Dr.

Raed Smaha
REFLECTIVE ESSAY
John-claude chamandi
 In this part of the essay Kant raises the problem of binding religious creed, after
introducing the notions of the public and private use of reason. Kant introduced it by asking a
hypothetical question about the guardianship and religion. Kant Question was that if it is
acceptable for a religious synod to bind itself to a common unalterable oath just to maintain
control over its members and by them over the people. Kant answers this question by negative,
but the introduction of such idea (Binding creed) is abrupt and puzzling when compared to the
context of this essay. So why was Kant concerned with discussing the binding creed. Kant
introduced binding creed to show its relation to state religion. Kant response by opposing the
binding creed is a clear denial that state religion accords with justice. Kant rejection of the
binding creed is to protect his claim about the public use of reason. As Binding creed would
suggest that restrictions and censorship on the public use of reason are allowed. Therefore, it
plausible for Kant to reject it and refute its principle because it contradicts his ideology.

To emphasize more on his rejection, its noticeable Kant used three properties for the
binding creed which are: persisting, unalterable and “Not to be doubted publicly”. These
properties of the binding creed show how extreme it is and how it hinders enlightenment. Kant
stressed on difficulties of imposing a permanent and unalterable religious doctrine on the public.
He argues that it is impossible for people to agree to never reform their religious beliefs.
Therefore, imposing an unalterable creed on a religious group is unacceptable. Kant went on to
evaluate the possibility of a state-sanctioned religious creed, that if people can impose such law.
Kant agreed that it is possible for a short time only, in expectation of a better state of affairs. But
he envisions this creed to be compatible with the public use of reason. During this period,
citizens and especially clergymen would be let free, in their capacity as academics to make their
observations publicly and spot the flaws of the current institution. This draws the basis for the
Kantian defense of the freedom of public use of reason. Kant answer to the binding creed
includes three main claims.

The first claim Kan imposes is that unalterable religious creed is excluded because it
contradicts the human calling. In the first claim Kant argues that laws imposed by the state
should not block future enlightenment rather they should call for advancement of knowledge.
Kant here obviously is criticizing the religious authority which seeks to maintain power through
integrating laws and doctrines that imprisons individuals and stop their enlightenment. The
second claim is that the such religious creeds infringes the “Right of humanity”. Kant considered
that enlightenment may be postponed for a short period of time but he was also keen on the fact
that rejecting enlightenment is a crime that intrude upon the “right of humanity”. The third claim
Kant made is that people will refuse to be bound in religious matters, therefore it impossible to
have an institute which bound them this way. Kant wanted to show his idea that by have the
freedom of public reason one fulfills his/her moral duty of self-perfection in pursue of
enlightenment.

In my opinion Kant’s assertions philosophy gave the enlightenment a huge enhancement.

Before Kant enlightenment was just a word where there is no definitive meaning. Kant claims
about the religious creed is accurate. All the attempts to come up with an institution that reflect a
common binding religious creed ended up in tyrannies. During these periods where religious
synods controlled over the people, they were evil. They hindered their enlightenment and
violated their rights. To mention Galileo and how the church tried to silence him. This is why
Kant ideology makes sense because it is against any outside force that try to stop us from getting
free of our self-immaturity. In addition, Galileo emphasis on public use of reason is still a dispute
between nations till today. For example, we see the contrast between the European countries
where there is restrictions on public use of reason and the United States where freedom is a
constitutional right. I think Kant is right people should have the full public freedom because
blocking the freedom of people will render them unable to think freely and thus stopping their
enlightenment.