Scan barcode
c2pizza's review against another edition
2.0
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't have rights. I'm not sure how much of this comes from living in the age of witch and heretic burning and how much he actually believed... but philosophy must be rooted in the truth, so Locke fails massively here. There is no reason that a person shouldn't have the right to not worship if you follow Locke's logic on tolerance to the logical conclusion.
The second major flaw is that people never rise up because of religion, it is always because they are being oppressed. What were the crusades about then? A person has to be willfully blind to think that religious zealotry (or just plain zealotry) hasn't been a major force in persecution and revolts throughout history and even to this day.
Lastly, this book aligns to closely with the modern moral/cultural relativism movement with its proposal for universal tolerance of all things religion for my tastes. Even if it didn't infringe on my rights, I'd never stand by as the followers of Pallas Athena sacrificed a child. I think Locke would say that this is a place for the magistrate to impose, but he never addressed the point. I hope he would agree.
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't have rights. I'm not sure how much of this comes from living in the age of witch and heretic burning and how much he actually believed... but philosophy must be rooted in the truth, so Locke fails massively here. There is no reason that a person shouldn't have the right to not worship if you follow Locke's logic on tolerance to the logical conclusion.
The second major flaw is that people never rise up because of religion, it is always because they are being oppressed. What were the crusades about then? A person has to be willfully blind to think that religious zealotry (or just plain zealotry) hasn't been a major force in persecution and revolts throughout history and even to this day.
Lastly, this book aligns to closely with the modern moral/cultural relativism movement with its proposal for universal tolerance of all things religion for my tastes. Even if it didn't infringe on my rights, I'd never stand by as the followers of Pallas Athena sacrificed a child. I think Locke would say that this is a place for the magistrate to impose, but he never addressed the point. I hope he would agree.
mokey81's review against another edition
4.0
Wow. I would love to live in a country where everyone has read this and lives by it. It is a great, no-nonsense letter about tolerance. Holy moley! You mean I don't have to force someone to worship like I do? You mean we can all worship however we please without it being a major issue for everyone else? Imagine that!
I'm glad I listened to this. It was really good. Lots of quoteables should I ever get it in print.
I'm glad I listened to this. It was really good. Lots of quoteables should I ever get it in print.
More...