-Colo.).
But this we can say with certainty: a government and a society that silences those who dissent is one that has lost its way. This we can say: that what is essential in a free society is that there should be an atmosphere where those who wish to dissent and even to demonstrate can do so without fear of recrimination or vilification.
Henry Steele Commager (1902–1998) American historian, writer, activist
Essay (1965-12-18), “The Problem of Dissent,” Saturday Review
(Source)
Reprinted in Freedom and Order, Part 6 (1966).
The rich and respectable have always had their ways of making their discontent heard; the poor and unorganized must resort to protests and marches and demonstrations.
Henry Steele Commager (1902–1998) American historian, writer, activist
Essay (1965-12-18), “The Problem of Dissent,” Saturday Review
(Source)
Reprinted in Freedom and Order, Part 6 (1966).
It is generally pride rather than lack of intelligence which prompts men to dispute so obstinately generally accepted opinions; they find all the front seats taken on the popular side, and do not wish to sit behind.
[C’est plus souvent par orgueil que par défaut de lumières qu’on s’oppose avec tant d’opiniâtreté aux opinions les plus suivies: on trouve les premières places prises dans le bon parti, et on ne veut point des dernières.]
François VI, duc de La Rochefoucauld (1613–1680) French epigrammatist, memoirist, noble
Réflexions ou sentences et maximes morales [Reflections; or Sentences and Moral Maxims], ¶234 (1665-1678) [tr. Stevens (1939)]
(Source)
This passage first appeared in the 5th (1678) edition. Earlier English translations do not include it.
See also Gracián (1647).
In the manuscript version, "C'est ... d’opiniâtreté" is given as: "C’est par orgueil qu’on s’oppose avec tant d’opiniâtreté … [It is out of pride that they oppose with such stubbornness ...]," removing the comment about lack of understanding / intelligence.
(Source (French)). Other translations:It is more often from pride than from want of intelligence that people oppose with so much obstinacy; the most received opinions. They find the best places taken up in the good party, and do not like to put up with inferior ones.
[ed. Gowens (1851), ¶380]It is more often from pride than from ignorance that we are so obstinately opposed to current opinions; we find the first places taken, and we do not want to be the last.
[tr. Bund/Friswell (1871), ¶234]It is more often our pride than our limited understanding which makes us fly so violently in the face of public opinion. We find the best seats on the correct side already occupied, and we do not care to sit in the rear.
[tr. Heard (1917), ¶377]Pride, rather than a lack of perspicacity, is what usually drives us to oppose with such obstinacy opinions that are generally accepted as correct: though theirs may be the better party, the front benches are already filled, and we certainly do not want to take a back seat.
[tr. FitzGibbon (1957), ¶234]It is oftener through pride than through lack of understanding that we so militantly object to prevailing opinions; we find the front seats already in other hands, and we do not want rear ones.
[tr. Kronenberger (1959), ¶234]Those who obstinately oppose the most widely-held opinions more often do so because of pride than lack of intelligence. They find the best places in the right set already taken, and they do not want back seats.
[tr. Tancock (1959), ¶234]It is more often from pride than from ignorance that we so stubbornly oppose ourselves to the most current opinions: we find the first seats already taken on the better side, and do not wish to sit down there last.
[tr. Whichello (2016) ¶234]
Each man thought: one of the others is bound to say something soon, some protest and then I will murmur agreement, not actually say anything. I am not as stupid as that, but definitely murmur very firmly, so that the others will be in no doubt that I thoroughly disapprove, because at a time like this it behooves all decent men to nearly stand up and be almost heard …
But no one said anything. The cowards, each man thought.
In our country, disagreements among us are expressed in the polling place. In the dictatorships, disagreements are suppressed in the concentration camp.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt (1882–1945) American lawyer, politician, statesman, US President (1933–1945)
Speech (1941-03-29), Jackson Day Radio Broadcast, U.S.S. Potomac
(Source)
WOLSEY: You opposed me in the Council this morning, Thomas.
MORE: Yes, Your Grace.
WOLSEY: You were the only one.
MORE: Yes, Your Grace.
WOLSEY: You’re a fool.
MORE: Thank God there is only one fool on the Council.
Standing up to your government can mean standing up for your country.
Bill Moyers (1934–2025) American journalist and public commentator
Essay (2003-02-28), “Patriotism and the Flag,” NOW with Bill Moyers (PBS)
(Source)
Regarding patriotism and opposition to the impending war in Iraq. Moyers quoted the comments a few years later in a speech to the National Conference for Media Reform (St Louis) (2005-05-15); the phrase is often cited to that occasion.
Perhaps people with my point of view are in a minority today. But the fact of being in a minority does not, in itself, trouble me, nor do I see anything un-American about being in a minority position. Quite the contrary. The minority views of one day are frequently the majority views of another, and in the possibility of this being so rests all our potentiality for progress.
Jane Jacobs (1916–2006) American-Canadian journalist, author, urban theorist, activist
“No Virtue in Meek Conformity” (1952)
(Source)
Foreword to her response to a State Department Loyalty Security Board interrogatory (1952-03-25). Reprinted in Vital Little Plans (2016).
It is the certainty that they possess the truth that makes men cruel.
[C’est la certitude qu’ils tiennent la vérité qui rend les hommes cruels.]
Anatole France (1844–1924) French poet, journalist, novelist, Nobel Laureate [pseud. of Jaques-Anatole-François Thibault]
(Misquotation)
Widely attributed (in French and English) to Anatole France, but not found in his works, including the one location it is sometimes cited from, Les Dieux Ont Soif [The Gods Are Thirsty, The Gods Are Athirst, The Gods Will Have Blood] (1912), in either English translation or, more importantly, in the original French.
While thematically keeping in the novel's depiction of the French Revolution and the Terror, the closest match to the quote I can find is this portion of ch. 22, talking about the expediting of the trials of those charged with counter-revolutionary crimes, eliminating the need to prove a misdeed by simply inquiring as to the accused's beliefs.Justice thus abbreviated satisfied them; the pace was quickened, and no obstacles were left to fret them. They limited themselves to an inquiry into the opinions of the accused, not conceiving it possible that anyone could think differently from themselves except in pure perversity. Believing themselves the exclusive possessors of truth, wisdom, the quintessence of good, they attributed to their opponents noting but error and evil. They felt themselves all-powerful; they envisaged God.
[tr. Allinson (1913), Jackson (1921)]Justice, thus curtailed, satisfied them; the pace was quickened and no obstacles were left to confuse them. They confined themselves to inquiring into the opinions of the accused, not conceiving it possible that anyone, except from pure perversity, could think differently from themselves. Believing themselves to possess a monopoly of truth, wisdom and goodness, they attributed to their opponents all error, stupidity and evil. They felt themselves omnipotent: their eyes had seen God.
[tr. Davies (1979)]La justice abrégée les contentait. Rien, dans sa marche accélérée, ne les troublait plus. Ils s’enquéraient seulement des opinions des accusés, ne concevant pas qu’on pût sans méchanceté penser autrement qu’eux. Comme ils croyaient posséder la vérité, la sagesse, le souverain bien, ils attribuaient à leurs adversaires l’erreur et le mal. Ils se sentaient forts : ils voyaient Dieu.
[Original]
When the whole world is running towards a cliff, he who is running in the opposite direction appears to have lost his mind.
C. S. Lewis (1898–1963) English writer, literary scholar, lay theologian [Clive Staples Lewis]
(Spurious)
Popularly attributed to Lewis, but no citation is ever given, and it is not found in searches of his written works.
Dissents speak to a future age. It’s not simply to say, “My colleagues are wrong and I would do it this way.” But the greatest dissents do become court opinions and gradually over time their views become the dominant view. So that’s the dissenter’s hope: that they are writing not for today but for tomorrow.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg (1933–2020) American lawyer and jurist, Supreme Court Justice (1993–2020)
“Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Malvina Harlan,” interview by Nina Totenberg, NPR (2002-05-02)
(Source)
Speaking of Justice John Marshall Harlan and his lone dissent in Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3 (1883), where the Supreme Court struck down the Civil Rights Act of 1875. Ginsburg was being interviewed for her role in getting a long-lost memoir by Malvina Harlan, the Justice's wife, published as a book.
Why is it that right-wing bastards always stand shoulder to shoulder in solidarity, while liberals fall out among themselves?
Yevgeny Yevtushenko (1933–2017) Russian poet, writer, film director, academic [Евге́ний Евтуше́нко, Evgenij Evtušenko]
In The Observer (15 Dec 1991)
(Source)
The First Amendment means to me, however, that the only constitutional way our Government can preserve itself is to leave its people the fullest possible freedom to praise, criticize or discuss, as they see fit, all governmental policies and to suggest, if they desire, that even its most fundamental postulates are bad and should be changed.
Hugo Black (1886–1971) American politician and jurist, US Supreme Court Justice (1937–71)
Barenblatt v. United States, 360 U.S. 109, 145-46 (1959) [dissent]
(Source)
A nation which, in the name of loyalty or of patriotism or of a sincere and high-sounding idea, discourages criticism and dissent, and puts a premium on acquiescence and conformity, is headed for disaster.
[Loyalty] is a tradition, an ideal, and a principle. It is a willingness to subordinate every private advantage for the larger good. It is an appreciation of the rich and diverse contributions that can come from the most varied sources. It is allegiance to the traditions that have guided our greatest statesmen and inspired our most eloquent poets — the traditions of freedom, equality, democracy, tolerance, the tradition of the higher law, of experimentation, co-operation, and pluralism. It is a realization that America was born of revolt, flourished on dissent, became great through experimentation.
But if our democracy is to flourish it must have criticism, if our government is to function it must have dissent. Only totalitarian governments insist upon conformity and they — as we know — do so at their peril. Without criticism abuses will go unrebuked; without dissent our dynamic system will become static. The American people have a stake in the maintenance of the most thorough-going inquisition into American institutions. They have a stake in nonconformity, for they know that the American genius is nonconformist.
We should not forget that our tradition is one of protest and revolt, and it is stultifying to celebrate the rebels of the past — Jefferson and Paine, Emerson and Thoreau — while we silence the rebels of the present.
We do not protect freedom in order to indulge error. We protect freedom in order to discover truth. We do not maintain freedom in order to permit eccentricity to flourish; we maintain freedom in order that society may profit from criticism, even eccentric criticism. We do not encourage dissent for sentimental reasons; we encourage dissent because we cannot live without it.
Henry Steele Commager (1902–1998) American historian, writer, activist
Essay (1954), “The Necessity of Freedom,” Freedom, Loyalty, Dissent
(Source)
An earlier version of the essay was given as "The Pragmatic Necessity for Freedom," Cooper Lecture, Swarthmore College (1951).
There can be no free speech in a mob: free speech is one thing a mob can’t stand.
Northrop Frye (1912–1991) Canadian literary critic and literary theorist
The Educated Imagination, Talk 6 “The Vocation of Eloquence” (1963)
(Source)
The Bill of Rights was not written into the Constitution in order to protect governments from “trouble,” but so that the people might have a legitimate method of causing trouble to governments they no longer trusted.
Henry Steele Commager (1902–1998) American historian, writer, activist
Letter (1971-06-17) to the Editor, New York Times
(Source)
In reply to the criticism by Secretary of State William Rogers that publication of the Pentagon Papers by the New York Times "is going to cause a great deal of trouble."
The greatest danger that threatens us is neither heterodox thought nor orthodox thought, but the absence of thought.
Henry Steele Commager (1902–1998) American historian, writer, activist
Civil Liberties under Attack (1951)
(Source)
It seems to me that if there is some infinite being who wants us to think alike, he would have made us alike.
Robert Green Ingersoll (1833–1899) American lawyer, freethinker, orator
Speech to the Jury, Trial of C. B. Reynolds for Blasphemy, Morristown, New Jersey (May 1887)
(Source)
I suggest that the real objective of Socialism is not happiness. Happiness hitherto has been a by-product, and for all we know it may always remain so. The real objective of Socialism is human brotherhood. This is widely felt to be the case, though it is not usually said, or not said loudly enough. Men use up their lives in heart-breaking political struggles, or get themselves killed in civil wars, or tortured in the secret prisons of the Gestapo, not in order to establish some central-heated, air-conditioned, strip-lighted Paradise, but because they want a world in which human beings love one another instead of swindling and murdering one another. And they want that world as a first step. Where they go from there is not so certain, and the attempt to foresee it in detail merely confuses the issue.
George Orwell (1903–1950) English journalist, essayist, writer [pseud. of Eric Arthur Blair]
Essay (1943-12-20), “Can Socialists Be Happy?” Tribune Newspaper [as John Freeman]
(Source)
The date given for this article varies: the issue of Tribune it was published in was 1943-12-24, but Orwell apparently received a check for the work on 1943-12-20. Note this was not the regular "As I Please" column Blair (Orwell) did for Tribune, which he also wrote for that issue, but a special article written under a different alias for unconfirmed reasons.
The title is sometimes given as "Why Socialists Don't Believe in Fun."
Conformity may give you a quiet life; it may even bring you to a University Chair. But all change in history, all advance, comes from the nonconformists. If there had been no trouble-makers, no Dissenters, we should still be living in caves.
A. J. P. Taylor (1906–1990) British historian, journalist, broadcaster [Alan John Percivale Taylor]
“The Radical Tradition: Fox, Paine, and Cobbett,” The Trouble Makers: Dissent over Foreign Policy, 1792–1939 (1969)
People say we ought not to allow ourselves to be drawn into a theoretical antagonism between Nazidom and democracy; but the antagonism is here now. It is this very conflict of spiritual and moral ideas which gives the free countries a great part of their strength. You see these dictators on their pedestals, surrounded by the bayonets of their soldiers and the truncheons of their police. On all sides they are guarded by masses of armed men, cannons, aeroplanes, fortifications, and the like — they boast and vaunt themselves before the world, yet in their hearts there is unspoken fear. They are afraid of words and thoughts; words spoken abroad, thoughts stirring at home — all the more powerful because forbidden — terrify them. A little mouse of thought appears in the room, and even the mightiest potentates are thrown into panic. They make frantic efforts to bar our thoughts and words; they are afraid of the workings of the human mind. Cannons, airplanes, they can manufacture in large quantities; but how are they to quell the natural promptings of human nature, which after all these centuries of trial and progress has inherited a whole armoury of potent and indestructible knowledge?
Winston Churchill (1874–1965) British statesman and author
“The Defence of Freedom and Peace (The Lights are Going Out),” radio broadcast (16 Oct 1938)
(Source)
A society is most vigorous, and appealing, when both partisan and critic are legitimate voices in the permanent dialogue that is the testing of ideas and experience. One can be a critic of one’s country without being an enemy of its promise.
Daniel Bell (1919–2011) American sociologist, writer, editor, academic
The End of Ideology, Introduction (1961 ed.)
(Source)
The time to assert rights is when they are denied; the men to assert them are those to whom they are denied. The community which dares not protect its humblest and most hated member in the free utterance of his opinions, no matter how false or hateful, is only a gang of slaves.
Wendell Phillips (1811–1884) American abolitionist, orator, social activist
“Mobs and Education,” Speech, Twenty-Eighth Congregational Society, Boston (16 Dec 1860)
(Source)
As reported in the Liberator (21 Dec 1860).
Note: There is a synthetic quotation frequently attributed to Phillips that is a actually combination of this one, and these three others:No matter whose lips that would speak, they must be free and ungagged. The community which dares not protect its humblest and most hated member in the free utterance of his opinions, no matter how false or hateful, is only a gang of slaves. If there is anything in the universe that can’t stand discussion, let it crack.
While Phillips often reused rhetorical elements (as most orators do), this particular combination appears to be combination not actually found in his speeches or writing.
This is an example of what those who have studied history well know: When stupidity is considered patriotism, it is unsafe to be intelligent.
Isaac Asimov (1920–1992) Russian-American author, polymath, biochemist
Asimov’s Guide to Shakespeare, “Henry VI, Part One” (1970)
Referring to Sir John Fastolfe at the Battle of Patay, as retold in the play. Seeing that their retreating and outnumbered army was in danger of destruction, Fastolfe, a tested commander, urged the army's leader, Talbot, to hasten the retreat, saving the army for more effective use later. Talbot insisted on standing and fighting, and his forces were defeated, one of a series of military disasters outlined in the first scene of the play. But the play presents it as Talbot being a brave, patriotic hero, and Fastolfe (sometimes rendered "Falstaff") being a traitorous coward.
The art of holding onto power is the American system’s special grace. The trick is to make reform seem so tantalizingly close as to dull the edge of militancy and force the purest revolutionaries into the peripheries of political action.
Andrew Kopkind (1935–1994) American journalist
“Are We in the Middle of a Revolution?” New York Times Magazine (10 Nov 1968)
(Source)
Persecution for the expression of opinions seems to me perfectly logical. If you have no doubt of your premises or your power, and want a certain result with all your heart, you naturally express your wishes in law, and sweep away all opposition. To allow opposition by speech seems to indicate that you think the speech impotent, as when a man says that he has squared the circle, or that you do not care wholeheartedly for the result, or that you doubt either your power or your premises.
But when men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths, they may come to believe even more than they believe the very foundations of their own conduct that the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas — that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out.
That, at any rate, is the theory of our Constitution. It is an experiment, as all life is an experiment. Every year, if not every day, we have to wager our salvation upon some prophecy based upon imperfect knowledge. While that experiment is part of our system, I think that we should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the expression of opinions that we loathe and believe to be fraught with death, unless they so imminently threaten immediate interference with the lawful and pressing purposes of the law that an immediate check is required to save the country.
Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. (1841–1935) American jurist, Supreme Court Justice
Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616 (1919) [dissent]
(Source)
America is therefore a free country, in which, lest anyone be hurt by your remarks, you are not allowed to speak freely of private individuals or of the State; of the citizen or of the authorities; of public or of private undertakings; or, in short, of anything at all, except it be of the climate and the soil; and even then Americans will be found ready to defend either the one or the other, as if they had been contrived by the inhabitants of the country.
Alexis de Tocqueville (1805–1859) French writer, diplomat, politician
Democracy in America, Vol. 1, “Public Spirit in the United States” (1835) [tr. Reeve (1839)]
(Source)
Consistently wise decisions can only be made by those whose wisdom is constantly challenged.
Theodore "Ted" Sorensen (1928–2010) American lawyer, writer, presidential adviser, speechwriter
Decision-Making in the White House: The Olive Branch or the Arrows, ch. 7 (1963)
The truth is always in the minority, and the minority is always stronger than the majority, because as a rule the minority is made up of those who actually have an opinion, while the strength of the majority is illusory, formed of that crowd which has no opinion — and which therefore the next moment (when it becomes clear that the minority is the stronger) adopts the latter’s opinion, which now is in the majority, i.e., becomes rubbish by having the whole retinue and numerousness on its side, while the truth is again in a new minority.
Dissent is the native activity of the scientist, and it has got him into a good deal of trouble in the last years. But if that is cut off, what is left will not be a scientist. And I doubt whether it will be a man.
Jacob Bronowski (1908–1974) Polish-English humanist and mathematician
Lecture, MIT (19 Mar 1953)
(Source)
Reprinted as Science and Human Values, Part 3, sec. 5 "The Sense of Human Dignity" (1961).
The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently.
Friedrich Nietzsche (1844–1900) German philosopher and poet
The Dawn (1881)
Other translation:The surest way of ruining a youth is to teach him to respect those who think as he does more highly than those who think differently from him.
[tr. Hollingdale (1982)]
Religious discord has lost her sting; the cumbrous weapons of theological warfare are antiquated: the field of politics supplies the alchymists of our times with materials of more fatal explosion, and the butchers of mankind no longer travel to another world for instruments of cruelty and destruction. Our age is too enlightened to contend upon topics, which concern only the interests of eternity; and men who hold in proper contempt all controversies about trifles, except such as inflame their own passions, have made it a common-place censure against your ancestors, that their zeal was enkindled by subjects of trivial importance; and that however aggrieved by the intolerance of others, they were alike intolerant themselves. Against these objections, your candid judgment will not require an unqualified justification; but your respect and gratitude for the founders of the State may boldly claim an ample apology. The original grounds of their separation from the church of England, were not objects of a magnitude to dissolve the bonds of communion; much less those of charity, between Christian brethren of the same essential principles.
John Quincy Adams (1767–1848) US President (1825–29)
Speech, Plymouth (22 Dec 1802)
Surely there is no better way to stop the rising of new sects and schisms than to reform abuses; to compound the smaller differences; to proceed mildly, and not with sanguinary persecutions; and rather to take off the principal authors by winning and advancing them, than to enrage them by violence and bitterness.
Francis Bacon (1561–1626) English philosopher, scientist, author, statesman
“Of Vicissitude of Things,” Essays, No. 58 (1625)
(Source)
No matter that patriotism is too often the refuge of scoundrels. Dissent, rebellion, and all-around hell-rousing remain the true duty of patriots.
The concept of loyalty is distorted when it is understood to mean blind acceptance. It is correctly interpreted when it is assumed to cover honest criticism.
Dag Hammarskjöld (1905–1961) Swedish diplomat, author, UN Secretary-General (1953–61)
Speech, Johns Hopkins University (14 Jun 1955)
Crazy — a nonscientific term meaning that the person to whom one applies that label has a world picture differing from the accepted one.
Robert A. Heinlein (1907–1988) American writer
Time Enough For Love [Lazarus Long] (1973)
I also give it in charge to you to avoid all disrespect of the religion of the country, and its ceremonies. Prudence, policy, and a true Christian spirit, will lead us to look with compassion up their errors without insulting them. While we are contending for our own liberty, we should be very cautious not to violate the rights of conscience in others, ever considering that God alone is the judge of the hearts of men, and to him only in this case are they answerable.
George Washington (1732–1799) American military leader, Founding Father, US President (1789–1797)
Letter (1775-09-14) to Benedict Arnold, “Charge to the Northern Expeditionary Force”
(Source)
Regarding the invasion of (Catholic) Quebec, Canada.
If the man doesn’t believe as we do, we say he is a crank, and that settles it. I mean it does nowadays, because now we can’t burn him.
Mark Twain (1835–1910) American writer [pseud. of Samuel Clemens]
Following the Equator, ch. 53 (1897)
Some very worthy persons, who have not had great advantages for information, have objected against that clause in the constitution which provides, that no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States. They have been afraid that this clause is unfavorable to religion. But my countrymen, the sole purpose and effect of it is to exclude persecution, and to secure to you the important right of religious liberty. We are almost the only people in the world, who have a full enjoyment of this important right of human nature. In our country every man has a right to worship God in that way which is most agreeable to his conscience. If he be a good and peaceable person he is liable to no penalties or incapacities on account of his religious sentiments; or in other words, he is not subject to persecution. But in other parts of the world, it has been, and still is, far different. Systems of religious error have been adopted, in times of ignorance. It has been the interest of tyrannical kings, popes, and prelates, to maintain these errors. When the clouds of ignorance began to vanish, and the people grew more enlightened, there was no other way to keep them in error, but to prohibit their altering their religious opinions by severe persecuting laws. In this way persecution became general throughout Europe.
Oliver Ellsworth (1745–1807) American lawyer, politician, Founder, Supreme Court chief justice (1796–1800)
Essay (17 Dec 1787)
(Source)
The notion that a radical is one who hates his country is naive and usually idiotic. He is, more likely, one who likes his country more than the rest of us, and is thus more disturbed than the rest of us when he sees it debauched. He is not a bad citizen turning to crime; he is a good citizen driven to despair.
H. L. Mencken (1880–1956) American writer and journalist [Henry Lewis Mencken]
“The Coolidge Buncombe” (6 Oct 1924)
(Source)
No man ought to be hindered saying or writing what he pleases on the conduct of those who undertake the management of national affairs, in which all are concerned, and therefore have the right to inquire, and to publish their suspicions concerning them. For if you punish the slanderer, you deter the fair inquirer.
James Burgh (1714–1775) British politician and writer
Political Disquisitions, Book 1 “Of Government, briefly” (1774)
(Source)
MILNE: No matter how imperfect things are, if you’ve got a free press everything is correctable, and without it everything is concealable.
RUTH: I’m with you on the free press. It’s the newspapers I can’t stand.Tom Stoppard (1937–2025) Czech-English playwright and screenwriter
Night and Day, Act 1 (1978)
Every dictatorship has ultimately strangled in the web of repression it wove for its people, making mistakes that could not be corrected because criticism was prohibited.
Robert Francis Kennedy (1925–1968) American politician
“Value of Dissent,” speech, Nashville, Tennessee (21 Mar 1968)
Without debate, without criticism, no Administration and no country can succeed — and no republic can survive. That is why the Athenian lawmaker Solon decreed it a crime for any citizen to shrink from controversy. And that is why our press was protected by the First Amendment — the only business in America specifically protected by the Constitution — not primarily to amuse and entertain, not to emphasize the trivial and the sentimental, not to simply “give the public what it wants” — but to inform, to arouse, to reflect, to state our dangers and our opportunities, to indicate our crises and our choices, to lead, mold, educate and sometimes even anger public opinion.
John F. Kennedy (1917–1963) American politician, author, journalist, US President (1961–63)
Speech, American Newspaper Publishers Association (27 Apr 1961)
(Source)
The true crime, the collective, general crime of almost all Germans of that time was that of lacking the courage to speak.
Primo Levi (1919–1987) Italian Jewish chemist and writer
The Drowned and the Saved, ch. 8 “Letters from Germans” (1986) [tr. Rosenthal (1888)]
(Source)
Regarding the Third Reich and the Holocaust.
I may stand alone,
But would not change my free thoughts for a throne.
If government, or those in positions of power and authority, can silence criticism by the argument that such criticism might be misunderstood somewhere, there is an end to all criticism, and perhaps an end to our kind of political system. For men in authority will always think that criticism of their policies is dangerous. They will always equate their policies with patriotism, and find criticism subversive.
Henry Steele Commager (1902–1998) American historian, writer, activist
Essay (1965-12-18), “The Problem of Dissent,” Saturday Review
(Source)
Reprinted in Freedom and Order, Part 6 (1966). Sections of the essay (including this portion) were read into the Congressional Record, Senate Proceedings (1969-06-26), as part of a speech by former Senator Wayne Morse (D-Oregon) at the commencement of Fairleigh Dickinson University (1969-06-07); Morse's speech was read in by Senator Gary Hart (D-Colo.).
If you don’t want a man unhappy politically, don’t give him two sides to a question to worry him; give him one. Better yet, give him none.
Ray Bradbury (1920–2012) American writer, futurist, fabulist
Fahrenheit 451 (1953)
Every man who attacks my belief, diminishes in some degree my confidence in it, and therefore makes me uneasy; and I am angry with him who makes me uneasy.
Samuel Johnson (1709–1784) English writer, lexicographer, critic
Comment (3 Apr 1775)
In James Boswell, The Life of Samuel Johnson (1791)
We believe very strongly on preserving the right to differ in this country, and the right to dissent; and if I have done a good job of anything since I’ve been president, it’s to ensure that there are plenty of dissenters.
Lyndon B. Johnson (1908–1973) American politician, educator, US President (1963–69)
Press Conference (1967-11-17)
(Source)
Video:
Do not think of knocking out another person’s brains because he differs in opinion from you. It would be as rational to knock yourself on the head because you differ from yourself ten years ago.
Horace Mann (1796–1859) American politician, abolitionist, education reformer
Thoughts (1867)
(Source)
Conventional people are roused to fury by departure from convention, largely because they consider such departures as a criticism of themselves. They will pardon much unconventionality in a man who has enough jollity and friendliness to make it clear, even to the stupidest, that he is not engaged in criticizing them.
Bertrand Russell (1872–1970) English mathematician and philosopher
Conquest of Happiness, Part 1, ch. 9 “Fear of Public Opinion” (1930)
(Source)
You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists.
Abbie Hoffman (1936–1989) American political activist
In Benny Avni, “An Interview with Abbie Hoffman” (1986), Tikkun (Jul-Aug 1989)
(Source)
Nothing is cheaper and more common than physical bravery. […] Common experience shows how much rarer is moral courage than physical bravery. A thousand men will march to the mouth of the cannon where one man will dare espouse an unpopular cause […] True courage and manhood come from the consciousness of the right attitude toward the world, the faith in one’s own purpose, and the sufficiency of one’s own approval as a justification for one’s own acts.
Clarence Darrow (1857–1938) American lawyer
Resist Not Evil, ch. 16 (1903)
Moral cowardice that keeps us from speaking our minds is as dangerous to this country as irresponsible talk. The right way is not always the popular and easy way. Standing for right when it is unpopular is a true test of moral character.
Margaret Chase Smith (1897–1965) American politician (US Senator, Maine)
Speech, Westbrook Junior College (7 Jun 1953)
We do not move forward by curtailing people’s liberty because we are afraid of what they may do or say. We move forward by assuring to all people protection in the basic liberties under a democratic form of government, and then making sure that our government serves the real needs of the people.
Eleanor Roosevelt (1884–1962) First Lady of the US (1933–1945), politician, diplomat, activist
Essay (1940-02-10), “Fear is the Enemy,” The Nation, Vol. 150, No. 6
(Source)
Struggles to coerce uniformity of sentiment in support of some end thought essential to their time and country have been waged by many good, as well as by evil, men. Nationalism is a relatively recent phenomenon, but, at other times and places, the ends have been racial or territorial security, support of a dynasty or regime, and particular plans for saving souls. As first and moderate methods to attain unity have failed, those bent on its accomplishment must resort to an ever-increasing severity. […] Those who begin coercive elimination of dissent soon find themselves exterminating dissenters. Compulsory unification of opinion achieves only the unanimity of the graveyard.
Robert H. Jackson (1892–1954) US Supreme Court Justice (1941–54), lawyer, jurist, politician
West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, 318-319 U.S. 624 (1943) [majority opinion]
(Source)
Men differ daily, about things which are subject to Sense, is it likely then they should agree about things invisible.
Benjamin Franklin (1706–1790) American statesman, scientist, philosopher, aphorist
Poor Richard (1743 ed.)
(Source)
I believe that that community is already in process of dissolution where each man begins to eye his neighbor as a possible enemy, where non-conformity with the accepted creed, political as well as religious, is a mark of disaffection; where denunciation, without specification or backing, takes the place of evidence; where orthodoxy chokes freedom of dissent; where faith in the eventual supremacy of reason has become so timid that we are not enter our convictions into the open list, to win or lose. Such fears as these are a solvent which can eat out the cement that binds the stones together; they may in the end subject us to a despotism as evil as any that we dread; and they can be allayed only in so far as we refuse to proceed on suspicion, and trust one another until we have tangible ground for misgiving,
Learned Hand (1872–1961) American jurist
“A Plea for the Open Mind and Free Discussion,” speech, University of the State of New York, Albany (1952-10-24)
(Source)
Risk for risk, for myself I had rather take my chance that some traitors will escape detection than spread abroad a spirit of general suspicion and distrust, which accepts rumor and gossip in place of undismayed and unintimidated inquiry.
Learned Hand (1872–1961) American jurist
“A Plea for the Open Mind and Free Discussion,” speech, University of the State of New York, Albany (1952-10-24)
(Source)
Those of us who shout the loudest about Americanism in making character assassinations are all too frequently those who, by our own words and acts, ignore some of the basic principles of Americanism:
The right to criticize.
The right to hold unpopular beliefs.
The right to protest.
The right of independent thought.The exercise of these rights should not cost one single American citizen his reputation or his right to a livelihood, nor should he be in danger of losing his reputation or livelihood merely because he happens to know someone who holds unpopular beliefs. Who of us doesn’t? Otherwise none of us could call our souls our own. Otherwise thought control would have set in.
Margaret Chase Smith (1897–1965) American politician (US Senator, Maine)
“Declaration of Conscience” (1950-06-01)
(Source)
Speech given in the US Senate.
A man who says that no patriot should attack the Boer War until it is over is not worth answering intelligently; he is saying that no good son should warn his mother off a cliff until she has fallen over it.
Gilbert Keith Chesterton (1874–1936) English journalist and writer
Orthodoxy, ch. 5 (1908)
As the time drew near when Jesus would be taken up to heaven, he made up his mind and set out on his way to Jerusalem. He sent messengers ahead of him, who went into a village in Samaria to get everything ready for him. But the people there would not receive him, because it was clear that he was on his way to Jerusalem.
When the disciples James and John saw this, they said, “Lord, do you want us to call fire down from heaven to destroy them?”
Jesus turned and rebuked them. Then Jesus and his disciples went on to another village.[Ἐγένετο δὲ ἐν τῷ συμπληροῦσθαι τὰς ἡμέρας τῆς ἀναλήμψεως αὐτοῦ καὶ αὐτὸς τὸ πρόσωπον ἐστήρισεν τοῦ πορεύεσθαι εἰς Ἰερουσαλήμ. καὶ ἀπέστειλεν ἀγγέλους πρὸ προσώπου αὐτοῦ. καὶ πορευθέντες εἰσῆλθον εἰς κώμην Σαμαριτῶν ὡς ἑτοιμάσαι αὐτῷ· καὶ οὐκ ἐδέξαντο αὐτόν, ὅτι τὸ πρόσωπον αὐτοῦ ἦν πορευόμενον εἰς Ἰερουσαλήμ.
ἰδόντες δὲ οἱ μαθηταὶ Ἰάκωβος καὶ Ἰωάννης εἶπαν, Κύριε, θέλεις εἴπωμεν πῦρ καταβῆναι ἀπὸ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καὶ ἀναλῶσαι αὐτούς;
στραφεὶς δὲ ἐπετίμησεν αὐτοῖς. καὶ ἐπορεύθησαν εἰς ἑτέραν κώμην.]The Bible (The New Testament) (AD 1st - 2nd C) Christian sacred scripture
Book 3. Gospel of Luke 9:51ff (Luke 9:51–56) [GNT (1992 ed.)]
(Source)
No Synoptic parallels. Only Luke and John (John 9:4-42) mention Jesus preaching in Samaritan lands. In Matthew 10:5, the disciples are explicitly warned not to enter Samaritan towns.
The primary outward dispute between the Samaritans and the Jews was (and is) over the former's venerating Mount Gerizim and the latter Jerusalem as the holiest site, each claiming the location for where the Binding of Isaac occurred. A pilgrim passing through Samaria headed for Jerusalem would not receive a warm welcome.
The GNT, NRSV, and NIV note that in some manuscripts, John and James recommend calling down fire to destroy them "as Elijah did" (2 Kings 1:10). The GNT and NRSV note some manuscripts give Jesus' actual rebuke: "You don't know what kind of a Spirit you belong to; for the Son of Man did not come to destroy human lives, but to save them." Both additional texts were included in the KJV.
(Source (Greek)). Other translations:And it came to pass, when the time was come that he should be received up, he steadfastly set his face to go to Jerusalem, and sent messengers before his face: and they went, and entered into a village of the Samaritans, to make ready for him. And they did not receive him, because his face was as though he would go to Jerusalem.
And when his disciples James and John saw this, they said, Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as Elias did?
But he turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of. For the Son of man is not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them. And they went to another village.
[KJV (1611)]Now as the time drew near for him to be taken up to heaven, he resolutely took the road for Jerusalem and sent messengers ahead of him. These set out, and they went into a Samaritan village to make preparations for him, but the people would not receive him because he was making for Jerusalem.
Seeing this, the disciples James and John said, "Lord, do you want us to call down fire from heaven to burn them up?"
But he turned and rebuked them, and they went off to another village.
[JB (1966)]Now it happened that as the time drew near for him to be taken up, he resolutely turned his face towards Jerusalem and sent messengers ahead of him. These set out, and they went into a Samaritan village to make preparations for him, but the people would not receive him because he was making for Jerusalem.
Seeing this, the disciples James and John said, "Lord, do you want us to call down fire from heaven to burn them up?"
But he turned and rebuked them, and they went on to another village.
[NJB (1985)]As the time approached when Jesus was to be taken up into heaven, he determined to go to Jerusalem. He sent messengers on ahead of him. Along the way, they entered a Samaritan village to prepare for his arrival, but the Samaritan villagers refused to welcome him because he was determined to go to Jerusalem.
When the disciples James and John saw this, they said, “Lord, do you want us to call fire down from heaven to consume them?”
But Jesus turned and spoke sternly to them, and they went on to another village.
[CEB (2011)]As the time approached for him to be taken up to heaven, Jesus resolutely set out for Jerusalem. And he sent messengers on ahead, who went into a Samaritan village to get things ready for him; but the people there did not welcome him, because he was heading for Jerusalem.
When the disciples James and John saw this, they asked, “Lord, do you want us to call fire down from heaven to destroy them?”
But Jesus turned and rebuked them, and they went to another village.
[NIV (2011 ed.)]When the days drew near for him to be taken up, he set his face to go to Jerusalem. And he sent messengers ahead of him. On their way they entered a village of the Samaritans to prepare for his arrival, but they did not receive him because his face was set toward Jerusalem.
When his disciples James and John saw this, they said, “Lord, do you want us to command fire to come down from heaven and consume them?”
But he turned and rebuked them. Then they went on to another village.
[NRSV (2021 ed.)]
The majority is always in the wrong. Whenever you find that you are on the side of the majority, it’s time to reform — (or pause and reflect).
Mark Twain (1835–1910) American writer [pseud. of Samuel Clemens]
Mark Twain’s Notebook (13 Oct 1904) [ed. Paine (1935)]
First as to Speech. That privilege rests upon the premise that there is no proposition so uniformly acknowledged that it may not be lawfully challenged, questioned, and debated. It need not rest upon the further premise that there are no propositions that are not open to doubt; it is enough, even if there are, that in the end it is worse to suppress dissent than to run the risk of heresy.
Learned Hand (1872–1961) American jurist
“The Guardians,” Oliver Wendell Holmes Lecture #3, Harvard University (1958)
(Source)
Speaking of the First Amendment to the US Constitution.
Let’s never forget that we ALL have aspects about us which could cause us to find ourselves on the sharp-edged side of the razorwired fence should the winds of mass hysteria, whipped up from public opinion by demagogues, shift.
(Other Authors and Sources)
Bruce Little, Belief-L
We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty.
Edward R. Murrow (1908–1965) American journalist
Commentary (1954-03-09), “A Report on Senator Joseph R. McCarthy,” See It Now, CBS TV
(Source)
(Source (Video)). Episode dealing with Sen. Joe McCarthy's witch hunt of Communists in the US.
Truth is great and will prevail if left to herself. She is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from conflict, unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate, errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them.
Thomas Jefferson (1743–1826) American political philosopher, polymath, statesman, US President (1801–09)
Document (1776-06-18), “Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom,” Preamble (enacted 1786-01-16)
(Source)
Full and free expression of the right by the citizen is ordinarily also his duty; for its exercise is more important to the Nation than it is to himself. Like the course of the heavenly bodies, harmony in national life is a resultant of the struggle between contending forces. In the frank expression of conflicting opinions lies the greatest promise of wisdom in governmental action.
Louis Brandeis (1856–1941) American lawyer, activist, Supreme Court Justice (1916–39)
Gilbert v. Minnesota, 254 US 325 (1920) [Dissent]
Freedom to discuss public affairs and public officials is unquestionably, as the Court today holds, the kind of speech the First Amendment was primarily designed to keep within the area of free discussion. To punish the exercise of this right to discuss public affairs or to penalize it through libel judgments is to abridge or shut off discussion of the very kind most needed. This Nation, I suspect, can live in peace without libel suits based on public discussions of public affairs and public officials. But I doubt that a country can live in freedom where its people can be made to suffer physically or financially for criticizing their government, its actions, or its officials.
Hugo Black (1886–1971) American politician and jurist, US Supreme Court Justice (1937–71)
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 296-297 (1964) [concurring]
(Source)
And I will war, at least in words (and — should
My chance so happen — deeds), with all who war
With Thought; — and of Thought’s foes by far most rude,
Tyrants and sycophants have been and are.
I know not who may conquer: if I could
Have such a prescience, it should be no bar
To this my plain, sworn, downright detestation
Of every despotism in every nation.