Embedded Files
Background
Background
John Locke (1632 - 1704) was an extremely influential philosopher and physician. He was born near Bristol, into a puritan family. Initially, he began training as a physician, but soon became part of the retinue of 1st Earl of Shaftesbury, through whom he became involved in business with the then province of Carolina.
Hobbes had argued that it was perfectly reasonable for a government to enforce a religion for the sake of maintaining order. Locke strongly disagreed with that. It was a theme that ran through all his philosophy.
In 1683, he had to flee to the Netherlands because he was suspected of being involved in a plot to kill King Charles II. Throughout the reign of Charles II, there was a fear that Catholicism might be taking over England. Charles II was making a few pro-Catholic moves, including siding with Catholic France against the protestant Dutch, and there were rumours that he had made a deal with Louis XIV of France to convert at some point in the future. This was especially troubling for protestants given that Louis XIV, in 1685, revoked the Edict of Nantes that had guaranteed religious toleration for French Protestants.
John Locke did not return to the United Kingdom until after the Glorious Revolution in 1689, the year that A Letter Concerning Toleration was originally published. It was originally a private letter to his friend Philipp van Limborch, who published it without Locke's knowledge.
Locke’s letter concerns the logical and pragmatic limits of a government (or Magistrate, as Locke calls it in the letter).
[…T]he whole Jurisdiction of the Magistrate reaches only to these civil Concernments; and…all Civil Power, Right, and Dominion, is bounded and …neither can nor ought in any manner to be extended to the Salvation of Souls…
The letter makes three main arguments:
Firstly, that no human being is in a position to decide which religion is the right one.
Firstly, that no human being is in a position to decide which religion is the right one.
How could anyone, even with the consent of the people, have the authority to tell someone how they are to achieve salvation?
First, Because the Care of Souls is not committed to the Civil Magistrate any more than to other Men. It is not committed unto him, I say, by God; because it appears not that God has ever given any such Authority to one Man over another, as to compell any one to his Religion. Nor can any such Power be vested in the Magistrate by the Consent of the People; because no man can so far abandon the care of his own Salvation, as blindly to leave it to the choice of any other, whether Prince or Subject, to prescribe to him what Faith or Worship he shall embrace. For no Man can, if he would, conform his Faith to the Dictates, of another….
Secondly, even if they could, enforcing a single 'true religion' would not work because no one can be forced to believe anything.
Secondly, even if they could, enforcing a single 'true religion' would not work because no one can be forced to believe anything.
To believe in something is to love it, to care for it. I can tell someone else what I think is important, but that’s no reason to believe that they too will care about it.
In the second place. The care of Souls cannot belong to the Civil Magistrate, because his Power consists only in outward force: But true and saving Religion consists in the inward perswasion of the Mind; without which nothing can be acceptable to God.
Thirdly, forcing people to follow the same religion would lead to more disorder than allowing diversity.
Thirdly, forcing people to follow the same religion would lead to more disorder than allowing diversity.
If someone genuinely believes that not following a religion will result in an eternity in hell, then they’re not going to care about becoming a martyr for their cause:
In the third place. The care of the Salvation of Mens Souls cannot belong to the Magistrate; because, though the rigour of Laws and the force of Penalties were capable to convince and change Mens minds, yet would not that help at all to the Salvation of their Souls. For there being but one Truth, one way to heaven; what hopes is there that more Men would be led into it, if they had no other Rule to follow but the Religion of the Court; and were put under a necessity to quit the Light of their own Reason; to oppose the Dictates of their own Consciences; and blindly to resign up themselves to the Will of their Governors, and to the Religion, which either Ignorance, Ambition, or Superstition had chanced to establish in the Countries where they were born?
Discussion
Discussion
But if our laws are not going to be based on religion, what should they be based on?
—Common sense? but it is not difficult to find two people who genuinely believe entirely contradictory things about important issues, for example, abortion.
—Democracy? But what happens if the majority want to enforce a rule that oppresses a minority? And just because everyone believes something, it doesn’t make it right.
Is this not just A drift towards relativism?
Tolerance must come to an end somewhere, mustn't it? Should we be tolerant of people who are intolerant? What if someone's religion demands the oppression of someone else?
In 1945, philosopher Karl Popper described what he called 'the paradox of tolerance':
Less well known [than other paradoxes] is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.
—The Open Society and Its EnemiesSo if tolerance cannot be wihtout limits? How do we decide where those limits should be placed?
Tasks
Tasks
Explain each of Locke’s three arguments in favour of religious toleration.
Explain one possible objection to Locke’s arguments.
Do you agree with Locke? Explain your answer.
Page updated
Report abuse