A+Letter+Concerning+Toleration

toc =John Locke, //A Letter Concerning Toleration// (1685)=

Background
Locke wrote his //Letter Concerning Toleration// to his Dutch friend Philip von Limborch while he was living as an exile in the Dutch Republic, which had been founded as a secular state that would tolerate religious differences. The letter was written against the backdrop of 17th century religious persecution all over Europe--the Reformation had split Europe into competing Catholic and Protestant camps, and civil wars and rebellions had arisen all over western Europe. In 1685, the year this letter was written, Louis XIV of France had just revoked the Edict of Nantes, causing French Catholics to persecute the Huguenots and forcing them to flee France. In England, Anglicans had passed laws after the restoration of Charles II to the throne that called for the repression of both Catholics and other non-Anglican Protestant sects. Originally written in Latin, Locke's letter calls for an end to the oppression of persons holding unorthodox religious beliefs. The letter was originally published against Locke's will after he returned to England following the Glorious Revolution of 1688. It was widely criticized as a radical document.

http://www.libertystory.net/LSDOCLOCKELETTERTOLERATION.htm http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke/#LocRelTol

The Civil State
Locke argues for a clear distinction to be drawn between religion and civil society, in order to put to rest any controversies that may arise from any unclear boundaries. He says:

"//a word, that none may impose either upon himself or others, by the pretences of loyaltyand obedience to the prince, or of tenderness and sincerity in the worship of God; I esteem it above all things necessary to distinguish exactly the business of civil government from that of religion, and to settle the just bounds that lie between the one and the other."//

Therefore, Locke suggests that the commonwealth, or civil society, should be thought of as a society of men constituted only for maintaining and advancing their civil interests. These civil interests he calls, "life, liberty, health, and indolency of body; and the possession of outward things, such as money lands, houses, furniture, and the like." The duty of civil magistrates, therefore, is to impartially carry out equal laws which ensure the civil interests of the people.

What doesn't qualify as falling within the realm of the business of civil society? > > >
 * 1) The care of souls, because it does not appear that God has ever given such authority to one man over the other, nor can this authority be handed over to the magistrate by the consent of the people.
 * 2) The care of souls, which is consists in inward persuasion of the mind, cannot be the power of the magistrate, because his power consists only in outward force. The magistrate has no power to establish any article of faith, or worship, by the force of his laws. **(Why? Is Locke right?1159926333)**
 * 1) The magistrate has no power to execute such laws, because, though their force would convince people to change their faiths, this would not help in the salvation of their souls. Faith should no come from coercion. **(Why? Can we expand a little?1159926333)** Faith is about internalizing beliefs and having the right attitudes. One cannot compel beliefs or right attitudes with violence. While the government may know (or think it knows) the truth, it will not be able to modify beliefs and attitudes that come from within. Therefore violence as a means of coercion is unnecessary and would serve no real purpose.

The Church
Locke defines the church as: //“A voluntary society of men, joining themselves together of their own accord in order to the public worshipping of God, in such a manner as they judge acceptable to him, and effectual to the salvation of their souls”//

Each person must choose for themselves to become a member of a church; they can be influenced by outside sources, such as their parents or state, but the decision is ultimately personal.

__Powers of the Church:__
 * 1) The church must be regulated by some laws, and the members all consent to observe some order
 * 2) The church is limited to issue laws in things regarding the Holy Scriptures, and not external things
 * 3) All discipline ought to aim at achieving salvation – not outward goods/ possessions
 * 4) It can only punish by excommunication from the church (or by acting on the relationship between the person and the church)

He also addresses the claim that a church must have a bishop or authority figure, of uninterrupted succession from the first apostles, to be a true church. **(I think this is not quite right 1159926333)** He announces that this edict was not made by Christ; rather, Christ declared that a true Church would exist “wherever 2 or 3 are gathered in my name” **(Doesn't this contradict the previous sentence? What's Locke's point 1159926333)**

__The Duty of Toleration__

 * 1) No church has to retain members that have offended her laws or beliefs. Such a person, albeit excommunicated from a church will not be deprived of their current civil goods, which are under the magistrate’s protection.
 * 2) No private person has the right to prejudice another person in civil enjoyments based on their religion or church.
 * 3) Churches should encourage tolerations of other religions; as it is important to understand that no one church/religion has jurisdiction over the others.
 * 4) If there is a controversy between the churches about the truth of their doctrines, and the purity of their worship, both sides are deemed equal
 * 5) The power of church authority figures is limited to ecclesiastical matters and not extended to civil affairs.
 * 6) In domestic matters unrelated to the church, each individual can decide and pursue the course he likes best
 * 7) Magistrate’s Duty in Toleration: The care of each man’s soul belongs to him alone – it is not the responsibility of the magistrate to implement laws that would “save” the souls of its citizens any more than it is his duty to secure riches and health for them. Moreover, while “there are a thousand ways to wealth, but only one way to heaven”, people still disagree as to which is the right one. It is the duty of each man to discover what is right for him and his own soul. Magistrates or princes cannot make superior decisions because we are all equal in nature. In addition, Locke points out that the point of religion is salvation. If one is coerced into religion, the trappings of religion and that person's actions will be hollow and insincere. This insincerety will not lead to one's salvation, and so to force someone into religion without belief is pointless and a waste of time.

Locke then dismantles a few arguments involving a theocratic government (meaning one in which the magistrate enacts what the church has determined). He is against this arrangement, claiming that it would be used to “throw dust in people’s eyes…in the name of the church.” Furthermore, the selected church would be chosen at the discretion of the magistrate, who would strategically select a church that is favorable to his personal goals. Moreover, the church has a history of being more influenced by the courts than the contrary; the ruling body can change the religion at will, which virtually equates the King’s judgment with ecclesiastical authority. Finally, even if such a government were implemented, its citizens would still merely outwardly perform the actions and say the words pertaining to the church – they would not have sincere faith which is the ultimate requirement for attaining salvation. This conversion stems from a voluntary association with the church.

Locke calls attention to the fact that the Jewish people are still called to establish theocrac governments, while the Christians are not. Nevertheless, he mentions that they were not allowed to kill foreigners (or idolars) who did not share in their faith. **(What's the point of this in Locke's argument? 1159926333)**

> > >>
 * 1) The magistrate has neither the power to enforce by law the rules of his own church nor any rites/ceremonies whatsoever in the worship of God nor does he have the power to forbid them.
 * 1) The magistrate can only rule on issues not pertinent to the church. However, many “indifferent” things fall under the religious category when in context (ex. magistrate can mandate that all babies be cleaned for their heath but he cannot mandate that all babies get baptized). Issues are only pertinent to the church when God mentioned them in the scripture.
 * 2) (My personal argument: but we do a lot of things that aren’t mandated in the Holy Scripture, but come from the tradition of the Church) **(So what would Locke say? 1159926333)**
 * 1) The duty of the magistrate is to take care to make sure that the common wealth receives no prejudice or injustice and that there be no injury to any man either in life or estate. Therefore, if a congregation involves in practices which hinder civil rights or endanger the lives of others under the disguise of “religious ritual”, the magistrate may politically confront this ritual. But he should be careful not to misuse this authority or he may oppress his people under the pretext of "securing the common good."
 * (This section above seems to repeat some of the things in the "Duty of Toleration" section. Perhaps they could be merged?)

Articles of Faith
Locke distinguishes between articles of religon that are practical and speculative. Both consist of the knowledge of the truth, but some simply exist through understanding, where they affect how we act. These opinions which are only to be required to be believed, cannot be imposed on any church by the law of the land. Locke states it is absurd to enact by law that which is not within man's power to perform. In addition, The magistrate should be forbidden to restrict the preaching of speculative opinions of the church as they have no relation to the civil rights of subjects. Locke argues that people have a right to accept or deny any belief that they wish, and will not suffer some kind of punishment for this decision. Locke distinguishes that laws are not meant for adding or subtracting from the truth of opinions. They are meant to provide for the safety and security of the commonwealth. Locke argues that any laws to the contrary would actually diminish faith as faith can only be discovered within oneself, and any ruling on the truth of beliefs can only weaken these beliefs and fails to see the nature of faith and salvation in religion.

=Study Questions= >
 * What arguments does Locke give for tolerating religious difference?
 * How far does Locke think toleration should extend? Who is not to be tolerated, and why?
 * (Add your own or revise these 1161015728)**