John Lockes Argument for Religious Intolerance - Coursework Example

John Lockes argument for religious intolerance Inconsistencies within John Lockes argument for religious intolerance as presented in A Letter concerning Toleration. Introduction John Locke is one of the most influential philosophers in the history of western thought. His main concern was how people should be governed, how governments should be considered legitimate and how society should function for all its members. He is one of the greatest contributors to liberal thought and many of his opinions on the rights of man, liberty, independence, revolution and property have made it to practical implementations. These are most clearly represented in the shape of the United States Declaration of Independence and the American Constitution (Wikipedia, 2006). Despite this, when we look at his words through the screen of time, we find inconsistencies and can make several objections to his ideas about religious freedom as it was presented by him during the seventeenth century under the title of A Letter Concerning Toleration. The Definition of Intolerance and the Letter It is possible that each person in the world could come up with their own definition of what is being intolerant and what is not therefore my definition may be different from someone else’s. With that in mind, I believe intolerance is the behavior exhibited a person or a group which does not accept or respect the differences they have with another person or group in matters of faith or personal opinions. While this definition is broad enough to include political opinions, the paper is concerned with religious intolerance therefore that will somewhat limit the scale of the discussion. Locke’s letter was first published in 1689 and he initially wrote it in Latin. It was considered radical for its time since the ideas presented in the letter were very liberal to the people who read them (Wikipedia, 2006). It must be kept in mind that society was totally different in those times and only a few hundred years before this letter, people were being burnt at the stake for their faith. Even during those times, persons from different faiths were being spit at in the streets and mocked in staged comedies. Religion had led to armed strife between nations since the protestant reformation in the church had led to wars between countries. Finally, the treaty of Westphalia had taken place just a few years before the writing of the letter to end a bloody war of religion. It was in this context that religious toleration was most required to prevent a relapse into civil war. Locke’s objective for writing about religious toleration seems to be less about the goodness of his heart or his hatred for the Catholics. In fact, the vilification of the Catholics seems to come from the fear that Catholics might take over England in a political way. With these ideas in mind, we can examine the content and arguments presented in the letter to see if they stand up to the definition given above. Inconsistencies The primary inconsistency which I can gather from the letter is that instead of recommending religious toleration as we understand it today, Locke recommends a sort of disgruntled acceptance of Catholics and outright rejection of other religions like Islam. In fact he goes as far as to say that they are infidels which is certainly a word gone out of fashion when discussing tolerance of other religions. Locke’s recommendation for religious tolerance is the creation of a new connection between religion and government where the government accepts all religions based on certain conditions. In this new agreement between religion and state is the foundation of the idea that the church and state should be separate. Locke rightfully suggests that the government has no business or a right to suggest a religion for the people since everyone’s salvation is a personal matter for him/her. It also points towards an inconsistency that the salvation of Muslims could become a Christian matter since the Muslims are damned to begin with. At the same time, Locke does not accept the conversion of faith since a Christian who becomes a Muslim would be an apostate as well as an infidel. The idea of having or tolerating atheists in society is given little thought since social interaction with atheists can not function according to Locke. While he accepts that there are people who may not believe in any god or hold any religious affiliations, Locke does not accept them as a part of society since any promise made with them or any testimony from an atheist would not be binding. This idea is of course unacceptable today since atheists can act as witnesses and can take oaths in court or for any other purpose which legally requires a person to be under oath. While the Jews, Muslims and atheists are mentioned in brief, Locke spends a great deal of time and gives a lot of reasons for not accepting Catholics as a part of society. The Catholic Church considers the Pope to be the head of the church and the orders of the Pope are considered supreme for the people who are a part of the church. To Locke, this signifies that the Pope commands the minds and bodies of the people belonging to the Catholic Church and would have more rights over them than the ruler of the country they are in. This of course completely negates Locke’s own idea of the separation of church and state. Even if the Catholics are in fact ruled by the pope then the ruling would only extend to the matters of faith and not for political or national affiliations since they belong to the state. Just as the state should have no right to choose a religious affiliation for the people, the pope should have no right to choose a political affiliation for the members of the Catholic Church. By taking Catholics as persons ruled by different measures, Locke undermines his own argument. This is why the idea that Catholics are foreign operatives working for a different ruler is inconsistent with Locke’s idea of religious tolerance. Locke also suggests that only those churches should be permitted to remain active and seek converts who shun violence, preach tolerance and use persuasion. Even though this is a good idea, Locke does not consider the violence which could be generated if certain churches or sects are banned or not permitted to remain active in their own spheres. This is another inconsistency since he recommended earlier that diversity in religious sects would lead to more tolerance and strife would only be created when one sect is banned amongst many. Why the Inconsistency? This leads us to the obvious question, why are there inconsistencies in what Locke is preaching and the expected material of the letter? While a reasonable person may expect this letter to show how differences can be resolved and how religions should respect other faiths as equals, we find that Locke is suggesting that we get rid of Catholics and prevent the conversion of Christians to other faiths. Instead of diversity, Locke’s main point comes across as the separation of church and state. Instead of tolerance, Locke seems to be more concerned with the smooth operation of the state. The answer for that is very clear, Locke was an empirical philosopher and was far less interested in religion acting as the foundation stone for the building of society and saw it more as the paint which gave it color. While some colors were useful and good, others could only be accepted in certain places and the rest could not be applied for different reasons. His argument can be summarized as; tolerance is good if it allows people to choose their own religion and sects as long as they don’t choose to be Muslims. It is acceptable for all sects except for Roman Catholicism and those who accept the pope as their guide. Conclusion Despite of all the differences my definition has with Locke, I find that I still respect him and his words. While he may not have accepted all faiths and creeds, he was still one of the few brave voices in a time when Protestants and Catholics were ready to fight each other till the end. In fact, it was in no small part due to his ideas that we enjoy the religious freedom which we take for granted and greatly enjoy in today’s world. He argued for toleration and acceptance while others were talking about ways to expunge the catholic or the protestant menace (depending on the country). He declared the state incompetent to decide a citizen’s religion while the axiom of the ruler deciding religion was active and he was the first one to give logical reasons for the acceptance of other religions while those before him used to ask for mercy and pity. For these reasons amongst others, I respect and appreciate Locke’s work on religious tolerance. Works Cited Locke, J. 1689. A Letter Concerning Toleration. Constitution.org. http://www.constitution.org/jl/tolerati.htm (accessed April 8, 2006) Wikipedia. 2006. John Locke. Wikipedia.org http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Locke (accessed April 7, 2006) Word Count: 1,517 Read More