The importance of Spinoza's stand lays in the fact that the US adopted Locke's position of freedom of worship, and not freedom of thought, which I think had a lot to do with the generally provincial attitude most of US history has had towards radical speech, writing and advocacy. The rightwing and parrticularly the Christians seem to main a purposeful confusion of the two poles, so as to maintain their own abborant religious practices as `free speech' while denigrating the left as against `freedom' to worship---as if worship were equivalent to thought and speech.
Anyway, has anybody read Israel's book on Spinoza?
====================
No, but as a long time lover of Spinoza (whose works I turn to in times of doubt the way others might reach for gin, MDMA, fire and brimstone sermons and other mood altering material) I'm surely going to seek it out this week.
Your description of the US' peculiar - or perhaps, peculiarly narrow is closer to the mark - notion of freedom (bound to the idea that I'm free to worship but perhaps not so free after all to question power) intrigues me because it matches what I've stumblingly come to understand with 'shock of the new' clarity during the years of accelerated dessication we've experienced under Bush the Younger.
But back to Spinoza...
When an ambitious Middle School teacher presented me with a beautifully bound, early 20th century translation of "On the Improvement of the Understanding" (even in English, what a lovely, clear and crisp phrase) I was hooked from the title which made serious promises the text kept.
.d.
---------
http://monroelab.net/blog/index.html
<<<<<>>>>>
"I've tried everything...reason, quantum explosives, portable singularity traps, cupcakes, nothing convinces this guy."
Doctor Impossible