Talk:A Letter Concerning Toleration

message: Read the editor's introduction to the edition of Locke's Letter on Toleration (Nijhoff 1963). It has satisfied me, and I should think it would satisfy anyone, that the probability  that Locke wrote this as a letter to Limborch or to anyone else is about zero.
Jonathan Bennett
Jfbennett (talk) 02:34, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

message: User:Thepointofit keeps removing Locke's intolerance towards Catholics. Some sources:
“…the most famous (or notorious) example is the Letter’s exclusion of Catholics from toleration on the grounds that, having an external allegiance (to Rome), they are not trustworthy citizens.”—Richard Vernon (ed.), Locke on Toleration (Cambridge University Press, 2010), p. xiii.
“He was also a defender of toleration, though like Locke he was not prepared to extend it to Catholics.”—J. R. Milton and Philip Milton (eds.), John Locke: An Essay concerning Toleration: And Other Writings on Law and Politics, 1667-1683 (Oxford University Press, 2010), p. 25.
“This looks like a general principle, but the context makes it clear that Locke saw it as applying only to Protestant dissenters; the passages in the earlier versions ruling out toleration for Catholics were not only retained but strengthened.”—J. R. Milton and Philip Milton (eds.), John Locke: An Essay concerning Toleration: And Other Writings on Law and Politics, 1667-1683 (Oxford University Press, 2010), p. 45.
“If Locke’s reasons for insisting on religious tolerance were distinctively religious reasons (and reasons which led him to withhold toleration both from Catholics and from atheists)…”—John Dunn, Locke: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford University Press, 2003), p. 21.
“Locke affirms that the citizens of a certain commonwealth cannot obey two sovereigns at the same time and concludes that the Catholic religion, as far as it implies the temporal subordination of the believers to a temporal sovereign, the pope, cannot be tolerated, except in the papal State itself, without endangering the conservation of any commonwealth, since it creates a permanent factor of disobedience and disorder.”—Raymond Polin, ‘John Locke’s conception of freedom’, in John W. Yolton (ed.), John Locke: Problems and Perspectives: A Collection of New Essays (Cambridge University Press, 1969), p. 16.      
These are reliable sources, printed by the Cambridge University Press and Oxford University Press.--Britannicus (talk) 13:33, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Anti-Catholicism

message: User Britannicus is perpetuating bigotry and an unpious and unscholarly interpretation of Locke's views on religious toleration.  In his Letter Locke has stated clearly that toleration should be extended to Roman Catholics.  The quotes that Britannicus has supplied are simply the unsubstantiated views of those particular authors, which reveals that even bigots can be published, and do not reflect the views of Locke.  For those who are in still in doubt about Locke's view on Catholocism I recommend reading the Letter itself, which is quite clear and does not need to be "interpreted."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thepointofit (talk • contribs) 14:08, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The above sources clearly indicate that the scholarly consensus is that Locke opposed extending toleration to Catholics. Locke was not a modern liberal but a seventeenth century Whig with a deep aversion to "popery" and "papists" (his words). This is what reliable, scholarly sources claim and it is Wikipedia's duty to reflect that. Your own personal (incorrect) views are irrelevant.--Britannicus (talk) 14:26, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The duty of everyone, including scholars, is not to ascribe their own intolerant religious views to other people, including dead people who can no longer advise us all to be more mature and compassionate toward others except by the writings they have given us already.Thepointofit (talk) 14:46, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Britannicus 

message: Editor Thepointofit is attempting to add this to the article There are, however, indications in the Letter that Locke desired the civil state to tolerate Roman Catholic worship practices if not the Church's political views. using the previously cited source John Marshall, John Locke, Toleration and Early Enlightenment Culture (Cambridge University Press, 2010), pp. 690-93
However, one cannot simply throw words into an article and add in a reference at random without the reference actually supporting the statement made.  So, my direct question to User:Thepointofit is:
*Does John Marsall (not you) in those three pages of John Locke, Toleration and Early Enlightenment Culture support the idea that "there are ... indications in the Letter that Locke desired the civil state to tolerate Roman Catholic worship practices if not the Church's political views"?  If so, please write in a comment below this the precise and exact words used by Marshall to evince these "indications".  Until you show, conclusively, that this is someone's opinion, supported by a reliable source, and not simply a repeat of your own opinion -- which you've been trying to shoehorn into the article for a while now -- that statement will not go into this article. BMK (talk) 08:14, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I have replaced your synopsis of Marshall's opinion with the actual quote you provided. BMK (talk) 19:29, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems entirely reasonable to me. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:46, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources must support the statements they're connected to 

message: From scholar John Marshall
The combination of Locke’s comments in the Letter suggest that during composition of the Letter in winter 1685, Locke was once again struggling over how to discriminate between the series of associated political principles which for him made Catholics intolerable, and the religious worship and other religious beliefs of Catholic which deserved toleration. It seems probable that in writing the Letter Locke thought that at least some Catholics in England and the Netherlands were politically as well as religiously tolerable, as they did not hold that faith did not have to be kept with heretics, nor that excommunicated kings were deposed, and were themselves tolerant, and yet at the same time thought that very many Catholics, especially but not merely Jesuits, were indeed intolerable, and wishes to register both of these propositions in the Letter."—John Marshall, John Locke, Toleration and Early Enlightenment Culture (Cambridge University Press, 2010), pp. 690-693.
From John Locke himself in his Letter
"Further, the magistrate ought not to forbid the preaching or professing of any speculative opinions in any Church because they have no manner of relation to the civil rights of the subjects. If a Roman Catholic believe that to be really the body of Christ which another man calls bread, he does no injury thereby to his neighbour. If a Jew do not believe the New Testament to be the Word of God, he does not thereby alter anything in men's civil rights. If a heathen doubt of both Testaments, he is not therefore to be punished as a pernicious citizen. The power of the magistrate and the estates of the people may be equally secure whether any man believe these things or no. I readily grant that these opinions are false and absurd. But the business of laws is not to provide for the truth of opinions, but for the safety and security of the commonwealth and of every particular man's goods and person. And so it ought to be. For the truth certainly would do well enough if she were once left to shift for herself. She seldom has received and, I fear, never will receive much assistance from the power of great men, to whom she is but rarely known and more rarely welcome. She is not taught by laws, nor has she any need of force to procure her entrance into the minds of men. Errors, indeed, prevail by the assistance of foreign and borrowed succours. But if Truth makes not her way into the understanding by her own light, she will be but the weaker for any borrowed force violence can add to her. Thus much for speculative opinions. Let us now proceed to practical ones."
"That we may draw towards a conclusion. The sum of all we drive at is that every man may enjoy the same rights that are granted to others. Is it permitted to worship God in the Roman manner? Let it be permitted to do it in the Geneva form also. Is it permitted to speak Latin in the market-place? Let those that have a mind to it be permitted to do it also in the Church. Is it lawful for any man in his own house to kneel, stand, sit, or use any other posture; and to clothe himself in white or black, in short or in long garments? Let it not be made unlawful to eat bread, drink wine, or wash with water in the church. In a word, whatsoever things are left free by law in the common occasions of life, let them remain free unto every Church in divine worship. Let no man's life, or body, or house, or estate, suffer any manner of prejudice upon these accounts. Can you allow of the Presbyterian discipline? Why should not the Episcopal also have what they like? Ecclesiastical authority, whether it be administered by the hands of a single person or many, is everywhere the same; and neither has any jurisdiction in things civil, nor any manner of power of compulsion, nor anything at all to do with riches and revenues."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thepointofit (talk • contribs) 18:40, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I have replaced your synopsis of Marshall's opinion with the actual quote you provided. BMK (talk) 19:29, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems entirely reasonable to me. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:46, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proof for BMK that John Locke was tolerant of Roman Catholic practices. 

message: Macaulay, in Chapter Five of his 'History' (p 176), asserts that the occasion for Locke writing his 'Letter' was upon discovering while on a trip to Holland, that, at Whitehall's behest, he had been turfed out of Christ Church, Oxford where he was a student; this after surreptitious attempts to discover his ideological views with respect to the toleration of Roman Catholicism. The background, according to Macaulay, was the expected invasion of England from the Duke of Argyle's followers in Scotland, (a faction which had ships moored in Holland which awaited instructions). This assertion, if it is correct, supplies a more comprehensive background than that which this Wikipedia article presents i.e. the fears of a Catholic ascendancy (under James), a description which while true hardly captures the moment fully.
The value of Macaulay's contribution, again, if true is that it suggests that Locke had more than an ideological interest in the question of toleration, a proposition which, if true, suggests that Locke's equanimity; his plea for Tolerance, may have arisen out of a necessity and not out of party political concerns. Earlier in his history, Macaulay, addressing a different though related scenario, expresses the view that why bother denying sailors, judges, soldiers etc. etc. their opportunity to serve the nation on the narrow basis that their ideological beliefs were contrary to whichever religious views happened to be orthodox at the time, a conclusion which broadly concurs with Locke's, if I read him correctly.
My point is that for conflicting beliefs eventually to be reconciled satisfactorily in Law, for all parties, the occasion demands that someone with a real stake in the outcome be forced to articulate the middle ground (what Macaulay calls the position of the Trimmer, one who removes the hard edges from all concerned to arrive at a common, shared interest) and that it seems is what Locke attempted to do. That, reading the previous debates on here regarding precisely what Locke argued, seems to have floundered somewhat insofar as contributors hold different views as to what Locke was arguing, whether for or against the toleration of Roman Catholics,, Etc. While in no way wishing to resurrect that debate, I think the article might benefit by emphasising a larger lesson that can be drawn from the entire saga, namely, that it is only when individuals have a real stake in the outcome of a debate, that common sense eventually prevails, thereby rendering the apostles of the different factions mute. (Macaulay reports King James as saying that many a man speaks of Robin Hood who never fired a bow.)
This and a recognition that the entire saga was the site where a country moved away from trying to govern mens' consciences to the point, rendering unto Caesar what is Caesars etc, where men can exercise personal judgment on matters legitimately within their purview. I respectfully submit that Locke's failure to convince some modern readers represents in fact an opportunity to move away from conflicting exegesis and focus more on the overall process of civilising nations. To become enmeshed in what Locke did or didn't assert/believe is to miss this opportunity and while there may be those who feel the matter has been conclusively put to bed, I'd argue that a reorientation of the entire saga is required, to show this period within the larger context of a true Enlightenment, (just as we saw in the exchange regarding federal and states' rights in the United States.)
So, rather than merely present the article as it now stands, exposing it to the kinds of vulnerabilities that gave rise to the heated debates of yesterday, I respectfully suggest that the article be prefaced with at least a nod in the direction and within the context of an emerging Enlightenment debate along the lines I have suggested; 'the separation of powers'. Erastianism, Arminianism, Freedom of Conscience, Etc. Francis Bacon's 'Idols of the Tribe' might also get a look in with respect to the kinds of errors men make when attempting to interpret this or that. I realise this is a tall order but the alternative is even taller.
(King James famously said to Puritans, who wanted to outlaw sermons because they were popular when England was Catholic, that people then also wore shoes and so wondered why Puritans didn't go barefoot. In other words, many of these points of contention are often failures of inductive reasoning.
Just finally I'd like to add that I believe earnestly that the lasting dividend nations enjoy with respect to the resolution of the debate regarding the rights of individual conscience, it is only after the state lifts its monopoly on men's beliefs, that the citizen can begin to learn and enjoy the concomitant benefits viz the exercise of his own conscience, exercising his or her own agency. Laws have a habit of usurping mens'consciences. Thank you. (M.).  https://archive.org/details/historyenglandf00tevegoog/page/n175/mode/1up
— Preceding unsigned comment added by PfPorlock (talk • contribs) 18:43, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  The occasion for Locke's letter on Toleration, and the need perhaps to locate the event within an Enlightenment context