Warning: Constant ABSPATH already defined in /home/public/wp-config.php on line 27
Theocracy — Why Now?
On-line Opinion Magazine…OK, it's a blog
Random header image... Refresh for more!

Theocracy

by Bryan

In 1689, John Locke wrote A Letter on Toleration. In the letter, written as a response to certain questions about his religious views, he says:

Who sees not how frequently the name of the Church, which was venerable in time of the apostles, has been made use of to throw dust in the people’s eyes in the following ages? But, however, in the present case it helps us not. The one only narrow way which leads to heaven is not better known to the magistrate than to private persons, and therefore I cannot safely take him for my guide, who may probably be as ignorant of the way as myself, and who certainly is less concerned for my salvation than I myself am.

Locke is not 100% behind total toleration of any religion, but the exceptions are based on conditions that existed in the 17th century. He was a very influential political philosopher, especially among many of the “founding fathers”.

I’m not going to go into my personal beliefs for the simple facts that they are personal and beliefs. They may not suit you, and if you can’t believe them what’s the point? As Locke says, you can’t force someone to believe something, you can only force them to say they do to avoid punishment. It’s a situation akin to, and all too frequently over time, involving torture.

When politics and religion are mixed, history shows us that religion is always, not sometimes, always, corrupted. Over time it is religion that is altered to suit the needs of politics. Separation of church and state is the best way of protecting religion and allowing people to believe whatever they want. Does anyone really want a judge to decide the meaning of religious texts?

4 comments

1 hipparchia { 03.23.08 at 12:52 am }

Does anyone really want a judge to decide the meaning of religious texts?

i’d venture to guess that the average judge would do no worse than the average televangelist.

2 Bryan { 03.23.08 at 12:58 am }

I wouldn’t dispute that, but I wouldn’t believe either one of them.

3 Chuck Dupree { 03.23.08 at 7:40 pm }

Lemme throw my favorite Locke quote on the fire too. This is Bertrand Russell, in his History of Western Philosophy:

After pointing out that we must often act upon probabilities that fall short of certainty, [Locke] says that the right use of this consideration “is mutual charity and forbearance. Since therefore it is unavoidable to the greatest part of men, if not all, to have several opinions, without certain and indubitable proofs of their truth; and it carries too great an imputation of ignorance, lightness, or folly, for men to quit and renounce their former tenets presently upon the offer of an argument which they cannot immediately answer and show the insufficiency of; it would, methinks, become all men to maintain peace and the common offices of humanity and friendship in the diversity of opinions, since we cannot reasonably expect that any one should readily and obsequiously quit his own opinion, and embrace ours with a blind resignation to an authority which the understanding of man acknowledges not. […] We should do well to commiserate our mutual ignorance, and endeavor to remove it in all the gentle and fair ways of information, and not instantly treat others ill as obstinate and perverse because they will not renounce their own and receive our opinions, or at least those we would force upon them, when it is more than probable that we are no less obstinate in not embracing some of theirs. For where is the man who has uncontestable evidence of the truth of all that he holds, or of the falsehood of all that he condemns; or can say, that he has examined to the bottom all his own or other men’s opinions? The necessity of believing without knowledge, nay, often upon very slight grounds, in this fleeting state of action and blindness we are in, should make us more busy and careful to inform ourselves than to restrain others. […] There is reason to think, that if men were better instructed themselves, they would be less imposing on others.”

Makes sense to me.

4 Bryan { 03.23.08 at 10:05 pm }

It is eminently applicable to the current political arena, as it is to the religious.

People are not inherently evil because they don’t believe what you do, and you may want to verify your facts before attacking them.

The current situation is by no means the nastiest in the last half century, but it is the most trivial.