Fanatism inside Freedom

In terms of democracy and
freedom, John Stuart Mill (1806-1873)
through his famous work,
On Liberty, reminiscent of the bells
death of freedom caused by
coercion of opinion. Mill strongly opposed
the tendency of audiences to ban
opinions they did not approve of.
The silencing of an opinion
is a crime, by principle,
that everyone has the right to say
his opinion, despite that opinion
contrary to its preference. Reason
what Mill says is because we do not
never know what opinions have been and
will we silence it is an opinion
wrong.
Furthermore, according to Mill, a rejection
against an opinion has two
possibilities: first, because he is right, and
second, because he was right wrong. Quoting
Richard Rorty, humans are basically not
infallible. Because of the possibility
everyone is this, then the attitude of intolerance or
the unavailability of that opinion
mistakenly wrong.
In this context, Mill is not talking about
authoritarian state or dictator, but about
democratic country. When Mill wrote, at
English freedom to express opinions
already firmly guaranteed in law. But,
precisely in this situation new threats arise,
namely the threat of its own society
intolerant. In a democratic country,
danger to freedom of thought and
argued no longer came from the state,
as is the case with countries
authoritarian, but from the community itself.
John Stuart Mill's concern at
the end of the 19th century on threats
to freedom of expression in a
the modern state gets its relevance
in the context of the emergence of deep fanaticism
Indonesia's current public space. Fanaticism
both secular and religious
is iconoclast, ie rejecting the principle
representation (agency representative) in politics.