Central to John Locke’s Essay on Toleration is the idea that "toleration" is a virtue par excellence, and that inevitably intolerance should be anathema. But, according to him, this toleration should not be extended to atheists because atheism necessarily involves a lack of moral principles and disregards the binding character of covenants and promises (F. Copleston, The History of Philosophy, V:122). Is it true that atheists are by definition immoral?
Locke should have known that there are many kinds of atheists. There are men who call themselves atheists simply because they are tortured by the fearful reality of moral evil. They find it fairer to deny God’s existence than to make him responsible for a creation which often triggers metaphysical nausea. There are those who put the atheistic label on themselves because it is so undemanding and therefore convenient. There are also atheists whose core motto is the hatred of a God whose existence they illogically deny. But experience shows that—even though supernatural morality is closed to atheists—many of them try to follow however imperfectly (like most of us) the dictates of the natural moral law.
Furthermore, Locke refuses to extend toleration "to those whose religion involves an allegiance to a foreign power, and to those whose faith does not permit them to extend to others the toleration which they claim for themselves" (Copleston, The History of Philosophy, V:122). He is referring to Catholicism, though it is not explicitly mentioned.
Locke denies the right to assert a truth-claim for one’s belief. Such a claim necessarily implies that those contradicting these beliefs are in error. In other words, not only should all religions be welcome, but any truth-claim should be denied under the banner of tolerance. Locke implies that to deny that truth and error have the same rights is intolerant. He justifies the persecution of Japanese Catholics on the ground that Catholicism is, by its very nature, intolerant. He even hints that such persecutions should be welcome in England.
The consequences of this idea are in plain view today. If a pastor, priest, or bishop dares preach in his own church that certain sexual practices condemned by the Bible are immoral, or that certain claims directly denying Christian dogmas are heretical, he may well be accused of intolerance. This is not an imaginary scenario: It has actually taken place in Canada, and it is very likely that this violation of people’s conscience will spread and open the door wide to fearful religious persecutions. Under the banner of tolerance, intolerance will achieve a diabolical victory, if no one religion is allowed to claim that it possesses the fullness of revealed truth. Once the notion of truth is eliminated, religion loses its legitimate meaning.
-Alice von Hildebrand (Truth Demands Charity--Not Mere Tolerance, http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/truth-demands-charity%E2%80%94not-mere-tolerance)
I normally don't add commentaries, but, this I believe is a true and present danger in our society. Especially that last paragraph. There is an inability (or perhaps just a refusal to admit to truth) to separate "condemning the sin from the sinner" so to say. To disagree on an issue, for example smoking in restaurants, is not to say you hate and despise all smokers. It is simply saying, you do not believe smoking should be allowed in restaurants. The act of smoking is what you have a problem with. Not the smoker. Apply this to gay marriage and you have our current political world.
Locke should have known that there are many kinds of atheists. There are men who call themselves atheists simply because they are tortured by the fearful reality of moral evil. They find it fairer to deny God’s existence than to make him responsible for a creation which often triggers metaphysical nausea. There are those who put the atheistic label on themselves because it is so undemanding and therefore convenient. There are also atheists whose core motto is the hatred of a God whose existence they illogically deny. But experience shows that—even though supernatural morality is closed to atheists—many of them try to follow however imperfectly (like most of us) the dictates of the natural moral law.
Furthermore, Locke refuses to extend toleration "to those whose religion involves an allegiance to a foreign power, and to those whose faith does not permit them to extend to others the toleration which they claim for themselves" (Copleston, The History of Philosophy, V:122). He is referring to Catholicism, though it is not explicitly mentioned.
Locke denies the right to assert a truth-claim for one’s belief. Such a claim necessarily implies that those contradicting these beliefs are in error. In other words, not only should all religions be welcome, but any truth-claim should be denied under the banner of tolerance. Locke implies that to deny that truth and error have the same rights is intolerant. He justifies the persecution of Japanese Catholics on the ground that Catholicism is, by its very nature, intolerant. He even hints that such persecutions should be welcome in England.
The consequences of this idea are in plain view today. If a pastor, priest, or bishop dares preach in his own church that certain sexual practices condemned by the Bible are immoral, or that certain claims directly denying Christian dogmas are heretical, he may well be accused of intolerance. This is not an imaginary scenario: It has actually taken place in Canada, and it is very likely that this violation of people’s conscience will spread and open the door wide to fearful religious persecutions. Under the banner of tolerance, intolerance will achieve a diabolical victory, if no one religion is allowed to claim that it possesses the fullness of revealed truth. Once the notion of truth is eliminated, religion loses its legitimate meaning.
-Alice von Hildebrand (Truth Demands Charity--Not Mere Tolerance, http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/truth-demands-charity%E2%80%94not-mere-tolerance)
I normally don't add commentaries, but, this I believe is a true and present danger in our society. Especially that last paragraph. There is an inability (or perhaps just a refusal to admit to truth) to separate "condemning the sin from the sinner" so to say. To disagree on an issue, for example smoking in restaurants, is not to say you hate and despise all smokers. It is simply saying, you do not believe smoking should be allowed in restaurants. The act of smoking is what you have a problem with. Not the smoker. Apply this to gay marriage and you have our current political world.