Locke makes a very strong case for the separation of church and state and personal life. However, his logic breaks down several times and - Locke being a philosopher - that is a major flaw. Firstly, he states that whether Christian, Jew, Muslim, Pagan, Buddhist you have an equal right to practice your religion wherever you are and that no government can 'determine' your religion for you. Good. Oh, atheists don't count, Locke just feels that they can't possibly be correct and consequently shouldn...

The whole argument rests on an acceptance of the ideas that (1) the purpose of religion is to please God and win his favor and (2) the only legitimate concern of a sovereign and a commonwealth is the protection of life, liberty, and property. I don't buy either of these claims, and I think the notion of liberty that Locke is operating with is frankly naive. Whatever. Read this if you want a book that will just reflect back to you the basic assumptions of liberal society.

Important work, of course, but now--300 or so years since it was published--it's hard to ignore the holes and inconsistencies. As things stand now between politics and religion in a culture of "toleration," there'd be questions one would want to ask Locke.

A discourse regarding the separation of church and state with a recognition that "oppression causes seditious commotions." Locke recognizes that oppression joins trade, profit, neighborhood, and religion into company where as individually those groups don't have as much skin in the game.I have read Locke previously in other works and found him dry and uninviting, but this letter, along with its subject of toleration, I encourage everyone to at least take a dip.

Even if the book dates from 1689, it's surprisingly applicable today. Locke arguments in favour of the separation of church and state. One of my favourite passages is when he explains that followers of an expansive religion as they were once the christians would accept the uses and laws of a society until the moment when they can impose their own religious view to that society and force the other citizens to be converted, exiled or something worse. Probably this is past water for Christianism, b...

Locke's primary argument is to make the bold border between civil government and religion practices. He touches as well the issue of innate morals, moral bound, and atheism; the indivisibility between moral and religion beliefs, and to some extent the dichotomy between morality and atheism. It is intriguing to examine and to contextualise his idea today. Nonetheless, I'm sure further debate on the issues of morality, humanity, stance between believers and non-believers will grow progressively to...

Despite it's title, this book is less about toleration and more about the separation of church and state. The author is bitter and forceful in his denunciations which play on the reader's fears, and his solutions are all but impractical. Really not that well written.

I gave this 5 stars because I think that it is one of those staples that everyone should read. Now I realize that I'm a historian at heart, and not everyone is as interested in Englightenment-era literature as I am. However, I think that it really puts our modern world into perspective. Our world today is so different, and yet so strikingly similar to the one that Locke describes. I think it serves as a valuable lesson in human nature. That being said, the writing is quite dense so some may find...

Having read the text of the New Testament a fair number of times, I can see nothing that yields the conclusion that the purpose of Christianity is building theocratic nation states. A straightforward reading indicates Christianity occupies a subservient position to civil government while allowing for the possibility of civil disobedience in matters of conscience. When questioned, Jesus seemed to differentiate between the spiritual realm and the political realm. The historical pivot point where C...

written 200 years ago about the separation of church and gov? anyway, he is not against religion, in fact he promotes a multi-religion society. Well, I guess was until later that was discovered that religion antagonism sells more and is better for economy.....

The more I read the classics, the better I understand why they are classics. These books were written by men and women who dared thinking outside the box, and their conclusions stood strong after hundreds, sometimes thousands of years. This short book is one such classic. It must be read. Though it’s been written in 1689, it is incredibly current. John Locke argues most passionately for tolerance to the reformation movement within the Christian Church. In doing so he said things like: “ It appea...

Locke appears to be the first philosopher who attempted to logic the public into toleration of other religions; specifically, Jews and Christians. The best part about this piece is how subtlety he eases his reader into realizing that he is right, and that his view is indeed correct and one that even a very religious person can (and ought to) get behind.He essentially points out (what any person who has applied skepticism to the Bible has thought) that it doesn't say anywhere in the Bible that it...

A Letter Concerning Toleration is dense and difficult, but incredibly applicable to today’s world. Putting aside Locke’s severe disdain for atheists (he didn’t think they deserved to be tolerated), the core teachings here are salient in a divided world. The government must tolerate increasingly more as the world is further exposed to a wider diversity of ideology. According to Locke, toleration means that the government’s role is primarily to defend the rights of its citizens - however contraria...

John Locke warms my heart. As a thinker, Locke is formidable. Nonetheless, he is on a level somewhat below other modern philosophers, like Descartes, Hume, and Kant. This is because of his incorrigible habit of stopping his arguments just short of the point at which they would contradict common sense. This is a bad quality in a philosopher, but an endearing quality in a man (as you can tell from his great popularity in his lifetime). And, perhaps from sheer luck, even the logical errors that L...

Originally a private letter to a Dutch friend who published it without his knowledge, the political thoughts of John Locke was first introduced to his native England in A Letter Concerning Toleration that would allow his future works to gain a large reading then and now.In a time of political and religious conflict, Locke’s Letter revealed not only his uncertainty of known the “one true religion” when so many versions of Christianity existed but mixed that uncertainty with practical implications...

2022-02-27A Letter Concerning Toleration by John Locke was originally published in 1689. John Locke was an influential philosopher of the 17th century.In this book he argues about the separation of church and state. And the need to tolerate different religions - but he is against atheist. All in all a sensible and historically important work.

I really enjoyed this, although it wasn't as much an eye opener for me because much of the stuff we all widely accept now. His arguments though, still to this day hold a lot of ground, but some don't. His view on Atheists, is one view where I would say his Logic definitely breaks down, whether due to a possible fear of consequences for supporting freedom for atheists or just a complete unfair bias against them, it definitely left an awkward hole in his "toleration" logic.

An excellent study in limiting religious overreach in government without making martyrs by outright oppressing them through the law. While reactionary critics in this harsh phase of the West's existence may sometimes grow suspicious of our general leniency and toleration for rival intellectual ideas and beliefs, it is important to remind ourselves that all threats are ultimately neutralized by the bulwark of secular law. It is also worth reminding the reactionaries that these politics of secular...

Brilliant work. Locke laid down the arguments for the separation of church and government, religious diversity/pluralism (that it is not the diversity of opinions that produce war but the inability and unwillingness to tolerate different views) and examined the role of government in this work. Locke is a Christian but that does not deter him from seeing that the amalgamation between religion and politics would bring abuse of power, corruption and hypocrisy as well as defeat the real purpose of g...

To summarise this book in the author's words: "every man should enjoy the same rights as are granted to others". Different religions should be tolerated inasmuch they respect the Magistrate and its sphere of influence, essentially relegating religion to the private side of an individual. The style is rather dry, and the arguments have been made better subsequently, but it is an important work that one should be aware of.