Is Lockes Analysis of Toleration Still Relevant Today - Essay Example

Is Locke’s Analysis of Toleration Still Relevant Today? The debate on the relevance of John Locke analysis on toleration in modern society has recently raised endless debates among philosophers and thinkers from various professionals and cultural background. With some acknowledging the relevance of the analysis in modern society, there are those who do not understand its relevance and importance in contemporary social settings. Being a social psychologist and political philosopher John Locke was a real and strong supporter of equality and tolerance in governed society. In his analysis as an experienced philosopher, John Locke acknowledged the significance of respecting human being basic right by the existing government as well as religious institutions and domains. In his assertions, Locke stated that some of the basic rights that need to be guarded by the country ruling government and religious institutions are right to own properties, right to liberty as well as right to life (Locke, 1796, p.13). Based on the presented facts, it is clear and accurate to claims that John Locke analysis on toleration is still relevant and important in current and future generation. The writing by John Locke on toleration is renowned as a letter concerning religious toleration. The writing was published in the late 1689 and has over years gained popularity and relevancy especially among modern thinkers and psychology scholars. Although the book received mixed receptions from various religious organisations, the content of the writing has been serving as the main pillars in psychology discipline (Marshall, 2006, p.31). In addition, even though the book was initially published in Latin, the writing has so far been translated to more than ten common languages including English and Portuguese. In his writing, John Locke demonstrated the fear that with time, the Catholicism might take over the management and control of United Kingdom resources and political power(Locke, 1796, p.4). In response, Locke presented the theory of religious toleration as the main solution to solve the rooming conflict between religions leaders and political leaders. In his writing, Locke observed that tolerance was the main mean of solving dispute between religions and political leaders (Locke, 1796, p.7). Since there is a significant difference between the government and religious institution in modern society, religious leaders should concentrate on the role of bringing harmony and sanity in the society while political leaders were required to concentrate on the political undertakings. Similar to Locke argument, it is clear that the conflict of role and interest among religious and political leaders are the main cause of the civil unrest and conflict in modern society. Although there is distinctive differences between the roles of two leaders, their conflict of interest are in most cases the cause of tension and anxiety in modern society. With an aim of bring harmony and sanity in the society that is tantamount to social and economic development, all leaders should understand their role and responsibility in serving the entire population without compromising the interests of other parties. Being among the founder father of empiricism, Locke also emphasised on the importance of supporting and promoting the toleration of different religious domination in an integrated society (Locke, 1796, p. 31). As opposed to the scholars who believed on empiricism, Locke pressurised on the importance of political leaders to respect the role and responsibility of religious beliefs and teachings. In advising individuals who believed on religious beliefs and practices, Locke stated that everybody has the right of maintaining their religious practices and beliefs without compromising the existing state rules and regulations (Vernon, 1997, p.32). Political leaders were discouraged from taking active role in religious activities Although Locke’s rejection of Catholic imperialism was linked to his belief on government interest in spiritual salvation, his argument has proved to be relevant in modern social and political settings (Vernon, 1997, p.33). Sticking to one role and responsibility will not only help in reducing unnecessary conflict and confusion in the society but will also help in respecting the beliefs and practices of all religious groups. Contrary to those individuals who discredit the relevance of Locke contribution in modern society, it is clear that there is need to be separation of power between both political institutions and religious institutions. As opposed to other professionals who claim that religious organisation bring togetherness and harmony in a society; it is clear that numerous religious organisations brings civil unrest in modern social settings. This explains the reason why there need to be a policy that would regulates the operation of religious organisation. Instead of concentrating on their role of bringing harmony in the society, religious institutions bring conflicts and disharmony in the society by coming up with policies that contradicts the set national regulations. The same case applied to modern religious beliefs where religious leaders in modern institutions use their power and influence to organise civil unrest in the society. Instead of searching for the most effective means of solving emerging challenges in the society, religious leaders mobilise their supporters to organise demonstration in the society thus creating disharmony in the society. Modern society is also experiencing continuous conflict between various religious denominations. The conflict between various denominations is largely motivated by the emergence of different religious beliefs as well as fight for political and social dominancy. In addition, as observed by Locke, civil unrest is as a result of attempt by legislation and courts of law of breaking some of the unacceptable practices in some religious entities (Locke, 1796, p. 37). Furthermore, the attempt by the judiciary to protect various religious acts has also created endless conflict between religious institutions and other political and legal organisations. So far, various legal cases are before the court of law in almost all parts of the world concerning some of the practices that are legally acceptable in the society. To some extent, this case has enlisted endless conflict between religious believers and the existing legislative authorities. Considering the conflicting in the role between the government and religious institutions, Locke in his work also aimed at distinguishing between the role of civil government and the responsibility of religious institutions (Graf, 2007, p.31). In his argument, electorates give civil government power to promote external affairs and interests relating to general welfare, liberty, and life. Religious entities have an undertaking of promoting internal affairs such as salvation and meeting society’s spiritual needs. By considering the different role of the two institutions, there ought to be a regulation that clearly defines their specific role. Just like in the case that is presented by Locke in his argument, it is clear that there is huge conflict of role and responsibility between civil government and religious organisation. There is also no regulation that defines the role and responsibility of each organisation. As a result, there is continuous conflict between the role and responsibility of the two institutions. In addition to having the role of meeting society’s internal affairs, religious institutions also engages in external affairs thus causing conflict with the government. Consequently, instead of having peaceful and mutual interaction between the two entities, there is unnecessary conflict between the two entities that hinder social and political progress. As stated by Locke in his work, the only acceptable ways in which religious can use to attain genuine convert is only through persuasion as opposed to violence (Graf, 2007, p.31). However, just like in traditional society, religious leaders in modern society are engaging in violence to meet the followers’ internal needs and demands. However, instead of helping religious followers to attain the required convention, there is intensive loss of lives and destruction of properties due to conflicts. Therefore, government should desist from taking part in taking care of souls. The act of taking care of the souls is purely the role and responsibility of religious institutions. The act of serving the role of religious institutions is therefore inappropriate and unacceptable for civil governments. Similar to Locke’s argument, it is clear that member of the society cannot entrust their sole on secular forces. In this case, the government secular bodies that cannot be entrusted with the role of taking care of the society spiritual needs. Therefore, to minimise the conflict and tension between the government and religious bodies, the government should stick to its course. In addition, the forces adopted by government in controlling the souls cannot attain its intended goals and objectives. As observed by Locke in his research, forces cannot at all assist in creating the necessary salvation (Mendus, 1988, p. 67). This is owing to the fact that human beings cannot be coerced to obey religious beliefs and practices, as it is the case with the current governments. Even if force can compel an individual to abide by the existing rules and regulation, religious coercion does to have power of forcing an individual to abide by incorrect religious beliefs and practices In view of the above analysis, it is clear that Locke argument is still influential and relevant in modern society. Although his argument has received endless criticism from modern scholars, it is clear that there is no change between traditional society and modern society. Whilst religious organisations attempt to regulates the affairs that are supposed to be controlled by central government, civil government are on the other hand attempting to manage religious activities. Therefore, a legislation to regulate and define the role of the two conflicting organisations will be of critical importance in solving the existing social unrest and civil conflict in modern society. References Graf, C., 2007. Cervantes and modernity: Four essays on modernity. New York, NY: Bucknell University Press. Locke, J., 1796. A Letter Concerning Toleration. New York, NY: J. Books. Marshall, J., 2006. John Locke, toleration and Early Enlightenment culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mendus, S., 1988. Justifying toleration conceptual and historical perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Vernon, R., 1997. The career of toleration John Locke, Jonas Proast, and after. Montréal: McGill-Queens University Press. Read More