What do you mean? That's an incredibly tolerant provision.

Yes, classically tolerant, not tolerant in the empty modern sense.

I think that passage is a step beyond "classically tolerant." Here, by contrast, is South Carolina's state constitution, Article XXXVIII: "That all persons and religious societies who acknowledge that there is one God, and a future state of rewards and punishments, and that God is publicly to be worshipped, shall be freely tolerated. The Christian Protestant religion shall be deemed, and is hereby constituted and declared to be, the established religion of this State. That all denominations of Christian Protestants in this State, demeaning themselves peaceably and faithfully, shall enjoy equal religious and civil privileges."

Not "a God," but the "Christian Protestant" God.

Or consider North Carolina's state constitution, Article XXXII: "That no person, who shall deny the being of God or the truth of the Protestant religion, or the divine authority of the Old or New Testaments, or who shall hold religious principles incompatible with the freedom and safety of the State, shall be capable of holding any office or place of trust or profit in the civil department within this State."

Again, not "a God," but the Protestant religion, and moreover the authority of Christian Scripture. And these provisions remained in force until 1876.

Locke is well ahead of this in terms of innovation: he was nearer to the modern notion of tolerance in 1669, than North Carolina was in 1876, and certainly 1776.

And since you claim that all atheists are really worshippers of their own Gods - variously, Reason, Nature, Darwin, Freud or Marx - by your definition Locke literally lets in everyone.

Ah, but those gods are not to be publicly worshipped. In fact, it is a tenet of that religion that the divinity of its gods be publicly denied.

Oh well. I wouldn't want to live there anyway.

I was once asked by a child in North Carolina the following question: "Do you speak English in England?"

Brit:

No, he quite clearly says "God". That is the limit of necessary toleration for our society.

In your quoted passage it says: "that doth not acknowledge a God."

Yes, God.

Would Muslims or Hindus be allowed in?

Was that in the lift on the way to your flat? Or whilst you were rummaging in your boot to change your tyre? In queue at the take-away or down at the local whilst you were having a fag and a pint? Did you kick the cheeky tosser in the arse or pull down his nappy? Was his mum a bird you were snogging? Enquiring minds want to know. Ta.

Brit:

Muslims, yes. Hindus, no. That doesn't mean that they aren't allowed in, just that their beliefs may not be protected--only monotheism is so privileged.

Here's what pj wrote about Locke a while back:

http://www.brothersjudd.com/blog/archives/005763.html

David:

No mate, it was while I was coming down the apples and pears on to the pavement, having a butchers for some gaff to get a cup of rosie lee...

In fact, that splendid question was asked by a lass belonging to a contingent of girl scouts that was being shepherded by my then-girlfriend.

You're right though... My argument that it was HER that didn't speak English fell on deaf ears.

It's the same when Americans comment on your 'accent'.

"I don't have an accent," I protest. "You do!"

OJ:

So is just monotheism that counts? Would Bahai qualify? Presumably not Satanism...

So what about if I only worshipped (let's call it) "Reasa" - the God of Reason.

That's the only God I believe in, and I think Reasa created the material universe billions of years ago, and made true the laws of reason, the laws that govern evolution and physics, and then did nothing else, just vanished and left things to get on with it, promising no interference and no eternal life for individual creatures.

Would I be allowed in? If I promised to worship Reasa publicly? And does it matter that I'm the only member of my religion?

Brit:

No.

Locke didn't even think Catholics worshipped God, but today we'd probably allow most Protestant religions (Mormonism is problematic for instance), Catholicism, Judaism and Islam.

OJ:

So what's wrong with Reasa?

Brit:

Nothing. If you believe in it you should be willing tosome rights for your faith.

Is that in the small print?

The founding "political class" certainly borrowed from Locke, but the genesis of American political thought is much more complicated, and thankfully we've moved on from the old, exclusive Lockean view of the Founding. Much of American political thought was derived from theology and experiments in popular sovereignty based upon the covenant tradition. In some instances, early Americans were employing "Lockean" principles before anyone could have possibly read the Two Treatises. American political theory has an intellectual lineage, yes, but there is also much that is unique about it, and that developed as a creative response to circumstances in the new world.

Brit:

I'm joining your religion. You can be Pope.

Jeff:

Good man. First, let's burn the unbelievers...

Rt. Revs. Brit and Jeff-

Your religion's been around and it was quite clearly rejected by America. Too French.

Brit/Jeff:

Sorry, as tolerant as we are, we can't accept a faith that practices human sacrifice.

But you do already, Peter. You just don't admit it.

Locke was nothing if not a practical man. He was trying to sell something and it was a cinch he wasn't going to find any buyers for Catholic toleration just a few years after James II was kicked out for being Catholic.

But, as Orrin likes to remind us, ideas have consequences, and Locke's were revolutionary because they moved the barrier of narrow sectarianism.

Once you moved it at all, there was no telling when it HAD to be. Thus, freeform toleration.

Peter:

Philip II once said words to the effect of "I don't care how many hundred thousand are killed, so long as we are hunting heretics."

That's your faith, not mine.

Jeff:

Philip II is long dead and disowned, but you guys are very much alive.