Erika Morgan

PHM2300
Peter Hanowell
November 24, 2009. Word count: 1265

Locke on Toleration

When it comes to the problem of humanity’s inability to form a

peaceful religious coexistence, the limits and effectiveness of

toleration have been long debated concepts that favor for a solution.

The development of theories on toleration, throughout time, has

protected religious worship, and prevented or stopped religious wars

and persecution caused by the intolerant. Toleration was largely

avoided until John Locke, a philosopher who believed in the natural

rights for man, reasoned his support for religious toleration and his

belief in the benefits. He wrote A Letter Concerning Toleration, in

response to the problem between religion and government, claiming

the separation of church and state as a solution, and also in response

to the problem between religions, that one true religion cannot be

determined. Government cannot force a faith on someone and call it

genuine, and no religion is more right than the others. Locke’s ideas

rationalize that subjugation is politically useless to a prosperous

government, however toleration is ethically necessary. A modern critic

from a democratic society may object to Locke’s arguments by saying

that they inadequately justify toleration in the present. They are

irrelevant and too narrow-minded to solve any problems of the politics

from today. Locke’s theories on toleration come from theological

arguments, which today’s politics reasonably object because they will

never be universally accepted.

The problem between religion and government, Locke claims

could be solved by religious toleration through the separation of

church and state. Locke supports

Morgan 2

his claim by arguing that a government should act on non-religious

decisions that perform its sole duty to protect and preserve the best

interests of the citizens. The limits of the government should not go as

far as using force as a means of universally conforming citizens to the

true religion. Doing so would not even be possible because one’s true

religion is self-voluntary. The care of a citizen’s belief is not pre-

determined, to be the responsibility of the government. It is not

possible for people to willingly believe, just because they are told to do

so. Beliefs are a function of what people believe to be true from

experience. Beliefs do not occur against will, and can only be utilized

to force obedience. Further, he argues that the only genuine source for

true religion comes from inward persuasion of the mind. Outer force is

incapable of serving as a genuine force.

Locke also reasons the support for religious toleration by claiming

that it is necessary for human kind to accept each other since there is

not a single religion that can be determined to be more right than the

rest. Establishing above all, a single true and correct religion, would
not even become possible under the conditions that every magistrate

were to desire and achieve religious uniformity by convincing each

mind to convert, because each of those magistrates believe in religions

that are false to each other. Locke believed however, that religious

toleration should be limited to atheists and Roman Catholics because

atheism holds no moral foundation, and the Roman Catholic Church

because of their religious persecutions and lack of loyalty to their

country.

Morgan 3

Contemporary politics of a liberal democratic society do not rest

upon theological ideals. Modern laws are not created and approved by

governments, based on an underlying incentive that the Bible or any

religious texts are able to justify them first. A modern critic’s objection

to Locke’s view on religious toleration might claim that his theory

comes from a religious foundation, unlike modern politics, and

therefore, religious toleration is unqualified to be the basis of justifying

the laws of a modern society without an official religion. Lock’s

supportive claim of religious toleration that says people cannot be

forced to change what they believe, is not valid because it is a

theological assumption, which stems from his own unique beliefs that

not everyone shares. Religion in modern times is controversial and

government avoids making laws based on a specific religion. So it

should also avoid making laws that are based on theological claims

influenced by religion.

A modern critic would see Locke’s views as incapable of

justifying religious toleration because it is narrow-minded (1). It is a

belief influenced by his religion and nobody else’s. Locke has formed

the concept of religious toleration from his own religion and beliefs,

therefore, a modern critic might claim that in order for Locke’s

religious toleration to be accepted by all, then, it would have to be

possible for everyone to have similar religious foundations as Locke

possesses in order to derive his same acceptance of religious

toleration. It is impossible for everyone to come from the same

theological premise, so it is illogical to believe that there can be a

universal support of religious toleration.

Morgan 4

A Lockean reply to this objection might say that religious

toleration can derive itself from many different religions, and that it is

not just Locke’s theological

premise, but many other religions with theological premises that are

capable of constructing an acceptance of religious toleration. A

Lockean reply would argue that those, such as Roman Catholics, who

do not possess the required theological premises, which allow for

understanding and acceptance of religious toleration, should not be

tolerated.

This Lockean reply may not be successful because it goes

against what it argues for. His views encompass the idea that all men

have a natural right to not be punished for their conscious ideas and

religion, but with the exception of atheists and Roman Catholics.

Roman Catholicism and atheism are conscious beliefs, so it is not

applicable for Locke to exclude those theologies but no other.

Regardless of the kind of theological premises that were negatively

perceived from Roman Catholics and atheist, they are still conscious

beliefs that, according to the Lockean view, have every right to be so.

According to Locke’s belief that it is impossible for people to forcibly

believe something different against there will, then how can being

intolerant to such theologies as Roman Catholicism to even be

possible?

Toleration automatically sets Locke’s theory for religious

toleration up for disaster. Any Lockean objections from a modern point

of view require Locke to contradict himself. For religious tolerance

between government and religions, according to Locke, there must be

separation of church and state, as well as the absence of any one true

religion or the belief that one is more right than the other.

Morgan 5

However, Locke grants himself the power to determine that his morals

that lead up to his concept of religious toleration, are more correct and
worth accepting than the non-tolerable Roman Catholics or atheist.

Locke does not tolerate such theologies in order to minimize

acceptance. Similar to how violence is utilized, Roman Catholics and

atheists who are not accepted or tolerated because of their theologies

are then given an incentive to change their conscious beliefs against

their own will in order to be accepted by other institutions. John

Locke’s concept of religious toleration is based from his own

theological premises that sought to point out man’s right to his own

conscious belief, without being punished for it by religious persecution

or violence that serves as a purpose to create an incentive for that

individual to change his mind. However, due to his claim that the

intolerable of the time (i.e. Roman Catholics, and atheists,) must not

be tolerated, Locke is creating another form of religious persecution

through his intoleration that, in theory, would have drove many Roman

Catholics and atheist to convert their religion for acceptance.

1.  The Relevance of Locke's Religious Arguments for Toleration

 Micah Schwartzman
 Political Theory, Vol. 33, No. 5 (Oct., 2005), pp. 678-705
 Published by: Sage Publications, Inc.
 Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/30038449