Locke

            Locke’s conception on religion is different from those who support uniformity of religion as a fundamental in the proper functioning of the society. Locke argues that fewer religions bring in civil unrest and thus to end civil unrest, more religious groups must be introduced. He also argues that civil unrest comes as a result of preventing practice of various religions in the society rather than tolerating their spread. Locke wrote a letter with fear that Catholicism could take over England hence putting other a people at a state of tolerance (Locke & Popple, 2007). There are significant reasons where Locke’s vision of toleration is useful and ethical basing on how he strongly argued out his views. To begin with, Locke’s definition of church is a voluntary society of men coming together in one accord with an intention to worship God in public as long as it sounds acceptable to them and useful to the salvation of their souls. This therefore implies that someone’s religion should not be dictated. People should have freedom to choose and belong to the religion of their own wish as long as it does not break the rules governing the nation. This freedom minimizes the rate of religion toleration and one of the human rights is right to belong to any religion. Therefore, Locke’s view on toleration becomes useful for this case. According to Locke, civil unrest may be caused by denial of freedom of worship (Locke & Popple, 2007). This is possible because if it becomes intolerable for some people, they tend to rebel back. Therefore, it is important to give people freedom of worship rather than letting them tolerate and cause harm in the society. According to his argument, it promotes equality and where people feel equally treated, there is always peace. However, it is also uniformity is always important tool of peace since all people have all beliefs in common and there is nothing differentiating them. Religious uniformity promotes national unity rather than differential beliefs as a result differing religions.

            There are cases where it is acceptable for a society to resist religious communities which have intolerable beliefs and practices. Due to increase in interfaith marriages, children raised in such families have a tendency to decide on which religion fits them and the one that makes them not to tolerate but instead have freedom. In cases where the religious belief does not concur with the liberal practice, it is acceptable for a society to disagree with such intolerable practice (Ricoeur, 1996). For instance the American fundamentalist Christian pharmacists who opposed the filling of prescriptions for birth control pills. This kind of practice is failure to fulfill their requirement to serve the public. This is a necessary public good that people are entitled to but due to their religious belief, they limit people. Therefore with such beliefs, the society is allowed to decide not to tolerate such religious communities (Ricoeur, 1996). This is because a group of believers are meant to enjoy their religion and it should not have any negative social impact to them. There are also religious communities that limit people fundamental rights such as education. With such beliefs, the society is allowed not to tolerate. In general, if the practice or the belief does not meet the requirement of the law, it is acceptable not to tolerate such a religious community.

            There are considerations or principles that can help one while determining the religious communities to be treated as intolerable. Firstly, the religious beliefs and practices should be free and fair in that people should not be limited to certain human rights. Believers should have freedom to exercise their daily innocuous duties and roles (Ricoeur, 1996). In case the religious community prohibits individuals certain rights, then it should be regarded as intolerable. A religion should also not bring in issues of moral conflict for example setting its own way to live different from the society’s way of life or else it should regarded intolerable.

            It is not acceptable for individuals’ religious beliefs to affect the law administration. Normally, all religions are under the supervision of the government and it is always important that these religions observe the laws governing a given community (Evans & Janis, 1999). Religion is a belief held by particular people and it is always voluntary, this therefore means that other people should not have a right to enforce their religious beliefs on others. If religion is allowed to affect law, it means certain parties shall be forced to abide with beliefs not of their interest. Conversely, the laws should not distort the moral belief of these religions for example enforcing abominable orders to them but meaning religions have a voice to speak in case of inappropriate laws that are against the spiritual belief of that particular religion. In conclusion bot religion and law are important and beneficial in the society wellbeing (Evans & Janis, 1999). Religion should observe the administrative laws and laws should not be set and enforced to interfere with particular religions.

References

Locke, J., & Popple, W. (2007). A letter concerning toleration. Vancouver: Emerald Knight Pub.

Ricoeur, P. (1996). Tolerance between intolerance and the intolerable. Providence u.a: Berghahn Books

Evans, C., & Janis, M. W. (1999). Religion and international law. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff Publ.